Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the last month, Senate Republicans have failed to refute the facts of what they have done to President Obama's judicial nominations. The Senate's work on judicial nominations should not be about partisan point-scoring; it should be about ensuring the American people have access to justice. I rejected that partisan tit-for-tat approach while moving to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002. The question for the Senate is, Are we doing enough to ensure that hard working Americans have access to justice so that they can have their rights protected? At a time when 10 percent of the Federal bench remains vacant, I do not think that we are. The standard we set during the Bush administration for quickly moving to confirm noncontroversial nominees is not being met. Senate Republicans who take such pride in the number of nominees being confirmed this year ignore how many were needlessly delayed from confirmation last year and what they have done during the last 4 years. That is why after the 14 confirmations this year, we remain more than 20 confirmations behind the pace we set for President Bush's circuit and district nominees, and vacancies remain nearly twice as high as they were at this point during President Bush's second term. For all their self-congratulatory statements, they cannot refute the following: We are not even keeping up with attrition. Vacancies have increased, not decreased, since the start of this year. President Obama's judicial nominees have faced unprecedented delays and obstruction by Senate Republicans. We have yet to finish the work that could and should have been completed last year. There are still a dozen judicial nominees with bipartisan support being denied confirmation. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service compares the whole of President Obama's first term to the whole of President Bush's first term, and the contrast could not be more clear. The median Senate floor wait time for President Obama's district nominees was five times longer than for President Bush's. President Obama's circuit nominees faced even longer delays, and their median wait time was 7.3 times longer than for President Bush's circuit nominees. The comparison is even worse if we look just at nominees who were reported and confirmed unanimously. President Bush's unanimously confirmed circuit nominees had a median wait time of just 14 days. Compare that to the 130.5 days for President Obama's unanimous nominees. That is more than nine times longer. Even the nonpartisan CRS calls this a ``notable change.'' There is no good reason for such unprecedented delays, but those are the facts. The confirmations in the last few months does not change the reality of what has happened over the last 4 years. If a baseball player goes 0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1- for-10 and not a very good hitter. So while I welcome the confirmations this year, I note both that 10 of the 14 could and should have been confirmed last year and that there are another dozen nominees pending before the Senate, including four who also could have been confirmed last year. We can and must do more for Americans who look to our courts for justice. They deserve better than long delays and empty courtrooms. With 10 percent of our Federal bench vacant and a backlog of nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar, it is clear that the Senate is not working up to its full capacity on nominations. It is true that some vacancies do not have nominees. I wish Republican home State Senators would work with President Obama to fill these vacancies. Nor do those vacancies excuse their unwillingness to complete action on the consensus judicial nominees who are ready to be confirmed but whose confirmations are being delayed. Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly, Shelly Dick, William Orrick, Nelson Roman, Sheri Chappell, Michael McShane, Nitza Quinones Alejandro, Luis Restrepo, Jeffrey Schmehl, Kenneth Gonzales, and Gregory Phillips are awaiting confirmation and Sri Srinivasan, Ray Chen, and Jennifer Dorsey can be reported to the Senate today, without further delay. So long as there is a backlog of nominees before the Senate, the fault for failing to confirm these nominees lies solely with Senate Republicans. The Judicial Conference recently released their judgeship recommendations. Based upon the caseloads of our Federal courts, the conference recommended the creation of 91 new judgeships. That is in addition to the 86 judgeships that are currently vacant. This means that the effective vacancy rate on the Federal bench is over 18 percent. A vacancy rate this high is harmful to the individuals and businesses that depend on our courts for speedy justice. The damage is even more acute in the busiest district courts, such as those in border States that have heavy immigration-related caseloads. In a Washington Post article about the CRS report, Jonathan Bernstein wrote: ``Ordinary people who just want to get their legal matters taken care of promptly have suffered because of all the vacancies on federal courts.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the article entitled ``New report confirms GOP obstructionism is unprecedented'' printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Unneccessarily prolonged vacancies are not the only way that partisanship in Washington is hurting our courts. Sequestration continues to affect our justice system. The chief judge of the Fourth Circuit, William B. Traxler, Jr., has written: ``The impact of sequestration on the Judiciary is particularly harsh because the courts have no control over their workload. They must respond to all cases that are filed . . . .'' He went on to say: [A] significant problem arises when budget cuts impact our responsibilities under the Constitution. This happens when we cannot afford to fulfill the Sixth Amendment right to representation for indigents charged with crimes. The predictable result is that criminal prosecutions will slow and our legal system will not operate as efficiently. This will cost us all in many different ways. I share Chief Judge Traxler's concern, and I ask unanimous consent to have his statement printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Our Federal judiciary provides justice to 310 million Americans and gives full effect to the laws that we pass here in the Senate. We have a constitutional responsibility to those 310 million Americans to make sure that they can count on our Federal courts to provide justice. Federal courts should not be held hostage to partisan obstruction, and we need to keep our courts fully funded so that they can continue to meet the promise of timely justice that is embedded in our Constitution. Shelly Dick is nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Since 1994, she has been in private practice at the Law Offices of Shelly D. Dick, LLC, in Baton Rouge and was previously an associate with the law firm of Gary Field Landry and Dornier. Additionally, since 2008, she has served as an ad hoc hearing officer for the Louisiana Workforce Commission. Shelly Dick has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Vitter, and was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 2 months ago. She is one of the pending nominees who could have been expedited and confirmed last year. When confirmed, Shelly Dick will be the first woman to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Nelson Roman is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He currently serves as an associate justice for the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. He previously served as a justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Civil Term, Bronx County, as a judge for the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County, and as a judge of the housing part of the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County. Prior to becoming a judge, he was an assistant district attorney in Kings County, NY, as well as a special narcotics assistant district attorney in New York City. From 1995 to 1998, Justice Roman served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jose A. Padilla, Jr. of the New York County Civil Court. He has the support of his home State Senators, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand, and was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 2 months ago. Senate Republicans have a long way to go to match the record of cooperation on consensus nominees that Senate Democrats established during the Bush administration, but I hope that the confirmations so far this year indicate that they are finally reconsidering their wholesale obstruction of President Obama's nominees. After today's votes, 10 more judicial nominees remain pending, and all were reported with bipartisan support. All Senate Democrats are ready to vote on each of them to allow them to get to work for the American people. We can make real progress if Senate Republicans are willing to join us. I ask unanimous consent that the article and statement to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, to many Vermonters, Joel Najman is part of rock-and-roll radio history. Taking the reins of the Vermont Public Radio show ``My Place'' 30 years ago this spring, he captivated rock- and-roll enthusiasts from around the region and staked his claim in Vermont radio history. Marcelle and I have known Joel for many years and have followed his career with great interest. Starting in radio at Vermont's own Middlebury College, Joel went on to WJOY in South Burlington and continues to work WDEV in Waterbury, in addition to hosting ``My Place'' on Vermont Public Radio. Joel first joined ``My Place'' as a substitute host in 1982. After taking over full time in 1983, he took the show far beyond an ``oldies rock radio hour'' and made it his mission to apply cultural and historical context to rock music for his listeners. In each hour-long episode, he examines rock-and-roll history, providing his listeners with details that often take years to accumulate. He has even been known to spend his entire radio hour picking apart a single song. In 2004, he was inducted into the Vermont Broadcaster's Hall of Fame, and the Vermont State Legislature recently passed a resolution honoring him as a ``rock and roll impresario.'' Today, I would like to congratulate Joel for his 30 years as host of ``My Place.'' I ask unanimous consent an article from the Vermont publication, Seven Days, entitled, ``Vermont Legislature Honors `My Place' Host Joel Najman'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad the Senate is finally confirming David Medine as Chairman of the bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, PCLOB. The confirmation of this nominee is a significant victory for all Americans who care about safeguarding our privacy rights and civil liberties. The American people now have a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that is at full strength. This Board should help ensure that we honor our fundamental values as we implement a strategy to keep our Nation safe. Today's victory is also a reminder of the challenges we face, and the commitment we must keep, to protect personal privacy as new technologies emerge. Last month, the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported bipartisan legislation that Senator Lee and I authored to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. I hope that the Senate will promptly consider and pass this good privacy bill, as well. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported this nomination last May along with a bipartisan group of nominees to serve as members of the Board. This nomination should not have taken a year to be considered and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate finally confirmed all of the other individuals, those nominated to serve as members of the Board, last August. Republican Senators refused to vote on the chairman's nomination. This was a needless delay and prevented the Board from functioning at full strength. This is reminiscent of how they have obstructed this President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as so many of his judicial nominees. Now, after a year of obstruction, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board we in Congress worked so hard to establish will finally be able to begin to carry out its important work on behalf of the American people. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a guardian of Americans' privacy rights and civil liberties as well as an essential part of our national security strategy. When we worked to create this Board in the wake of the Nation's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, we did so to ensure that our fundamental rights and liberties would be preserved as government takes steps to better secure our Nation. In the digital age, we must do more to protect our Nation from cyber attacks. But we must do so in a way that protects privacy and respects our fundamental freedoms. Protecting national security and protecting Americans' fundamental rights are not in conflict. We can--and must--do both. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should help ensure that we do now that the Senate has finally been allowed to act on the nomination of Chairman Medine. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this Friday, April 26, is ``World IP Day,'' when countries around the world celebrate the role of intellectual property in encouraging innovation and creativity. It is an opportunity for us to acknowledge the authors, artists, and musicians who enrich our lives; the inventors whose work is transforming our digital economy; and creators around the world. Whether you are an inventor, a creative artist, or a small business owner protecting your brand, you deserve the benefit of your work. By protecting those works, we incentivize future developments that benefit us all. As lawmakers, our goal must be to provide strong and effective protections for creators, while ensuring that their creations can be appreciated, used, and enjoyed. This policy is central to the American economy, where 35 percent of our GDP is generated by IP-related industries. A vibrant intellectual property system fosters growth not only in our country, but also around the world. Earlier this month, I introduced legislation that would strengthen an innovation program created by the Patent and Trademark Office, the Patents for Humanity Program. The Patents for Humanity Program rewards a select number of exceptional innovators who apply their intellectual property to address global humanitarian needs. At the first Patents for Humanity Awards ceremony 2 weeks ago, I was proud to honor inventors who had worked to improve the diagnosis of devastating diseases, supply access to clean water, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. Our patent system protects that life-changing work and, in the case of the Patents for Humanity Program, helps promote its use for the global good. As we find ways to incentivize and promote widespread innovation, we must uphold the vital protections that allow innovators to grow and thrive. We must work to deter and prevent the theft of intellectual property, which hurts creators, costs jobs, and impedes economic growth. In our interconnected age, no country, or even group of countries, can address that problem alone. More than ever, we need to work together to recognize the value of intellectual property so that inventors and creators around the world may receive the benefit of their work and continue to create it. We must also come together to streamline processes that will help innovators to fuel growth in the future. Eighteen months ago, Congress took an important step with passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which modernized our patent system for the 21st century and helped harmonize our laws with systems around the world. Last December, I was pleased to expand on those improvements with passage of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act, which will help American inventors by simplifying and expediting the process for obtaining patent protections overseas. There is more Congress can do to improve the patent system and address the problem of patent trolling, by increasing transparency and accountability. I intend to work in a bipartisan and bicameral manner on legislation that will ensure the real party in interest of a patent is disclosed, protect unknowing and innocent purchasers of allegedly infringing products from unwarranted suits, and continue to improve patent quality, and we will explore other means to make trolling activity unprofitable. Our intellectual property system supports the creative and inventive talents of our citizens and provides the vital fuel of our economy. I hope others will join me in celebrating World IP Day.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Justice for All Act, originally enacted in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. I am pleased to be joined this year by Senator Cornyn as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I know that Senator Cornyn shares my commitment to ensuring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. It is fitting that we introduce this bill now, during Crime Victims' Rights week, as we honor the victims of crime across the country, and reaffirm our commitment to seeking justice on their behalf. That commitment feels particularly important now, in light of this year's horrific events in Boston and Newtown. Nothing can eliminate the pain inflicted by those tragedies, but we can work together to ensure that the needs of those families are met so that they can find healing and begin to rebuild their lives. This legislation takes important steps to strengthen rights for victims of crime. For example, it establishes an affirmative right to be informed of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert those rights in court. In addition to being Crime Victims' Rights Week, today is National DNA Day and it is appropriate to acknowledge the power DNA testing has had in improving our criminal justice system. One example of that impact has been in the testing of rape kits. This legislation reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith who waited years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. The legislation also includes significant measures to improve the administration of justice in our courts, including the use of post- conviction DNA testing. The bill is built on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which sought to ensure that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, it is clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them. In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail. A California man, Brian Banks, was exonerated after spending five years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He recently signed with the Atlanta Falcons and will realize his dream of playing professional football. Brian's story had a happy ending, but too many wrongly convicted people are not as lucky. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong. To that end, this legislation strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and is having an impact. The legislation we introduce today clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are given further guidance about how to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more states to participate. This legislation takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States in developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. Fifty years after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, it is past time to ensure that all criminal defendants have effective representation before government authority takes away their liberty. The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements while responsibly reducing the total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term. I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Justice for All Act, originally enacted in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. I am pleased to be joined this year by Senator Cornyn as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I know that Senator Cornyn shares my commitment to ensuring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system. It is fitting that we introduce this bill now, during Crime Victims' Rights week, as we honor the victims of crime across the country, and reaffirm our commitment to seeking justice on their behalf. That commitment feels particularly important now, in light of this year's horrific events in Boston and Newtown. Nothing can eliminate the pain inflicted by those tragedies, but we can work together to ensure that the needs of those families are met so that they can find healing and begin to rebuild their lives. This legislation takes important steps to strengthen rights for victims of crime. For example, it establishes an affirmative right to be informed of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert those rights in court. In addition to being Crime Victims' Rights Week, today is National DNA Day and it is appropriate to acknowledge the power DNA testing has had in improving our criminal justice system. One example of that impact has been in the testing of rape kits. This legislation reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith who waited years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause. The legislation also includes significant measures to improve the administration of justice in our courts, including the use of post- conviction DNA testing. The bill is built on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which sought to ensure that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong. The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform. The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, it is clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them. In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail. A California man, Brian Banks, was exonerated after spending five years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He recently signed with the Atlanta Falcons and will realize his dream of playing professional football. Brian's story had a happy ending, but too many wrongly convicted people are not as lucky. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong. To that end, this legislation strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence. This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and is having an impact. The legislation we introduce today clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are given further guidance about how to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more states to participate. This legislation takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States in developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. Fifty years after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, it is past time to ensure that all criminal defendants have effective representation before government authority takes away their liberty. The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need. The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators. In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements while responsibly reducing the total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term. I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed. Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 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 in the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be speaking shortly on matters of immigration. I just wanted to report to the Senate that since February the Senate Judiciary Committee has held six hearings on immigration. We concluded the last one yesterday with the testimony of Secretary Janet Napolitano. In all, we have had dozens of hearings on immigration in the last couple of years, but these six were especially important for the Senate and for our work in the Judiciary Committee. Tomorrow we will put the immigration bill on the Judiciary Committee's agenda. Under our normal practice, I have consulted with the ranking member. We both agree. The bill would be held over until the first Thursday we come back from our early May recess. This actually works well because it will give all members of the committee, and those Senators not on the committee, more time to read it. Once we start marking up the bill and voting on it in committee, it would be my intention to not go Thursday to Thursday, which is normal committee procedure, but to hold markups several days a week. I am told that people do not intend to delay this immigration bill for the sake of delay, and I hope that is so. This is too important an issue. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to go back, earlier this morning I spoke of the immigration hearings we have held in the Judiciary Committee and how important they are, not only to the Senate but to the country. It was an extraordinary series of hearings. Forty-two witnesses spoke about the need for meaningful immigration reform. I believe there is a chance to have real immigration reform this year, the kind of reform that our great and wonderful country deserves. This is a country where every one of us is a child, grandchild, or great grandchild of immigrants; a country where a large percentage of the major Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants. We heard from ``Dreamers'' and farmers, business people, religious leaders, economists, government officials, practitioners, law enforcement advocates, and others. We heard from those opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, and we heard from those who support it. Since the bipartisan legislation was introduced a week ago, we held 3 days of hearings with live testimony from 26 witnesses. I have accommodated many member requests. I worked with ranking member Chuck Grassley to ensure that all viewpoints were heard. In fact, no witness he suggested was denied the opportunity to appear and testify. I think we all realize--whether Republican or Democrat--no matter how we may vote, we should have a clear record. I asked Secretary Napolitano to return to testify, again, even though she just did so in February. She was scheduled last week. But with the horrific circumstances in Boston, of course we all understood why she had to cancel that appearance. She came yesterday and answered every single question asked of her. As I said earlier, when we meet tomorrow the right will be exercised under our committee rules to hold over the immigration reform bill for a week. I have discussed this with Senator Grassley, and I think we both agree that this is a wise thing to do, to hold it over and give people that extra time to read the bill. Next week is a recess week, so we will be able to turn to marking up the legislation in May. By that point, the bill will have been publicly available for three weeks before we vote on any aspect of it or consider any amendments offered to it. Everybody will have had a chance to see it. We live-streamed all the hearings. All of this is on the Judiciary Committee Web site. The legislative proposal we are examining is a result of the significant work on a bipartisan compromise. I do not want to see comprehensive immigration reform fall victim to entrenched or partisan opposition even though it may well exist. In the course of my hearings I quoted my dear friend of many years, Ted Kennedy, one of the lions in this body. In the summer of 2007, he and I had worked very closely with former President George W. Bush to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. But that immigration reform was being blocked in the Senate. He spoke of our disappointment. He said: But we are in this struggle for the long haul. Today's defeat will not stand. As we continue the battle, we will have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all around us. From Jamestown, to the Pilgrims, to the Irish, to today's workers, people have come to this country in search of opportunity. They have sought nothing more than a chance to work hard and bring a better life to themselves and their families. They come to our country with their hearts and minds full of hope. I urge all Senators to consider the recent testimony of Jose Antonio Vargas, Gaby Pacheco, and the families who can be made more secure by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. I hope that our history and our decency can inspire us finally to take action to reform our immigration laws. I know this is something my maternal grandparents, who were so proud to come to this country, speaking a different language, beginning a business, raising a family, seeing their grandson become a Member of the Senate, I know that is the way they would feel. I know my wife's parents, who came to this country speaking a different language, having their children here in the United States and having stood with Marcelle and me and my parents when I was sworn into the Senate, and then watching these children and grandchildren, understand what a wonderful country this is. We are a great and good country. But we are also a country that becomes greater and better because of the diversity brought to our shores. That is true from the beginning of this country to today. Let's make it possible.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Bob and Christine Stiller and their Stiller Family Foundation for receiving the Most Outstanding Foundation Award of 2013 from the Association of Fundraising Professionals. The Most Outstanding Foundation award is given annually to honor a foundation that demonstrates outstanding commitment through financial support, innovation, encouragement, and motivation of others to take leadership roles in philanthropy and community involvement. Previous recipients of this prestigious award include the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, among many others. The Stiller Family Foundation has benefited youth centers, arts organizations, urban renewal projects, and education institutions throughout Vermont. The foundation recently announced a major grant to create the Robert P. Stiller School of Business at the Champlain College of Vermont and established a permanent endowment for the study of appreciative inquiry at the school. My wife Marcelle and I have known Bob and Christine a long time. As lifelong philanthropists, they have made a positive impact in communities around the globe through their pointed leadership, innovative ideas, and generous funding. It is hard to mention all of their many achievements. As founder of the highly successful Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Bob continues to promote sustainable business practices through environmental and fair trade initiatives all over the world. And Christine has been a strong advocate for Champlain College's Single Parents Program, which offers single parents the opportunity to break generational cycles of poverty by helping them fund a college education. Vermont is a better place because of all the work done by Bob and Christine Stiller. I request unanimous consent that this article from the Burlington Free Press be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a case of Washington being Big Brother and telling each one of the States--whether it is Wyoming, Vermont, or Connecticut--what they must do. We have no idea how it will affect them. We do know it is going to cut off a lot of money to law enforcement because it is telling States, even though the State legislators have gone out for the year, they need to have a one-size- fits-all. There has not been a hearing on it. It is a feel-good amendment. It will hurt our States but, most importantly, it will hurt law enforcement. If you wish to have a discussion on this subject, that is fine. Let's have a hearing. Let's find out what it is. To do this feel-good amendment and inform every one of our 50 States there is 2 minutes of debate, inform our 50 States we know better than they do and this is what they should do, makes no sense. I oppose the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, Monday's confirmation of Judge Beverly O'Connell marked the 150th confirmation of a Federal trial court nomination by President Obama. Thanks to Senate Republicans' concerted effort to filibuster, obstruct and delay his moderate judicial nominees, it took almost 1 year longer to reach this milestone than it did when his Republican predecessor was serving as President, 10 months in fact. I have repeatedly asked Senate Republicans to abandon their destructive tactics. Their unwillingness to do so shows that Senate Republicans are still focused on obstructing this President, rather than helping meet the needs of the American people and our judiciary. The ability of hardworking Americans to get their day in court and have their rights protected should not be subject to this kind of wrongheaded, partisan obstructionism. Today, the Senate is being allowed to vote on just 2 of the 15 judicial nominees ready for confirmation. Ten of the judicial nominees confirmed this year could and should have been confirmed last year. There are still four judicial nominees in that category, who are part of the backlog on which Senate Republicans insist on maintaining. And like so many of President Obama's district court nominees, Analisa Torres and Derrick Watson have had to wait more than 60 days after being voted on by the Judiciary Committee to be considered by the Senate. These systematic delays help explain why we remain more than 20 confirmations behind the pace we set with President Bush's nominees. We can make up much of that ground if Senate Republicans would just agree to a vote on all 15 nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. All of them received bipartisan support in committee, and all but one were unanimously approved by the committee. There is no good reason for further delay, especially at a time when judicial vacancies remain at 85. Let us clear the backlog of judicial nominees ready for confirmation. Republicans have recently started pointing to 2004. In 1 month in 2004, a presidential election year, we were able to clear a backlog of consensus nominees by confirming 20. This insistence on delay and holding over consensus nominees from 1 year to the next has been constant. Seventeen of the confirmations for which Senate Republicans now seek credit over the past 2 years should have been confirmed more than 2 years ago in the preceding Congress. That is when they allowed only 60 judicial confirmations to take place during President Obama's first 2 years in office, the lowest total for a President in over 30 years. Indeed, during President Obama's first year in office, Senate Republicans stalled all but 12 of his circuit and district nominees. That was the lowest 1-year confirmation total since the Eisenhower administration, when the Federal bench was barely \1/3\ the size it is today. The fact is that we have these 15 nominees waiting for a vote. We have 15 judgeships that can be filled so that hardworking Americans in New York, Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming can have better access to justice. All Senate Democrats are prepared to vote on all of these nominees today. Judge Analisa Torres is nominated to serve on the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. She currently serves as a New York State Supreme Court Justice. Previously, she served as an acting New York State Supreme Court Justice, a judge for the Civil Court of the City of New York, and as a judge for the Criminal Court of the City of New York. She received her A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School. Judge Torres has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. Derrick Kahala Watson is nominated to the US District Court for the District of Hawaii. He currently serves as the chief of the Civil Division in the US attorney's office in the District of Hawaii. Prior to that, he was an assistant United States attorney in the same office. From 1995 to 2000, he served as an assistant United States attorney in the Northern District of California and served as deputy chief of the Civil Division from 1999 to 2000. In addition to his service at the US attorney's office, he was in private practice for more than a decade. Derrick Watson received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his A.B., cum laude, from Harvard College. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Hirono and Senator Schatz. Both nominees were unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote 2 months ago. Like almost all of the other nominees pending on the Executive Calendar, these are the kind of mainstream and consensus nominees who should be confirmed quickly. For nearly 4 years vacancies have been at or above 80, putting an unnecessary strain on our Federal courts. Sequestration cuts have added to the pressure on our justice system. Let us vote on the remaining nominees so that they can get to work for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, my home State of Vermont does not require its citizens to obtain a permit to carry a firearm in a concealed manner, and the people of Vermont have exercised these privileges carefully and respectfully. Citizens respect the wishes of private property owners and restrictions in government buildings, and this is a regulatory framework that has worked in Vermont, and it is a set of rules that have been considered and adopted by the people and elected officials of Vermont, without interference from those who do not know Vermont or its citizens. These are judgments made by State elected officials with the advice of State law enforcement leaders. These are not judgments made for the States by Federal legislators who think they know better and want to second guess the best judgments of State and local officials. In matters of State police power, the Congress has traditionally not meddled in State affairs. That is how it has always been and that is how it should remain. That is what the 10th Amendment provides. What might work in Vermont might not work in Chicago. And it is not up to me as a Senator from Vermont to tell the elected and law enforcement officials in Illinois what their public safety laws should be. The amendment we now consider would nullify the laws of all 50 States that govern who from out of State may or may not carry a concealed weapon in that State. In fact, this amendment would permit a citizen of a rural Western State to bring his guns to the District of Columbia or Boston or other urban cities and override their public safety determinations. This is not a well-considered approach, and it is an immense imposition on law enforcement officials in a host State who will be commandeered by the Federal Government to police the concealed carry laws of 49 other States. I voted against an early version of the Brady bill because it imposed unconstitutional burdens on State and local law enforcement. The Supreme Court agreed with my view and ruled that unconstitutional. In addition, this amendment would force a jurisdiction that is located within a State that may issue concealed carry permits but which does not allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in that political jurisdiction to favor out-of-state residents by requiring that they be allowed to carry a gun even though the instate resident is prohibited from doing so. This amendment should offend everyone's sense of State sovereignty and self-government. This amendment is not about correcting some existing restriction of the Second Amendment right. That right is secure. Nor can it be about acting where the States have refused to act. The States are doing an exceptional job of entering reciprocity agreements with each other, based upon discussions and agreements between State officials and without meddling by the Federal Government. Thirty-seven States have reciprocity agreements with at least one other State; some have agreements with many other States. This amendment would unnecessarily trample on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It places an ideology over the rights reserved to the sovereign States. I would hope that those who claim to believe in the principles of federalism would recognize the dangers associated with legislating a one-size-fits-all approach in matters of public safety and local concern. And what of the practical concerns, which Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey laid out in testimony in the House Judiciary Committee in September of 2011? The Federal preemption of State laws represents a serious encroachment on State sovereignty. It is a subject we have examined thoroughly in the Judiciary Committee during the years of the previous administration and in relation to efforts then to strip the citizens of Vermont and other States of their rights to seek justice in the courts. In a case called Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court rejected efforts by a pharmaceutical company to shield itself from accountability under State law with Federal bureaucratic regulations when it grievously harmed a Vermonter. The Federal preemption of State laws is a very serious matter and one that the Congress should not consider lightly. Yet, despite the fact that the Judiciary Committee held three hearings and four executive business meetings to debate and consider legislative proposals, not once did the measure we now debate come up for discussion. Now, without having any regular order, the proponents demand that this amendment be made law. This amendment, which would federalize the concealed carry laws of every State, is a slippery slope. If we vote to enact such precedent, then a future Congress with different views for a different era would have firm ground to preempt the laws of all 50 States to restrict or condition the ability of citizens to carry a concealed firearm. We, as Senators, ought to be very careful about the path we are asked to take with this amendment. This is not a measured approach. It is blanket preemption. It is not like the measured approach I took with the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which permits highly qualified active and retired law enforcement officials to carry firearms across State lines. In that law, we have rigorous requirements. We have law enforcement officials who have training, who are sworn to uphold the law, and who have dedicated their careers to protecting the public. That is a measured approach, and it is far different from the amendment we debate now. Many in this Chamber talk reverently about the importance of State sovereignty and the 10th Amendment. Many in this Chamber decry the presence of ``big government'' in the lives of Americans. Well, nothing reeks of big government like trampling the judgment of 50 State legislatures that are in a far better position than we are to set local public safety policy. This amendment comes at the behest of special interests. As I have said repeatedly, we should not be taking orders from special interests. We are the Senators elected to represent the best interests of 314 million Americans. I urge Senators to have the courage to oppose this amendment. It is unwise and unnecessary. For those who appreciate the ability of citizens to carry concealed firearms, opposing this amendment will help preserve those abilities. Let's respect the virtues of federalism and let the States act in their own best judgment about who may or may not carry a concealed firearm in their State. Let's be cautious in our approach in matters of State police power and respect the values enshrined in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate is scheduled to vote on an amendment proposed as a partisan Republican alternative to the bipartisan legislation that was reported by the Judiciary Committee and that has been the business before the Senate for the last 2 weeks. The committee held three hearings and four markups starting in January and concluding in the middle of March. Republican members of the Committee participated but did not offer this substitute at any juncture. When Majority Leader Reid introduced the Safe Communities, Safe Schools bill on March 21 and then was forced to end a filibuster to proceed to it last week, the sponsors of this measure were among those filibustering. They justified their filibuster on the fiction that the bill before the Senate somehow violated the Second Amendment. Of course it does not. If further proof were needed, the fact that they have now reversed themselves to offer a substitute that steals large portions of the bipartisan underlying bill provisions would be it. The amendment the Senate is now being forced to vote on contains 81 pages of legislative text, and was filed just this morning, so I am not even sure of the amendment number. This last-minute alternative is apparently being offered so that Republicans who fear crossing the Washington gun lobby can go home and say that they voted for something. I invited all members of the Judiciary Committee to work with us and to bring forward their best ideas to reduce gun violence in our society and to have them be fully heard in the Judiciary Committee, in regular order. When Senator Grassley and others came forward, we worked with them to incorporate changes in the Leahy-Collins gun trafficking bill and the Boxer school safety bill to accommodate them. This is our reward. No good deed goes unpunished apparently. I am disappointed that after the tremendous effort so many Senators on the Judiciary Committee made to carefully consider and debate legislation, to reach across the aisle to build consensus, and to work with a seriousness of purpose that would honor the victims of Newtown, Connecticut and all of those whose lives have been affected by gun violence, that this is their response. The Republican amendment was never proposed during the months of Judiciary Committee consideration. It has not been the subject of hearings. No Senator who supports this effort will have any standing to demand regular order on any other matter, least of all on consideration of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that will next be considered by the Judiciary Committee. I oppose the Republican alternative and encourage other Senators who are serious about making progress in the effort to reduce gun violence to do the same. This amendment is not a serious effort to fulfill the extraordinarily important obligation we took on as Senators after the tragedy in Connecticut. The Senators from Connecticut have spoken eloquently over hours and days on the Senate floor. Senators Kaine and Warner from Virginia gave moving remarks on the anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. They have helped to celebrate the memory of those who lost their lives in Connecticut, in Virginia, and in other terrible events. They have carried to the Senate the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding that we take meaningful action. I commend them for their work. There are measures on which we will vote today that will carry out our responsibility. The alternative that Republicans put forward for a cover vote is, in my view, not one of them. I am especially disappointed that after working so closely with the Ranking Member on the legislation to combat straw purchasing and firearms trafficking that Senator Collins, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Kirk and I introduced, and after earning his support on that measure in the Judiciary Committee, that his amendment contains a proposal that will take us backward, not forward, when it comes to dealing with these serious problems. Anyone serious about the problems on the Southwest border involving straw purchasing and gun trafficking should be determined to give law enforcement the tools they desperately need. The Leahy-Collins bill does that. The watered-down version shoehorned into this Republican alternative does not. The legislation that Senator Collins and I introduced was drafted with input from law enforcement. It provides the tools law enforcement needs to combat straw purchasing and gun trafficking, and it has the support of numerous major law enforcement organizations. We did not just work with law enforcement, however. We consulted with other Senators from both sides of the aisle, including Senator Grassley, and incorporated their suggestions. We even worked with the National Rifle Association to address all of its substantive concerns. In contrast, the junior Senator from Texas, a self-proclaimed leader of the filibuster against considering any gun violence legislation, introduced his watered-down version of our bill on straw purchasing and gun trafficking just this week. He did not offer amendments when the Judiciary Committee, a Committee on which he is a member, met to consider and report the Leahy-Collins-Gillibrand bill. His bill takes the serious proposal Senator Collins, Senator Gillibrand and I developed and strips out almost all of the important tools that law enforcement requested and needs. As far as I can tell, his bill has not been endorsed by any law enforcement groups. Ours is endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the FBI Agents Association, the National District Attorney's Association, and all nine of the members of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and others. There is no wonder as to why. The trafficking provisions suggested by the Republican alternative essentially give straw purchasers a road map to avoid prosecution. As long as straw purchasers ask no questions and bury their heads in the sand, they cannot be held accountable. The Republican substitute requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a straw purchaser knew for certain that he was buying for a prohibited person. A straw purchaser could have every suspicion in the world that the actual buyer is a dangerous criminal, but as long as he deliberately shields himself from getting confirmation of that fact, he is untouchable. Willful ignorance will be their shield. The substitute also gives gun traffickers the same road map. The bill Senator Collins and I have proposed prohibits an individual from buying a gun and giving it to someone you know will then give it to a criminal. The Republican proposal inexplicably removes this provision. So as long as the organizer of a firearms trafficking ring uses a middle-man between the straw purchaser and the ultimate recipient, it is simple to avoid prosecution for providing guns to dangerous criminals. The proposal from the junior Senator from Texas also takes out the provision in the Leahy-Collins bill that allows law enforcement to use wire taps to investigate straw purchasers and gun traffickers. And it also takes away the ability to prosecute gun traffickers for money laundering and racketeering and to seize their ill-gotten proceeds. How does this make us safer? What is the rationale for weakening these law enforcement tools? Not content to undermine the straw purchasing and gun trafficking measures Senator Collins and I have proposed, the Republican substitute aids the Mexican drug cartels by eliminating an existing tool that the Justice Department needs to combat violence on the Southwest border. The ability of cartels to purchase firearms in the Southwest has led to terrible violence. In order to investigate and stem the flow of dangerous weapons to the cartels, the Justice Department requires licensed gun dealers in that area to report sales of multiple long guns such as assault rifles to the ATF. This practice has provided law enforcement with major investigative leads, yet the Republican proposal prohibits it. The Republican substitute also interferes with state prosecutions of gun crimes. Under existing law, a person who is traveling through a state with a gun he is not allowed to possess in that state can assert as a defense that he was merely traveling between two states in which his possession would be legal. This is fair. But the Republican proposal takes this defense and places the burden on the state prosecutor to disprove the defendant's claim beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases, even if the defendant has offered no evidence at all to support his claim. If the state prosecutor fails to meet this high burden, the Republican proposal requires the state to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. This is a clear intrusion on the longstanding police powers of states. I previously have spoken about the amendment proposed by Senators Manchin and Toomey. That amendment contains a number of important provisions. One aspect of the amendment that has not received enough attention is the additional due process it affords to veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The amendment provides that before veterans who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent lose their right to a firearm, they can go before a board or a court to evaluate whether they can safely use a firearm. The amendment requires that veterans be notified of this opportunity. This adds to existing law that allows veterans who are no longer mentally incompetent to regain their right to a firearm. These laws are important and I support them. I cannot support the Republican proposal, however, because it rolls back the existing laws that prohibit mentally ill people from possessing and using guns. It rolls back these laws not only for veterans, but for many civilians deemed mentally incompetent. It would force the FBI to purge existing records from the background check system for those mentally incompetent people. This is dangerous. It is unwise, and it makes us less safe. What this Republican alternative proposes is weak and unworkable and will be of little use to law enforcement. I urge all Senators to reject this proposal. We have heard much criticism and blame directed at the Justice Department for not adequately enforcing existing laws. But when Congress passes toothless laws it is Congress and not law enforcement that is to blame. The Republican alternative is not a serious solution to the plague of gun violence. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in watching this debate, at times I see a Senator who actually wants to stand up and be the conscience of the Nation. Unfortunately, some quickly want to step back from that precipice and be the conscience of a lobby on one side or the other. As far as being the conscience, we saw that last Thursday when the Senate rejected the ill-conceived filibuster against considering the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. The vast majority of American people did not want it filibustered. They wanted us to have the courage to stand up and vote yes or no, not vote maybe, which is what a filibuster is. After considering the bipartisan efforts of Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey to plug loopholes in the background check system, the Senate will consider a partisan alternative offered by Senator Grassley, and I will speak about that in a moment. Before I do that, I would like to talk about what Senator Collins and I have done. I have a bipartisan amendment that will prevent criminals from circumventing the existing background check system. Amendment No. 713 (Purpose: To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking) Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 713, the Leahy-Collins amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment makes some minor changes to the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our act is designed to give law enforcement the necessary tools to combat the practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. An example of that is when somebody legally buys a handgun for $500 and then turns around and sells it for $1,500 to a drug cartel or somebody who could not buy it themselves. Usually they buy a lot more than one weapon; they buy a whole lot. They will buy them legally and then sell them to people who could never legally buy them. We have seen what that has done in Mexico with its drug cartels. We have seen what it has done with the drug cartels and gangs in some of our major cities. I commend Senator Collins for her work in developing this amendment and for her strong support of the law enforcement officials who requested this legislation to help them keep our communities safe. Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system. Straw purchasers put guns into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. And it was an ATF whistleblower who testified last Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless.'' We can create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. We need to close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, New York, this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, last September. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. This Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act--originally introduced as S. 54--will make important changes and better equip law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. As I said, these are people who are not prohibited by Federal law from purchasing a gun. They purchase a firearm on behalf of a person or at the direction of a drug trafficker, criminal, or organization, and that is how these large criminal organizations are supported. That is how these illegally obtained guns are often sold and resold across State lines. Of course, this results in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities less safe. We recently saw a case where a woman was arrested as a straw purchaser after she bought a weapon for a man who then, it appears from the evidence, used that weapon to kill the head of the Colorado prison system. That man was blocked from buying a weapon. Somebody else bought it for him. Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as misrepresentations on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity. Our bill and this amendment would change that. They will add two new provisions to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms and trafficking in firearms. The bill establishes tough penalties for these offenses in an effort to punish and, importantly, deter this conduct. I was accused at the Committee markup on this bill of being too tough on these crimes. I believe we need a meaningful solution to these serious problems. Another key provision of our bipartisan bill is that it complements existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States. In light of what we know is occurring, particularly on our Southwest border, this is an important improvement to current law and another tool that was needed but missing over the last few years. The provisions in our legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problems of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. Our bill does not affect lawful purchases from Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity. We listened to concerns about family members who give firearms as gifts and other transfers that are not designed to get around the existing background check system. As a result, the bill contains important exemptions for the innocent transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest. In an effort to encourage even broader support for our bill, Senator Collins and I have made changes to our bipartisan bill to emphasize that this legislation will have no adverse effect that would impact law-abiding gun owners. We have consulted a lot of people on this matter, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, victims, and the National Rifle Association. We have consulted gun owners and others. We have brought together some very diverse views, which is what that legislation is supposed to do. We want to combat the destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. I am pleased that our discussions with all of these groups resulted in legislation that reflects diverse views yet is a focused approach to combat the destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking, while protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans. The amendment has all of the important provisions of the measure that was debated and voted on by the Judiciary Committee and passed with a bipartisan majority. These include two new Federal criminal statutes that will help law enforcement go after straw purchasers and firearms traffickers. After the bill was reported out of Committee, a Committee report was filed in relation to it that made our intent plain in the meaning of the bill. The clarifying language likewise ensures that lawful gun purchasers can buy firearms from licensed dealers as bona fide gifts or raffles or as contest prizes and so on. This amendment should also eliminate any concern about imposing potential liability on the original purchaser of a firearm for the criminal acts of the ultimate recipient of the firearm after it is conveyed by that purchaser and reconveyed a number of times. The amendment also includes other technical changes to conform the bill to existing law regarding the forfeiture of firearms and ammunition. Throughout our committee process and discussions, no one was questioning the constitutionality of these provisions, and they have all accepted the fact that they will help law enforcement. In fact, the required nexus to interstate commerce in the bill is identical to that already in existing law. Our bill does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. I worked with Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand, and others to provide a real world, common sense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. There is wide agreement that straw purchasing and illegal gun trafficking have to be stopped, and that is why law enforcement so strongly supports our amendment. In fact, this measure was introduced at the request of law enforcement officials who have said for years that they lack the legal tools necessary to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. It will provide needed tools to fight against the drug cartels and other criminals who threaten our communities. Like our original bill, the amendment we now offer has the support of numerous law enforcement organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association; the FBI Agents Association, the National District Attorneys Association--an organization on which I was privileged to serve as vice president; and all nine member organizations of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. I mention all these things because we took months doing this. We met with everybody. We worked. We listened to opposing views and supporting views. Then we had hearings and then we had a markup. But all of a sudden, late this morning, with no hearings, no markup, no chance to debate it, we have a partisan alternative led by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In contrast to the broad law enforcement support we have earned for our attempt to combat gun trafficking and strawpurchasing, there is suddenly a Republican alternative which would gut the protections and tools that our law enforcement community needs. That partisan alternative was released late this morning and surprisingly the effort is led by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of their provisions was considered through regular order or even offered and debated in committee. People always speak about regular order, but none of these provisions were considered through regular order. None of them were offered or debated in committee. All of a sudden, wait, wait. We can't have this thing that law enforcement wants. We can't have this thing that might actually stop drug cartels and organized crime from getting these guns. We have suddenly come up with a new idea this morning. Sorry we don't have time to talk about it. Sorry we don't have time to have hearings. Sorry we can't go through the committee. Sorry we can't have votes. Trust us. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I took my responsibility seriously when the committee considered gun violence legislation. We held three hearings. We had four lengthy markups. There were many amendments circulated and we debated them. The distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of that committee. He was there for all those hearings. He was there for all that debate. They went on sometimes for a long time, but we voted up or down, and we worked to broker bipartisan compromises. The results: Some of those same members who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee circulated this lengthy substitute--just hours before the scheduled vote on their half-baked alternative. It is a weak and counterproductive alternative. The substitute is a weak and counterproductive alternative, and this weak and counterproductive alternative, this partisan substitute, has not been the subject of one single hearing or any committee debate or vote. The lengthy partisan substitute does several things to make our communities less safe. One of its provisions directly undermines what Senator Collins and I wish to accomplish. We want to stop trafficking. We want to stop drug cartels and organized crime and bank robbers and those who would murder government officials. We want to stop them from being able to get these guns through straw purchases. The Republican substitute requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a straw purchaser knew for certain that he was buying for a prohibited person. A straw purchaser could have every suspicion in the world that the actual buyer is a dangerous criminal, but as long as he deliberately shields himself from getting confirmation of that fact, he is untouchable. Willful ignorance will be their shield. What this alternative Republican amendment does--the one that was suddenly sprung on us with no hearings, no votes late today--is it actually has a roadmap of how to avoid prosecution, how to do the things the drug cartels want and organized crime wants, and to make sure they will never be prosecuted. As long as straw purchasers ask no questions, bury their heads in the sand, they can't be held accountable. They can buy these guns. They can meet somebody in a back alley who is trying to hide his face and say: I could have bought this legally. Give it to me. Here is your money. Besides that, I will pay a 300-percent profit and then get away with it. The Republican substitute will help the Mexican drug cartels by eliminating an existing tool that the Justice Department needs to combat violence on the Southwest border. The Republican substitute also interferes with state prosecutions of gun crimes. Under existing law, a person who is traveling through a state with a gun he is not allowed to possess in that state can assert as a defense that he was merely traveling between two states in which his possession would be legal. This is fair. But the Republican proposal takes this defense and places the burden on the state prosecutor to disprove the defendant's claim beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases, even if the defendant has offered no evidence at all to support his claim. If the state prosecutor fails to meet this high burden, the Republican proposal requires the state to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. This is a clear intrusion on the longstanding police powers of states. I urge everyone who cares about helping law enforcement and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals to oppose the Republican substitute, number 725, and to support the bipartisan, Leahy-Collins amendment, number 713.

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that. I hope we will not pass this. I hope we will not strip State and Federal law enforcement in their effort of trying to protect us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator suggested this went through the process, went through the Judiciary Committee. I have been on the committee for 36 years. I have been chairman for a number of years. I don't recall when this happened. Would the Senator from Texas tell me when it was ever voted on. Did we ever have a markup? Did we ever have a hearing?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of yesterday's cowardly attack. I appreciate the updates I have received from the FBI about the matter and await the outcome of their investigation. The President is right to emphasize that Americans will not be terrorized. In the aftermath of the explosions in Boston we were reminded once again how Americans come to each other's aid in a crisis. We witnessed citizens and first responders selflessly helping others. Just as first responders in Newtown responded in minutes and went headlong into a situation without knowing what they would encounter, in Boston we saw similar heroism. First responders risk their lives to protect the public. That is what they do over and over again across the country. I believe that as a result of the bravery and speedy response of first responders in Connecticut, lives may have been saved on December 14. And we remember today that 6 years ago the Nation was stunned by the rampage at Virginia Tech. Our law enforcement officials deserve our respect and support. Law enforcement officers and first responders risk their lives to protect the public. That is why I find it so disappointing to hear some blame law enforcement for not preventing these tragedies. The legislation before the Senate today to improve the Nation's background checks system and prosecute gun trafficking would significantly assist law enforcement in their efforts to keep the public safe. I spoke yesterday about the pending amendment, the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey amendment to close the gun show and other loopholes in the background check system while respecting and protecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners. The Senate has had this amendment before it since last Thursday. I trust the Senate will vote on it today, and I hope the Senate will adopt it. We have had background checks for decades. These checks are an accepted part of the process of buying a gun. Like millions of other responsible gun owners, I understand that this check is necessary to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are dangerous to themselves and others due to mental illness. Since 1998, more than 2 million sales to prohibited people have been prevented thanks to background checks. That is 2 million times a potentially dangerous person trying to get a gun was denied a gun. Is that a good thing, a positive thing, in the interest of safer communities? Of course it is. Who can credibly argue otherwise? What we are now trying to do is improve the background check system. We all know there is a huge loophole in our background check system. Criminals and others prohibited from buying guns at gun stores can get around the background check requirement by going to gun shows. I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background checks. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same rules. I agree with these responsible business owners. This loophole needs to be closed. The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan amendment closes the loophole in a way that does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights. Sales at gun shows and sales using online or print advertising will now be governed by the same requirements as gun stores in Vermont and elsewhere. This will make us safer. It is focused on gun shows and commercial sales, not family gifts or transfers between friends and neighbors. The bill does not require background checks for temporary transfers of guns for hunting or target shooting. Instead, the bill requires background checks for the kind of sales that can be easily exploited by people who intend to do harm. Why would we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow dangerous criminals to buy guns without background checks? This is a simple matter of common sense. The NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for ``every sale at every gun show.'' This is about plugging loopholes in background checks. No court has held that background checks, which have been with us for decades, violate the Second Amendment. Indeed, when the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held that the Second Amendment provide an individual right in the Heller case, it also said that ``longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill'' do not violate the Second Amendment. No one should oppose this amendment on Second Amendments grounds because it does not undermine the Second Amendment. Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under existing gun laws, and some have suggested that instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a valid excuse for Congress to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive, those efforts complement each other. I have noted that Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action, not filibustering or sloganeering. This is something we can come together to accomplish. No one can or will take our Second Amendment rights or our guns away. They are not at risk. But lives are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit crimes of violence. This is something we can come together and do to make America safer and more secure. I have also been encouraging the Senator from West Virginia in his efforts. He has shown great leadership, sensitivity, and perseverance. I commend Senator Toomey for his willingness to join in this legislative effort. Together, they have done the Senate and the country a great service. Improving the background check system is a matter of common sense. Senators Manchin and Toomey have shown that it can be accomplished in a way that better protects our communities and fully respects our Second Amendment rights. I am pleased to support this bipartisan solution. Amendment No. 714 Several opponents to the gun violence measure pending have tried to justify their opposition to legislation designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by claiming that these measures would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown or any other mass killings. I think that argument makes no sense. We should be responding to protect our communities with a broad approach to help law enforcement go after gun traffickers and straw purchasers who arm drug cartels and plug loopholes in our background check system. In addition to those important steps, the pending amendment to limit ammunition clip size directly addresses some of our most recent gun violence tragedies. It is clear that several victims of gun violence would be alive today if the gunman had been required to pause momentarily to change his ammunition clip. When I decided to call for hearings on gun violence before the first Judiciary Committee several months ago, I wanted the public to hear directly from victims of gun violence. We began our first of three hearings with former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She called on us to act in the wake of too many American tragedies and her battle to recover from gun violence is an inspiration to all of us fighting for legislation today. At that same hearing, her husband, CAPT Mark Kelly, testified about the day his wife was gunned down. He said: The shooter in Tucson showed up with two 33-round magazines, one of which was in his 9 millimeter. He unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds. Very quickly. It all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went into Gabby's head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9-year-old girl named Christina-Taylor Green, who was very interested in democracy and our Government and really deserved a full life committed to advancing those ideas. If he had a 10-round magazine--well, let me back up. When he tried to reload one 33-round magazine with another 33-round magazine, he dropped it. And a woman named Patricia Maisch grabbed it, and it gave bystanders a time to tackle him. I contend if that same thing happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round magazine with another 10-round magazine, meaning he did not have access to a high-capacity magazine, and the same thing happened, Christina-Taylor Green would be alive today. That was a direct quote from CAPT Mark Kelly's testimony. It is chilling to think that something we could pass today could save the next Christina-Taylor Green. The Judiciary Committee also heard from Neil Heslin, whose son was murdered at Sandy Hook. He testified in support of limiting high- capacity magazines. We cannot forget his son Jesse or the 19 other precious children who were gunned down in December or the brave educators who sacrificed their lives trying to protect children. A reasonable limit on the size of ammunition clips is a modest step going forward. This amendment would not apply retroactively. No lawful gun owner will have to turn over anything. It is a cruel irony that in some States we are more protective of the deer being hunted than our children. In Vermont, we have very few laws affecting the right to bear arms, but we do limit the ammunition clips used in hunting. It is not a threat to the Second Amendment to limit clip size in hunting, so why is it a threat to limit them when the potential targets are people? The reality is that the Second Amendment is not under threat, but our children are. I am a responsible gun owner. I have owned and shot weapons with many different styles of ammunition clips, so I understand the issue we are considering. Requiring a gun owner to change clips more often is not too much to ask when we see the human costs of high-capacity magazines in mass shootings. The law enforcement organizations that work on the frontlines in our cities and towns support this amendment. The grieving families are right to raise this issue because even if we save one or two lives with this change, it is worth it. Just as I said in 1993 when I voted for the Feinstein-DeConcini bill, this amendment is not going to solve all violent crime, but it will make people safer. I believe that limiting the size of ammunition clips going forward could save lives in the next mass shooting. I do not want to wonder if we could have done more when another son or daughter is killed. I will support this amendment. It is the right thing to do for public safety and to honor the young lives lost in Newtown, in Aurora, and in Tucson.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the argument we just heard is absolutely upside-down of what that amendment is. This amendment guts the bill, it guts the straw purchasing provisions, it guts the gun trafficking provisions. It totally undermines law enforcement. Law enforcement strongly supports the next amendment we have--the Leahy-Collins--but all this does, this substitute amendment, is aid Mexican drug cartels, eliminates the tools being used to get law enforcement investigatory leads. It undermines rather than strengthens the current background check. We talk about do we enforce our laws. If you want to gut our laws, which this one does, don't argue they are not being enforced. This handcuffs law enforcement, helps drug cartels, helps drug syndicates. It is a bad amendment.