[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7207-S7208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this fall also marks the 10th anniversary
of the passing of another great Senator, Paul Wellstone, and his wife
Sheila. They were dear friends. Among the many things for which they
are fondly remembered is the important work they did to combat domestic
violence and help victims. We have made much progress on this issue, in
large part thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, which has long
demonstrated the bipartisan commitment to work together against
domestic violence and rape.
Sadly, so much remains to be done. Recent reports find that almost
one in four women have experienced severe domestic violence, and nearly
one in five women have been raped. In some communities, the picture is
much worse. According to the Department of Health and Human Services,
one in five female college students will be a victim of sexual assault
during college. A recent study found that three out of five Native
American women have been assaulted by a spouse or intimate partner.
The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
includes vital provisions to help these and other particularly
vulnerable victims. As the New York Times observed this weekend:
The act's reauthorization is must-do business for the lame-
duck session. Mr. Boehner should relent and allow the House
to vote on the Senate bill.
I ask that the full Times editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Nov. 24, 2012]
The G.O.P. and Violence Against Women
If Republicans are serious about repairing their party's
standing among women, gay and Hispanic voters, they need to
adjust some policies and stop sending hostile messages. A
good place to start would be for Republicans in the House to
stop blocking reauthorization of the Violence Against Women
Act over provisions deemed too protective of gay and
immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
The 1994 law remains crucial to the nation's efforts to
combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.
Previous reauthorizations sailed through Congress.
A thoughtful renewal measure introduced by Senator Patrick
Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman,
and Senator Michael Crapo, an Idaho Republican, cleared the
Senate in April with strong bipartisan support. But it has
hit a wall in the Republican-led House. Instead, House
Republicans pushed through a regressive version of the
measure that omits new protections for gay, bisexual or
transgender victims of abuse.
The House bill also left out a needed increase in the
number of visas, known as U visas, available for undocumented
immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and sexual
assaults. And it would reduce the incentive for frightened
victims to come forward by ending the current ability of U
visa holders to apply for permanent residency after three
years.
Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues blame
Democrats for the impasse, suggesting the Democrats inserted
changes to invite opposition and score political points. But
the provisions at issue respond to real humanitarian and law
enforcement needs identified by experts working in the field.
By refusing to accept the principle of protecting all
victims of domestic violence, House Republican leaders are
conveying a belief that rapes of gay people and immigrant
women are not ``legitimate'' rapes, as Representative Todd
Akin, the failed Republican candidate for the Senate from
Missouri, put it so appallingly. Is that really what
Republicans want to stand for?
The act's reauthorization is must-do business for the lame-
duck session. Failure to agree on a bill would mean having to
start the legislative process all over again next year. Mr.
Boehner should relent and allow the House to vote on the
Senate bill. There is a chance it would not muster sufficient
Republican votes to pass. But at least it would give
Republican representatives who value moderation a chance to
dissociate themselves from the narrow-minded prejudices and
politics hurting their party.
Mr. LEAHY. Friday will mark a year since Senator Crapo and I
introduced this bill. We have kept victims waiting too long. We should
come together to act now.
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has now been more than 3 weeks since
President Obama was reelected by the American people, and Senate
Republicans are still blocking votes on 19 judicial nominations who
should have received confirmation votes before the Senate recessed for
the election. Some of these nominees have been waiting close to 9
months for a vote. It is time for us to come together to do what is
right and to act in the interests of the American people.
We should begin by having an up or down vote on the longest-pending
nomination. The nomination of Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals has been ready for a final vote since last March 8. Judge
Shwartz received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the nonpartisan
ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, its highest possible
rating, and it is well past time for the Senate to vote on her
nomination.
Regrettably, the Senate has not been allowed to make real progress
for the American people by reducing the number of judicial vacancies.
There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more
than 80 vacancies when in March the Majority Leader was forced to take
the extraordinary step of filing cloture petitions on 17 district court
nominations. There are now more than 80 vacancies once again. In stark
contrast, there were only 29 vacancies at this point in President
George W. Bush's first term.
There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on the
19 judicial nominations that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary
Committee and are pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. President
Obama has consistently reached across the aisle, consulted with home
state Senators from both parties and appointed moderate, well-qualified
judicial nominees. It is time for the obstruction to end and for the
Senate to complete action on these nominees so that they may serve the
American people without further delay. Delay for delay's sake is wrong
and should end.
Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstruction and a
contorted rewriting of the ``Thurmond Rule'' in their refusal to
proceed on consensus nominees. Whatever justification Senate
Republicans contended they had by resort to their misapplication of the
Thurmond Rule to stall judicial nominations before the election is
gone. The American people have voted and chosen to reelect President
Obama. It is time for the Senate to vote.
From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a
presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with
bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee
reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote. That
is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lame duck session,
whether after a presidential or midterm election.
Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's
judicial nominees, including one very controversial circuit court
nominee, in the lame duck session after the elections in 2002. I
remember, I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved
[[Page S7208]]
forward with those votes. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial
nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006,
and proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lame duck session
after the elections in 2010, as well. The reason that I am not listing
confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because
that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees
approved by the Judiciary Committee before the election recess in
September.
Republicans can no longer claim the ``Thurmond Rule'' is the reason
they are holding up nominations since the American people reelected
President Obama. Having said in September that they objected to
proceeding because of the impending election, Senate Republicans cannot
now say that their insistence on delay has made it too late in the year
to proceed with confirmations. That is wrong and it results in denying
Americans the judges they need to administer justice around the
country.
I implore Senators to put their partisanship aside and work with the
President on behalf of the American people. That is what the American
people voted for in the last election. Delaying confirmation votes on
nominees for the sole purpose of delay is precisely what the American
people repudiated when they cast their ballots. Further delays on the
19 nominees before us do not benefit the American people.
I am encouraged that several Republican Senators have recognized
this, and have said that they want votes on their home State nominees.
The Republican Senators from Oklahoma and Maine, and Senator Toomey
from Pennsylvania have all advocated for up or down votes on nominees
during this lame duck session, and they are right to do so. They know
that filling those judicial vacancies in their States is important.
A judge in Florida has written that persistent vacancies ``jeopardize
our Court's ability to deliver the quality of justice that the citizens
of Florida deserve and will inhibit our citizens' access to justice.''
Sadly, Senate Republicans' tactics of delay and obstruction has
perpetuated the high level of judicial vacancies around the country.
Continuing these tactics hurt the Federal courts and the American
people they are intended to serve. This is a problem that has a
commonsense solution: Let the Senate vote on consensus nominees that
have been stalled.
With the number of judicial vacancies now at 83, and with all pending
nominees having waited at least 4 months for a vote, it is past time
for Senate Republicans to abandon these tactics. This obstruction is
not good for the country. How does preventing a vote on Patty Shwartz
benefit the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware? How does
preventing a vote on Richard Taranto benefit Americans who seek to have
their claims resolved by the Federal Circuit? How does preventing a
vote on William Kayatta benefit the people of Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico? How does preventing a vote on
Robert Bacharach benefit the people of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming? How does preventing a vote on Michael Shea
benefit the people of Connecticut? How does preventing a vote on John
Dowdell benefit the people of Oklahoma? How does preventing a vote on
Paul Grimm benefit the people of Maryland? How does preventing votes on
Mark Walker and Brian Davis benefit the people of Florida? How does
preventing a vote on Terrence Berg benefit the people of Michigan? How
does preventing votes on Jesus Bernal, Fernando Olguin, William Orrick,
and Jon Tigar benefit the people of California? How does preventing
votes on Lorna Schofield and Frank Geraci benefit the people of New
York? How does preventing votes on Matthew Brann and Malachy Mannion
benefit the people of Pennsylvania? How does preventing a vote on
Thomas Durkin benefit the people of Illinois? How does preventing votes
on these nominees help the American people receive speedy justice?
If we can just have up or down votes on these 19 nominees, we can
fill almost one-quarter of our Nation's judicial vacancies, and almost
one-third of all judicial emergency vacancies. Most importantly, we can
make it easier for hardworking Americans to have access to justice.
President Obama has worked with home State Senators and all of these
nominees have the support of their home State Senators. Seven of them
are supported by Republican home State Senators. Seventeen of these
nominees received bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee.
When Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were
President, Senate Democrats cleared the calendar of all but the most
controversial and extreme ideological judicial nominations. The Senate
needs to be allowed to vote on President Obama's judicial nominees now
so that our Federal courts are better able to function and fulfill the
fundamental guarantee of providing access to justice. Americans are
rightfully proud of our legal system and its promise of access to
justice and speedy trials. This promise is embedded in our
Constitution. When overburdened courts make it hard to keep this
promise, the Senate should work in a bipartisan manner to help.
I have asked, now that the American people have reelected President
Obama, for Senate Republicans to work with us to fill these
longstanding judicial vacancies. The American people deserve no less.
____________________