Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 4 months after the horrific day in Newtown where 20 children and 6 educators were senselessly murdered, the Senate is posed to make further progress toward the goal of reducing gun violence. It is a goal that all Americans, regardless of political party or philosophy, should share. I don't know how any parent, any grandparent, or any relative ever gets over the horrific disaster of Newtown. I thank our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley. He worked with us, and he favorably supported two of the measures reported by the Judiciary Committee last month. Senator Grassley helped make sure we had hearings that were substantive and that we had a schedule so we could vote. I commend Senator Collins, who has been my partner as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms legally but then provide them to criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen, and King. Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more effective tools. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, S. 54. It has provisions that are included in the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, S. 649, which Majority Leader Reid placed on the Senate calendar just before the last recess and on which he has now moved to proceed. Straw purchasers get around the purpose of the background check system. Straw purchasing of firearms is undertaken for just one reason: to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. 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, NY, this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, PA, last September. Is it any wonder that law enforcement across this country says: Stop the straw purchasing. We are losing too many brave men and women in law enforcement, to say nothing about all the others who have been killed by drug and criminal cartels. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We have included 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 to help combat a serious problem. We are doing it in a way that protects the second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. It was an ATF whistleblower who testified in the last Congress that the existing firearm 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. I urge all Senators to join with us and close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs, and other criminals throughout our country have exploited for too long. I wish to recognize the dedication and leadership of Senator Collins of Maine to confront the issue of gun violence. She is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, but she has been committed to finding commonsense solutions to the problems of gun violence. She has been dedicated in working with me to address the concerns of other Senators. She and I share a deep respect for the second amendment. We also agree our laws can be improved to give law enforcement officials the tools they need, and she has been a steadfast partner. Our bill protects second amendment rights of lawful gun owners, but at the same time it cracks down on criminals. It also cracks down on the people who assist criminals. It doesn't create a national firearms registry, it doesn't place additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers, but it does send a very clear message that those who buy a gun on behalf of a criminal or member of a drug cartel or domestic abuser will be held accountable. That is why law enforcement says: Pass this bill. Give those of us in law enforcement who are on the frontlines the tools we need. Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecution under existing gun laws. 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 it is not a valid excuse 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 are efforts that complement each other. A recent article in the Washington Times documented that gun prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration and suggests that having a Senate-confirmed Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would significantly help law enforcement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. LEAHY. As I said in January, America is looking to us for solutions, for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, or partisanship. That is why it is disappointing to hear that some Senators pledge to prevent Senate consideration of these proposals by a filibuster. It is especially disappointing that some who claim to support regular order and a transparent legislative process accord that process no deference. Mr. President, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege to serve at any given time in this wonderful body. We represent 325 million Americans. How can we talk to those Americans and say: We won't even vote. We won't even let it come to a vote. We don't have the guts to stand up and vote yes or no. Tell that to the families in Newtown, CT. Tell that to the families in Aurora, CO. Tell that to the people of the United States, that the Senate is not willing to stand up and vote either yes or no; they want to vote maybe. I am a gun owner. I live in a State with a lot of gun owners. I have the courage to stand here and vote. I want to vote. Some will agree with my votes, some will disagree, but this Senator feels it is part of his sworn duty to vote--vote yes, vote no, but vote. In the Judiciary Committee, we held three public hearings and four public markups on this legislation. We gave them full and fair consideration. We debated and considered amendments-- Democratic and Republican amendments. The distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of that committee. He knows the debate we had and the votes we held. What a filibuster would do now is obstruct the open process of the Senate consideration of gun violence prevention legislation, and it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It demeans the Senate, and it turns our backs on 325 million Americans who expect better. I have worked with Senator Collins and others to provide a real-world and commonsense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. That is the course I urge the Senate to take. Let's go forward and vote. Vote yes, vote no, but vote. Have the courage to vote. Don't turn our backs on the families who have suffered so much. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, four months after that horrific day in Newtown, where 20 children and 6 educators were senselessly murdered, the Senate is poised to make further progress toward the goal of reducing gun violence. It is a goal that all Americans, regardless of political party, should share. I want to thank our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting two of the measures favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee last month. I commend Senator Collins, who has been my partner, as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen, and King. Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more effective tools. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, S. 54, and its provisions are included in the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, S. 649, that Majority Leader Reid placed on the Senate calendar just before the last recess and on which he has now moved to proceed. Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason--to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. 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, NY this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, PA, 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. 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. I urge all Senators to join with us to close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs, and other criminals have exploited for too long. I especially want to recognize the dedication and leadership of Senator Collins to confront the issue of gun violence. Although not a member of the Judiciary Committee, she has been committed to finding commonsense solutions to the problem of gun violence. Senator Collins has been dedicated in working with me to address the concerns of other Senators. She and I share a deep respect for the Second Amendment, but we also agree that our laws can be improved to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to help curtail gun violence. She has been a steadfast partner. Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable. That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement. 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 us 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. A recent article in The Washington Times documented that gun prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration, and suggests that having a Senate-confirmed director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives would significantly help law enforcement. As I said in January, Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, or partisanship. That is why it is particularly disappointing to hear that some Senators are pledging to prevent Senate consideration of these legislative proposals by filibustering. It is especially disappointing that some who claim to support regular order and a transparent legislative process accord that process no deference. The Judiciary Committee held three public hearings and four public markups on this legislation. It gave them full and fair consideration. We debated and considered amendments. What a filibuster would do now is obstruct the open process of Senate consideration of gun violence prevention legislation. That is wrong. I have worked with Senator Collins and others to provide a real world, common sense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. That is the course I urge the Senate to take. We need to proceed to the bill and do what is best for the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two interns from Senator Hirono's office, Chelsea Rabago and Ryan Mandado, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate April 9, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``State of Rural Communications.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate April 9, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Current Issues in Campaign Finance Law Enforcement.''

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a vacancy on the D.C. Circuit that arose when Chief Justice Roberts left the D.C. Circuit to join the Supreme Court 8 years ago. Caitlin Halligan is a woman who is extraordinarily well-qualified and amongst the most qualified judicial nominees I have seen from any administration. It is a shame that narrow special interests hold such influence that Senate Republicans blocked an up-or-down vote on her confirmation with multiple filibusters of her nomination and procedural objections that required her to be nominated five times over the last 3 years. Had she received an up-or-down vote, I am certain she would have been confirmed and been an outstanding judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Instead, all Senate Republicans but one supported the filibuster and refused to vote up or down on this highly-qualified woman to fill a needed judgeship on the D.C. Circuit. Senate Republicans attacked her for legal advocacy on behalf of her client, the State of New York. It is wrong to attribute the legal positions a lawyer takes when advocating for a client with what that person would do as an impartial judge. That is not the American tradition. That is not what Republicans insisted was the standard for nominees of Republican Presidents but that is what they did to derail the nomination of Caitlin Halligan. Also disconcerting were the comments by Republicans after their filibuster in which they gloated about payback. That, too, is wrong. It does our Nation and our Federal judiciary no good when they place their desire to engage in partisan tit-for-tat over the needs of the American people. I rejected that approach while moving to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002. The filibuster of the nomination of Miguel Estrada was different. It was to obtain access to information about his work and whether he acted ideologically as his supervisor at the Office of Solicitor General had alleged. Had we gotten access to those materials, there would have been a vote on the Estrada nomination. Republican Senators now demand access to all sorts of materials while filibustering for the first time in our history the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, as well as the nominee to head the CIA and judicial nominees. They cannot do that and still complain about the Estrada nomination. Now that Senate Republicans have during the last 4 years filibustered more of President Obama's moderate judicial nominees than were filibustered during President Bush's entire 8 years--67 percent more, in fact--I urge them to abandon their misjudged efforts that sacrifice outstanding judges for purposes of partisan payback. Today the Senate will finally consider another circuit court nomination that has been delayed for no good reason. The nomination of Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey to the Third Circuit has been needlessly stalled for 13 months since being favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. This is another of the many judicial nominees who could have been confirmed last year. She is another qualified nominee who is supported by her home state Senators and by the Republican Governor of New Jersey. After this prolonged and unnecessary delay, I am pleased that she will finally be allowed to join the Third Circuit to serve the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. In 10 years as a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of New Jersey, Judge Shwartz has handled more than 4,000 civil and criminal cases and presided over 14 cases that have gone to verdict or final judgment, including 11 jury trials. Before becoming a judge, Judge Shwartz spent 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of New Jersey, where she ultimately rose to become chief of the Criminal Division. During her time as an assistant U.S. attorney, Judge Shwartz tried more than 15 jury cases to verdict, all as sole or chief counsel. It was while serving in the U.S. attorneys Office that Chris Cristie, then U.S. attorney and current Governor of New Jersey, became acquainted with her and her work. Governor Christie has written to the committee in support of Judge Shwartz's nomination. He said that she ``was an impressive Criminal Chief; hard working, bright, articulate, great with people and conversant with the law.'' He added: ``As a Magistrate Judge, she also performed admirably and garnered the respect of the entire legal community. Again, her hard work, amiable personality, patience, intelligence, and knowledge of the law were lauded by all who appeared before her.'' I ask unanimous consent that his full letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Shwartz unanimously well qualified, the highest possible rating from its nonpartisan peer review. She has the support of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez. By any objective measure, Judge Shwartz is a nominee with solid legal credentials and qualifications. Rather than evaluating her on her record, some have tried to claim there is an issue because Senator Menendez met with her before supporting her. They infer, despite denials by the nominee and Senator Menendez, that she must have made him some untoward commitment on how she would rule on some matter. There is no basis for that claim. It is past time for the Senate to consider her nomination on the merits of her record and to confirm her. Her nomination has been stalled on the Senate floor for 13 months. This is just one example of the unnecessary delays that prompted a New York Times editorial about the delays in filling judicial vacancies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Judged on her qualifications and her record, Judge Patty Shwartz should be confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. She should not have been delayed for more than a year. Sadly, this is not an isolated case but one in a steady pattern of obstruction. This is especially harmful at a time when judicial vacancies remain above 80. Filibusters and delays based on fictions do not help Americans seeking justice in our Federal courts. Instead, they cause delays, overcrowded dockets, overburdened courts and have gone on too long. When confirmed, Judge Shwartz will be one of just three women serving as active judges on the Third Circuit. It is time to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to vote to confirm this qualified nominee so that she may better serve the American people as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, I spoke at the Judicial Conference about the damaging effect of sequestration on our Federal courts and our system of justice. These indiscriminate cuts are already causing both Federal prosecutors and Federal public defenders to be furloughed. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts has done its best to address these cuts, but the judicial system can only weather the effects of sequestration for so long before it is irreparably harmed. In a letter dated March 5, 2013, Judge Thomas Hogan, the director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, wrote that the cuts from sequestration could not be ``sustained beyond fiscal year 2013 and will be difficult and painful to implement.'' He went on to note: ``The Judiciary cannot continue to operate at such drastically reduced funding levels without seriously compromising the constitutional mission of the federal courts.'' In that same letter, he wrote that sequestration will mean reduced funding for drug testing and mental health treatment, and fewer probation officers. Along the same lines, last month Andrew Cohen wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled ``How the Sequester Threatens the U.S. Legal System.'' He suggests that sequestration will threaten defendants' constitutional rights, and law enforcement's ability to effectively fight crime, writing: ``Beyond a reasonable doubt, the sequester is having a profound and pernicious effect on the government's ability to observe its constitutional commands--and to provide justice to its citizens.'' I ask unanimous consent that copies of Judge Hogan's letter and the article from The Atlantic be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy testified before the House Appropriations Committee last month about the impact of sequestration and budget cuts. Justice Kennedy said that funding for programs like drug testing and mental health services is ``[A]bsolutely urgent for the safety of society.'' The Justices also noted the harm that would result from cuts to public defenders, as the government would then have to pay private defense attorneys to provide counsel. Justice Breyer highlighted the additional costs to the government from mistakes being made in trials, including wrongful convictions. These budget cuts to our courts are also bad for our economy. Fewer court staff will mean further delays for civil and bankruptcy cases. There are already more than 30,000 civil cases that have been pending for more than 3 years. We know that justice delayed is justice denied, and hardworking Americans who look to our courts to protect their rights deserve better. Even before sequestration went into effect, our Federal courts have spent nearly 4 years burdened by unnecessarily high numbers of judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies have been near or above 80, and for over 2 years were at ``historically high'' levels, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Senate must do much more to fill these vacancies and make real progress. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have been unwilling to work with President Obama. The Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican member recently expressed concern that not all judicial emergency vacancies have nominees. Of the 35 judicial emergency vacancies, 24 are in States with Republican Senators. In fact, close to half of all judicial emergency vacancies are in just three States, each of which is represented by two Republican Senators. Those Senators should be working with the White House to fill those vacancies. Even for judicial emergency vacancies in those three states that have a nominee, Republican Senators have not supported moving forward. So I encourage Republican Senators to work with the President to find good nominees for those important vacancies and to allow qualified nominees to move forward. I take very seriously our responsibilities of both advise and consent on nominations. Senators should stop pocket filibustering the President's nominees and work with him to fill these judicial vacancies. Regrettably, qualified, consensus nominees are being delayed, even nominees who are supported by home State Republican Senators. They are subjected to unnecessary and unprecedented delays on the Senate floor. These nominees have been vetted in a lengthy process, and often have the support of all Senators on the Judiciary Committee, so there is no reason we cannot consider them in regular order. For the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have consistently refused to consent to what used to be the routine consideration of consensus judicial nominees. That is why the Majority Leader has been forced to file cloture on 30 of President Obama's nominees, which is already over 65 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during the 8 years of the George W. Bush administration. Many of those nominees are then confirmed unanimously after months or even a year of waiting. There is no good reason the Senate cannot consider them more expeditiously. These deliberate delaying tactics hurt the Senate, our courts, and the American people. Before the most recent recess, the Senate was finally allowed to vote on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She currently serves as Vice Chair and Commissioner of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, to which the Senate previously confirmed her. Previously, Ketanji Jackson was a counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP and an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender in the District of Columbia. After graduating, cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where she served as Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review, she served as a law clerk to Judge Patti Saris of the District of Massachusetts, Judge Bruce Selya of the First Circuit, and Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court. When confirmed, she will be the first female African-American judge appointed to the court in 32 years and the only one currently serving on the court. She had her hearing last year and her confirmation could have been expedited then. It was not and she is among those who had to be renominated by the President this year. Her nomination was then reported unanimously in February by the Judiciary Committee. The Senate was finally allowed to consider, as well, the nomination of Troy Nunley to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of California. That court has one of the heaviest caseloads per judge of any in the country. Judge Nunley could and should have been confirmed last year when the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination unanimously. Instead, he was among those Republican Senators refused to consider before adjourning. The President had to renominate him and the Senate Judiciary Committee again voted unanimously to proceed with his confirmation this year more than a month ago. He is currently a judge of the Superior Court of California and he served previously as Deputy Attorney General for the California Department of Justice and as Deputy District Attorney for both the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. He has the support of both his home State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. The Senate will also vote on the nomination of Raymond Moore to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of Colorado. He currently serves as the Federal Public Defender in the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming in Denver, CO, where he formerly served as the Acting Federal Public Defender and as an Assistant Federal Public Defender. Raymond Moore has also worked in private practice and served as a Federal prosecutor. He received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified,'' and has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Udall and Senator Bennet. He was reported unanimously last February by the Judiciary Committee. There are still another 15 judicial nominees pending before the Senate. All of these nominees had to be renominated after being returned at the end of the last Congress. It is unusual to have such a backlog so early in a Congress, and this is the result of Senate Republicans' refusal to allow votes on 11 nominees at the end of last year, including Judge Nunley, and their refusal to consider another four, which included the D.C. district court nominee being confirmed today, who had hearings and could have been expedited. We have yet to work our way through the nominees who were available for Senate consideration and confirmation last year. The delayed consideration of those nominees, at this pace, could easily extend into June. I urge Senate Republicans to join with us so that we can clear the calendar and confirm these consensus nominees during the current work period. Let us come together in a bipartisan manner and restore the best traditions of the Senate. The Americans who depend on our courts for justice deserve no less.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 187

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 359

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 225, 329, 293, 527, 153, and 136 En Bloc

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 521

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is very clear, and it anticipates another amendment coming up by another Senator. The United States negotiates treaties, for example, the Arms Trade Treaty. But under the Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 1956, our Constitution trumps any agreement made in a treaty by our government. So all my amendment does is make clear that the United States should not agree to any arms trade treaty that would violate our second amendment rights. It is straightforward, it respects our constitutional rights, but it also gives our government the flexibility it needs to negotiate treaties. I would be happy with a voice vote.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are presently negotiating an arms trade treaty which will help to keep illicit firearms out of the hands of war criminals and terrorists. It is a humanitarian issue. We have people such as Joseph Kony who is out murdering children. He is able to do it because he is taking part in the international arms trade. We are trying to stop those things. My earlier amendment makes it very clear, we cannot trump our own second-amendment rights, but we can stop these children from being killed because of this, and that is why I oppose the Inhofe amendment. Let our negotiators negotiate. Any treaty still has to come back here to get a two-thirds vote anyway.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, three years ago tomorrow, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act. This landmark law will extend health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans when the reforms are fully implemented next year. Getting to this point has been an arduous process. But in the end, this achievement proved that real reform is possible, and that the voices of so many Americans who over the years have called on their leaders to act have finally been heard. Since its passage, Americans have seen the immediate benefits of the Affordable Care Act and 3 years later, those improvements continue. Seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions are continuing to receive help when trapped within the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole. The Affordable Care Act completely closes the coverage gap by 2020, and the new law makes it easier for seniors to afford prescription drugs in the meantime. In 2010, more than 7,000 Vermonters received a $250 rebate to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. Last year alone, nearly 6,400 Vermonters with Medicare received a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescriptions, resulting in an average savings of $765 per person. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, more than 5,000 young adults in Vermont have gained health insurance coverage under these reforms, which allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans until their 26th birthdays. The improvements we are seeing in Vermont go on and on: in 2011 and 2012, 71 million Americans and 151,000 Vermonters with private insurance gained access to and received preventative screening coverage with no deductible or copay, including more than 80,000 Medicare beneficiaries. These are just a few of the dozens of consumer protections included in the law that are benefiting Vermonters and all Americans every day, and in many ways. The law goes into full swing next year as even more consumer protections are implemented and millions more Americans gain access to health insurance coverage. Beginning in January, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to individuals with preexisting health conditions or to charge higher premiums based on health status or gender. Unfortunately, estimates show that 44,000 Vermonters currently do not have health insurance, but with the Medicaid expansion contained in the Affordable Care Act, 84 percent of these Vermonters will qualify for Medicaid or a premium tax credit. Also important to Vermonters, to assist Vermont with our State's work on implementing Vermont's State-based health insurance exchange--or marketplace--Vermont has received more than $125,000,000 in grants for research and for information technology development, as well as almost $3,480,000 for maternal health programs. These tangible initiatives help at-risk families gain the support they need to improve their children's health and ability to learn, and they help prevent child abuse. I was proud as well to work with Senator Grassley and others to include strong anti-fraud provisions in the law that already have helped prevent and detect fraudulent activities that in the past have cost American taxpayers multiple millions of dollars each year. Thanks in part to these efforts, $4.2 billion was returned to taxpayers last year alone. In only 3 years, Vermonters across our State have seen the many benefits of health care reform unfold in their lives. I see and hear about these improvements and pocketbook savings in visits to every corner of our State. At home in Middlesex and throughout Vermont, whether I am in the grocery store, at the gas pump, or at church, I am constantly reminded of how important access to quality affordable health care is to individuals and families. I applaud Vermont's efforts to expand the Affordable Care Act's reach even further to help every resident secure health insurance. I am proud that the Affordable Care Act offers Vermont the foundation it needs to reach this goal, and I look forward to working to see that it is met. Regrettably, opponents of the Affordable Care Act continue to misleadingly attack the law in an attempt to undermine its implementation. The moment President Obama signed this bill into law, opponents sought to continue their political battle by challenging the landmark legislation in the courts. With the legal challenges now nearly resolved, we are now seeing amendments filed to every bill we consider on the floor, aimed at repealing or gutting the Affordable Care Act. In fact, on the budget resolution we are considering today, dozens of amendments have been filed in an effort to block the Affordable Care Act's implementation, to undermine its success in making lives better across the land, or to repeal the law completely. This is unfortunate, it is shortsighted, and it is cynical. Even more shameful is the budget resolution considered and passed by the House this week. The House-passed budget would make drastic changes to the Medicaid Program causing 14 to 20 million Americans to lose health coverage; it would replace Medicare with a voucher scheme costing seniors at least $6000 more per year; and would completely repeal all the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but in the true interests of the people we represent we should be working together to ensure its success. We can make improvements where necessary, but we must allow full implementation to continue. Already the Affordable Care Act has changed so many lives for the better, and we must not turn our backs on the millions more who will have access to health care next year because of these reforms. The Affordable Care Act is a tremendous achievement that will improve the lives of Americans for generations to come. This anniversary is a time to renew our commitment to completing this important work on behalf of the American people, who are counting on us to do the right thing. With each year that we move forward to implement the features of this landmark health care reform law, the stories of families not being able to gain access to affordable coverage are becoming fewer and fewer and are being replaced by stories of the success of these reforms, one family at a time, all across Vermont and all across America. I look forward to continuing to work with Vermont and with the administration as the law moves forward in its fourth year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in visiting with fellow Vermonters in and around Brattleboro in southern Vermont last weekend, I appreciated the opportunity to be in town during the month The Brattleboro Reformer marked its centennial anniversary. Local newspapers serve their communities in so many vital ways, and we in Vermont are blessed to have so many that have endured and served for so long. These are challenging times for newspapers, as newsrooms and publishers adapt to rapidly changing technologies and public preferences. The Brattleboro Reformer has been quick on its feet to meet these challenges. I join with all Vermonters in congratulating The Reformer's hard-working staff on this historic anniversary, and we wish them many more. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent news article about this milestone.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in reintroducing legislation that has already attracted broad support from across the social and political spectrum. An almost identical version was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee two years ago, and then last December it was cleared by both sides for passage by unanimous consent but the Senate adjourned shortly before it could be adopted. This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights and humanitarian problem--the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities. On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many in pretrial detention having never been brought before a judge or formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom in abysmal conditions, often for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted. Others are imprisoned after being convicted of offenses, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity. Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or press reports of what they are like, understands that this is about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages. A few examples illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the 2010 earthquake, more than 4,100 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility filled up again. Senator Whitehouse and I visited that facility just last month. It currently holds more than 3,700 prisoners of which more than 3,400 are awaiting trial. Thanks to the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a small Florida-based organization, Health Through Walls, a new infirmary and X-ray machine have dramatically reduced the incidence of HIV and tuberculosis. A small Vermont-based organization, the Rural Justice Center, is using USAID funds to chip away at the pretrial detention problem. These are examples of how modest funding can save lives and improve access to justice for prisoners in facilities plagued by abysmal conditions. I recall a newspaper article about how in Benin, in West Africa, the skin of prisoners was ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, an affliction that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin, was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. A year or two ago, more than 1,000 were reportedly confined there. Last February, a fire at the Comayagua Prison in Honduras killed 360 inmates. In one overcrowded cell block only four of 105 prisoners survived. More than half of those who died were waiting to be charged or tried. It is common in prisons from Latin America to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals. Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common. Prisoners in many countries die in prison from lack of proper medical care. Inmates suffer from AIDS and other illnesses in facilities with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released they infect the local population. A New York Times article described how prisoners in one African country were punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf-high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how that country's prison service conducted its own audit, appointed a new medical director, and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The legislation Senator Inhofe and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following: First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know. Second, it sets forth primary indicators for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food and safe drinking water. Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities in at least 30 countries receiving United States assistance or under sanction by the United States, selected by the Secretary's determination that such conditions raise the most serious human rights or humanitarian concerns. Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to furnish assistance for the purpose of eliminating inhumane conditions where such assistance would be appropriate and beneficial. For countries that are not making significant efforts to eliminate such conditions, the Secretary is to enter into consultations with their government to achieve the purposes of the Act. The legislation also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and directs the Secretary to designate, within the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, an official with responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act. Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the Act. Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life. In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money prison conditions can be significantly improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a defender of justice. This legislation will further that goal and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. It has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including Amnesty International, USA; Baptist World Alliance, Division of Freedom and Justice; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; International CURE; International Justice Mission; International Prison Chaplains' Association; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Just Detention International; Justice Fellowship/Prison Fellowship Ministries; National Association of Evangelicals; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; Open Society Policy Center; Penal Reform International; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to thank these groups for their support and their efforts to focus attention on this urgent problem. Identical legislation is planned for reintroduction in the House by Representative Chris Smith who cares deeply about this issue, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Finally, I want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has visited many African countries and has witnessed the problems this legislation seeks to address, as well as his staff, who have been very helpful throughout this process. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is another example of how two Senators, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.