[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 19 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S480-S497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 47, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 47) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women 
     Act of 1994.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I wish to applaud the distinguished 
leader Senator Reid for his statement. He has helped us over and over 
again to get this bill to the floor. The reason it is here is because 
of the action of the distinguished majority leader in getting it up 
here. I was pleased to hear his comments about hopefully finishing this 
today or tomorrow. Anyway, it should be done soon. This is a landmark 
law.
  The Senate has before it a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act, a landmark law we enacted that has made a difference in 
women's lives. By providing new tools and resources to communities all 
around the country, we have helped bring the crimes of rape and 
domestic violence out of the shadows. The Federal Government stood with 
the women of this country and sent the message that we would no longer 
tolerate their treatment as second-class citizens. Our bill renews and 
reinforces that commitment.
  Ending violence against women is not an easy problem to solve but 
there is a simple and significant step we can take, right now and 
without delay. I, again, thank Majority Leader Reid for making this 
unfinished business from the last Congress a priority for the Senate 
early this year.
  Senator Crapo and I have worked hard to make this bill bipartisan and 
I am proud that it has more than 60 Senate cosponsors. It also has the 
support of more than 1,300 local, State and National organizations from 
around the country that work with victims every day and know just how 
critical this law has been. I included their most recent letter of 
support with my remarks on Monday. I, again, thank them for their 
tireless efforts.
  On Monday the Senate voted to proceed to consideration of the 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I was disappointed to see 
that 13 Republican Senators did not vote to proceed to the bill. I do 
not know why. They did not say.
  I worry that there are Senators who do not appreciate the role of the 
Federal Government in helping improve the lives of Americans. That is 
what the Violence Against Women Act is intended to do and it is what 
this law has successfully accomplished for nearly 20 years. This is an 
example of how the Federal Government can help solve problems in 
cooperation with State and local communities. The fact is, women are 
safer today because of this law and there is no excuse not to improve 
upon it and reauthorize it without delay.
  We are working to protect victims--all victims--of domestic and 
sexual violence. I hope that those who previously opposed our efforts 
to improve the Violence Against Women Act will join with us and help 
the Senate send our strong bill to the House of Representatives so that 
we can get it enacted. Let us not undercut the provisions to help 
protect Indian women from the serious problems they face.
  If anyone needs a reminder of how important government help can be, 
just think about the way that Federal and local law enforcement worked 
together earlier this week to rescue Ethan, a 5-year-old kidnapped boy, 
from an underground bunker in Alabama, where he had been held hostage 
for almost a week. Ask the family and local law enforcement if they 
appreciated the help of the FBI, the Defense Department and so many who 
contributed to the safe return of that innocent victim.
  I spent years in local law enforcement and have great respect for the 
men and women who protect us every day. When I hear Senators say that 
we should not provide Federal assistance, we should not help officers 
get the protection they need with bulletproof vests, or that we should 
not help the families of fallen public safety officers, I strongly 
disagree. In our Federal system, we can help and when we can, we should 
help. And that is exactly the opportunity that is before us today. We 
have the power to help improve the lives of millions of people in this 
country by renewing and expanding our commitment to end domestic and 
sexual violence. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control, 
CDC, found that more than 24 people per minute are the victims of rape, 
domestic violence and stalking in this country. We can take action to 
change that and we must.
  I am proud that our bill seeks to support all victims, regardless of 
their immigration status, their sexual orientation or their membership 
in an Indian tribe. As I have said countless times on the floor of this 
chamber, ``a victim is a victim is a victim.''
  I appreciate the administration's support for this legislation and 
our goal in reaching all victims. In particular, I note the support of 
the administration in its Statement of Administration Policy for our 
bipartisan proposal, first developed by the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs, to ``bring justice to Native American victims.'' Three out of 
five Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate 
partners. We can no longer idly stand by while this epidemic of abuse 
continues.
  The language in the bill is that which the Senate adopted last April. 
The best legal views of which I am aware believe these provisions are 
both constructive and constitutional. We are building on the Tribal Law 
and Order Act and recognizing tribal authorities with respect to 
domestic violence in Indian country. No one should be able to get away 
with domestic violence and rape, not in any community, and not because 
the victim is a Native American victim in Indian country. I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy 
expressing the administration's strong support for this provision and 
the bill as a whole, be made

[[Page S481]]

part of the Record at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  Mr. LEAHY. The bottom line is this: While we have made great strides 
in reducing domestic and sexual violence, there is more to be done and 
it is incumbent upon us to act now. The Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act has been carefully considered and debated for more 
than 2 years. It is time we vote and send this bill to the House of 
Representatives so that it can be enacted. Let us not undermine the 
provisions to help protect Indian women and other particularly 
vulnerable victims from the serious problems they face.
  I hope the Senate will come together to reauthorize this needed 
legislation in a bipartisan manner that represents the finest 
traditions of the Senate. Domestic and sexual violence knows no 
political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat, rich and 
poor, young and old, gay and straight, male and female. Let us come 
together now--today--to pass this strong reauthorization of the 
Violence Against Women Act. Let us show the American people what we can 
accomplish when we work together.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                   Statement of Administration Policy


       S. 47--Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

          (Sen. Leahy, D-VT, and 59 cosponsors, Feb. 4, 2013)

       The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 
     47 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a 
     landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that first passed 
     the Congress in 1994 and has twice been reauthorized. VAWA 
     transformed the Nation's response to violence against women 
     and brought critically needed resources to States and local 
     communities to address these crimes.
       The Administration is pleased that S. 47 continues that 
     bipartisan progress and targets resources to address today's 
     most pressing issues. Sexual assault remains one of the most 
     underreported violent crimes in the country. The bill 
     provides funding through State grants to improve the criminal 
     justice response to sexual assault and to better connect 
     victims with services. Further, the bill seeks to reduce 
     domestic violence homicides and address the high rates of 
     violence experienced by teens and young adults. Reaching 
     young people through early intervention can break the cycle 
     of violence.
       The Administration strongly supports measures in S. 47 that 
     will bring justice to Native American victims. Rates of 
     domestic violence against Native American women are now among 
     the highest in the United States. The bill builds on the 
     Tribal Law and Order Act--which President Obama signed on 
     July 29, 2010--to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 
     tribal justice systems and also recognize tribal authorities 
     with respect to domestic violence in Indian country. The 
     Administration is pleased that S. 47 recognizes the need to 
     provide protection and services to all victims of abuse and 
     includes proposals to strengthen existing policies that were 
     supported by both Democrats and Republicans last year.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                       Finding Economic Solutions

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a report this week from Harvard's 
Institute of Politics reveals just how devastating the President's 
policies have been for Americans under 30. Despite the fact that most 
millennials have attended college, only about 60 percent of them have 
been able to find a job, and half of them are only working part time.
  For many young Americans, this suggests the American dream is already 
drifting out of reach. It should not be this way.
  Previous generations of Americans faced great challenges, but until 
now younger Americans could always expect they would eventually achieve 
greater prosperity than their parents, and that their children would do 
even better. Now the opposite appears to be the case. This should be 
shocking to all of us, especially considering that this generation of 
young people came into its own in an era of relative peace and 
prosperity. For many of us, just going to college was a pretty big 
deal. For today's younger generation, it was the obvious next step.
  Many of us watched our parents save diligently for the simplest of 
luxuries. A lot of today's young people couldn't relate to those 
stories until now. They grew up in an age of dot-com booms and easy 
credit.
  As college degrees no longer translate into fulfilling careers and as 
the Obama economy continues its year-long stagnation, much has changed 
for a generation that once seemed to have everything going for it. 
Recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office help tell the 
story. According to CBO, in 2014 the United States will see a sixth 
consecutive year of 7.5 percent-plus unemployment. The last time the 
United States jobs picture was that bad, Americans were still huddling 
around the family radio.
  For 2 years, the President has been saying that raising taxes on the 
rich would solve our problems. Yet CBO notes that while taxes are set 
to jump above their historic level, the added revenues from taxes that 
rose due to operation of law last month will mean almost nothing when 
it comes to dealing with America's long-term fiscal challenges. This is 
because CBO has also warned that spending, which already exceeds the 
historic average, will continue its unsustainable climb in the years 
ahead.
  In fact, over the next decade, red ink will spike by trillions to 
levels unseen in peacetime America. If interest rates go up, as most 
expect, it will be even harder for young Americans to purchase a home. 
The CBO warns that if interest payments on our debt skyrocket, it will 
be even more difficult to guarantee the eventual availability of Social 
Security and Medicare for today's graduates. If wages fall as a result 
of the smaller economy that comes from the government's increased debt 
payments, then we can be quite certain that today's generation will 
know less prosperity than their parents do.
  These are some of the negative consequences of failing to get 
spending under control. Things are set to get much worse unless we act 
quickly.
  Has the White House reached out to Republicans to solve these 
pressing economic and fiscal challenges? I wish. Instead, it has turned 
once again to gimmicks and tax hikes that only serve to delay 
solutions. Earlier this week the President even proposed more tax hikes 
to offset a sequester that he himself proposed and he already signed 
into law. If he agrees with us there is a smarter way to make these 
cuts, he should propose it, not just call on others to act.
  I will tell you this right now: My constituents in Kentucky and the 
American people will not accept another tax increase to put off a 
spending cut that the two parties have already agreed to. We have 
already agreed to cut this much spending. It is the definition of 
dysfunction that it might not happen.
  This morning I am again calling on the President and his 
congressional allies to put politics aside at least for once. The 
election is over. The time to govern is right now, to make divided 
government work for the American people who chose it. We owe Americans 
action, not rhetoric. We owe it to the millions of college graduates 
out of work. We owe it to the strivers who find themselves still living 
in their parents' basement. They are all counting on us to enact real 
bipartisan solutions, solutions that can get our economy moving again 
today and can ensure greater prosperity tomorrow.
  Is Washington up to the task? Republicans are, and we are still here 
ready to work for the President as soon as he is prepared to get down 
to business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of the Senate, the time 
until 12 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders and their designees.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about 
the legislation we are about to discuss here, the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  Before I do, I want to respond to a comment I heard by the Republican 
leader on the floor right now talking about the impact of 
sequestration, which is to go into effect March 1 unless Congress acts 
to replace it with something that is more balanced. Sequestration was 
never written into law to go into effect. Sequestration was put into 
law in order for us, Congress, to come together in a bipartisan way to 
find a balanced solution. That is still the case. I feel very strongly 
that if Members of Congress, Republicans and

[[Page S482]]

Democrats, can come together with a balanced package that takes into 
account sequestration causing severe impact to our national defense, to 
our nondefense programs such as Head Start and education at a time when 
our economy is very fragile--the impact of the job cuts on that would 
be very severe. Democrats believe, just as we did throughout this 
process, if we put forward a balanced replacement that includes 
revenue, making sure that those wealthy Americans who have done very 
well and have not had to sacrifice are part of a replacement package 
that we can move through this Congress, this will ensure, as we put 
forward a balanced budget approach for the future and work for a long-
term deficit stabilization process, we can get past this hurdle.
  There is no reason we need to manage crisis by crisis if we can come 
together on a balanced approach that does include revenue. This is what 
Americans expect--everybody participates in making sure that our 
economy gets back on track, we don't just protect the wealthiest, but 
we ask them to do their part.
  I look forward to working with anybody in this body to do this so we 
don't face the impacts of sequestration that would happen if we don't 
have that balanced plan.
  Speaking about the Violence Against Women Act, which is the order of 
business today, I come to the floor this morning to continue the 
efforts that we did start here 9 months ago, efforts that were, in 
fact, overwhelmingly bipartisan--68 Senators--to finally renew our 
national commitment to ending domestic violence and reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act. It is a bill that has successfully helped 
provide life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and 
families, and it is a bill that consistently extends protections to new 
communities of vulnerable Americans each and every time it has been 
authorized.
  I wish to thank Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo for making the 
Violence Against Women Act a priority for reintroduction in the 113th 
Congress, because there is no reason this critical bill, which has such 
broad support, should be put on the back burner and delayed further 
while there are millions of Americans across our country who are 
excluded from the current law. In fact, for Native, immigrant women, 
and LGBT individuals, every moment our inclusive legislation to 
reauthorize VAWA is delayed is another moment they are left without the 
resources and protection they deserve.
  For women on tribal lands, the challenges are particularly immense. 
Often in our very rural areas, on tribal lands, these women live hours 
and hours away from the nearest Federal prosecutors.
  For nontribal members on these lands who perpetrate these violent 
crimes against the women who are living there, it equates to nothing 
short of a safe haven for them. It is a place where they are free from 
tribal jurisdiction and repeatedly commit horrific acts without being 
afraid of being brought to justice.
  This is an injustice that Deborah Parker, the vice chairwoman of the 
Tulalip tribes in my home State, spoke to just outside this Chamber 
last year in an effort to get House Republicans to listen. Through her 
tears she told a deeply personal story about how not only was she 
abused as a young girl, but how she then watched family members and 
friends suffer similar fates. She spoke about how time and again the 
abusers went unprosecuted, only to repeat the crime over and over. She 
called herself ``a Native American statistic.'' Even more sadly, she 
was right.
  In fact, the numbers are staggering. One in three Native women will 
be raped in her lifetime. One in three. Two in five of them are victims 
of domestic violence, and they are killed at 10 times the rate of the 
national average. These shocking statistics aren't isolated to one 
group of women, as 25 to 35 percent of women in the LGBT community 
experience domestic violence in relationships. Three in four abused 
immigrant women never entered the process to obtain legal status, even 
though they were eligible, because their abuser husbands never filed 
the paperwork.
  It does not need to be this way. I was very proud to be here serving 
the Senate back in 1994 when we first passed the Violence Against Women 
Act. Since we took that historic step, VAWA has been a great success in 
coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law 
enforcement officials to meet the immediate challenges of combating 
domestic violence. Along with bipartisan support, this has received 
praise from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victim 
service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, 
and survivors.
  VAWA has attained such broad support because it worked. It provides 
shelter and justice to battered women who need both, and it is the 
cornerstone of our efforts to combat domestic violence. We can't pick 
winners and losers on who gets these critical protections, and we 
cannot afford any further delay, not on this bill.
  Just like the last Congress, we all know what it would take to move 
this bill forward--leadership from Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor. 
The fate of the Violence Against Women Act lies squarely on their 
shoulders. To date they have refused to listen to countless law 
enforcement and women's groups, as well as moderate voices in their own 
party who have called on them to pass the Senate's bipartisan and 
inclusive bill.
  In this new Congress, on this newly introduced bipartisan bill, the 
House Republican leadership faces the same choice and a second chance. 
They can either appease those on the far right of their caucus, who 
would turn battered women away from care, or they can stand with 
Democrats, moderate Republicans, and the many millions of Americans who 
believe that who a person loves, where they live, or their immigration 
status, should not determine whether they are protected from violence 
in this country.
  In fact, in a recent editorial the Seattle Times echoed this same 
sentiment:

       House Republican leaders refused to bring the original 
     Senate bill forward for a vote. They must not squander a 
     second chance to save lives.

  I couldn't agree more. Too many women have been left vulnerable while 
House Republican leaders have played politics. It is time for moderate 
Republican voices in the House to call upon them to pass this 
bipartisan Senate bill immediately, because women's lives across the 
country literally depend on it.
  The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, has led the charge on this bill. 
I wish to thank him publicly, as he is on the floor right now, for his 
work, for the first bill he has put forward for this body to consider. 
It is time to move on it, and I want him to know how much I truly 
appreciate all of his efforts in getting this done. This is for all 
women in this country, for Native American women, whom I have talked 
about, in particular, who have suffered at the hands of their abusers 
for so long, and for all of our women in this country, whoever they 
are, wherever they come from, to know that this Senate in a bipartisan 
way stands behind them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her words. The 
Senator from Washington State has been a consistent and clear supporter 
of the Violence Against Women Act. I especially applaud what she said: 
It should apply to all victims. I have said so many times on this 
floor, and I sometimes wonder if people hear, but certainly in my 
experience in law enforcement the police never asked and said, well, we 
can't help this victim unless they fall into a particular category. 
They said a victim is a victim is a victim, and a crime is a crime is a 
crime.
  We didn't have the Violence Against Women Act when I and my 
colleagues around the country were in law enforcement. I cannot help 
but think of all the deaths that would have been prevented had we had 
something like this, all the violence that would have been prevented if 
there had been organizations like some of the actual ones we have in 
Vermont and other States supported by the Violence Against Women Act 
that have prevented violence.
  I cannot imagine any Member of this body would oppose this law if it 
affected them or their families. We, as Americans, are all family, so 
it affects every one of us.
  I again thank the Senator from Washington State for her comments.

[[Page S483]]

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters from 
advocates and faith-based organizations in support of S. 47, the 
Violence Against Women Act, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Alliance to


                                          End Sexual Violence,

                                 Washington, DC, January 28, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael Crapo,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo: On behalf of 56 
     state and territorial sexual assault coalitions and 1300 rape 
     crisis centers, I want to express our sincere gratitude for 
     the introduction of S. 47. The Violence Against Women Act 
     (VAWA) with the SAFER Act included represents the essential 
     and comprehensive legislative package that is necessary to 
     advance this nation's response to the crime of rape and 
     protect and support victims. S. 47 includes critical 
     enhancements to address sexual assault including criminal 
     justice improvements, housing protections, vital direct 
     service and prevention programs, and SAFER's policies to 
     address the rape kit backlog.
       We are urging all Senators to stand with sexual assault 
     survivors and support the swift passage of this far-reaching 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Monika Johnson Hostler,
     Board President.
                                  ____

                                                 February 4, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael Crapo,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo: We, the undersigned 
     sentencing and criminal justice reform organizations, are 
     writing to express our opposition to the inclusion of any 
     mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in S. 47, the 
     Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA).
       We acknowledge that reducing the level of sexual, domestic, 
     and dating violence and stalking directed at victims of 
     violence is a worthwhile objective and an issue of national 
     concern. We recognize and appreciate that many of the 
     proposals contained in S. 47 enjoy broad bipartisan support, 
     as well as the support of the American public. In its current 
     form, S. 47 does not include any mandatory minimum sentences. 
     We think it should remain that way through passage.
       We do not believe that including mandatory minimum 
     sentencing provisions for the domestic violence, sexual 
     assault, and stalking offenses in S. 47 would be necessary, 
     appropriate, or cost-effective. In fact, such provisions 
     could be counterproductive in combatting violence. According 
     to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic 
     Violence Against Women, the threat of a lengthy, mandatory 
     prison sentence for an intimate partner abuser could deter a 
     victim from reporting a crime. Because the victim and 
     offender are often related or in an intimate relationship, 
     many of the crimes included in VAWA will involve complex 
     facts and unique circumstances. Such complicated crimes 
     demand that courts have flexibility to ensure that the 
     sentence fits the crime and the offender, protects victims, 
     and best meets the needs of the family or couple impacted.
       Finally, more mandatory minimum sentences would only 
     increase the burdens on and high costs of our already 
     overcrowded federal prison system. A recent Congressional 
     Research Service report shows that mandatory minimums are the 
     primary driver of high prison populations and increasing 
     prison costs. Mandatory minimum sentences are unfair, 
     ineffective, and result in extraordinary costs to American 
     taxpayers.
       Accordingly, as the Senate considers S. 47, we strongly 
     urge you to oppose the adoption of any mandatory minimums. 
     Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and for 
     considering our views. Please do not hesitate to contact any 
     of us if you should have any questions.
           Sincerely,
         American Civil Liberties Union, Church of Scientology 
           National Affairs Office, Drug Policy Alliance, Families 
           Against Mandatory Minimums, Human Rights Watch, Justice 
           Fellowship, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 
           Law, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 
           National Legal Aid & Defender Association, The 
           Sentencing Project, United Methodist Church, General 
           Board of Church and Society.
                                  ____

                                              Lutheran Immigration


                                          and Refugee Service,

                                  Baltimore, MD, February 1, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Crapo,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo: On behalf of Lutheran 
     Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), the national 
     organization established by Lutheran churches in the United 
     States to welcome immigrants and refugees, thank you for 
     reintroducing the bipartisan Violence Against Women 
     Reauthorization Act (VAWA) (S. 47).
       As you are aware, there are many cases in which immigration 
     status is used as a tool for abuse, leading victims to remain 
     in abusive relationships and contributing to the 
     underreporting of serious crimes to local enforcement 
     officials. The creation of the U visa in 2000 by Congress to 
     encourage migrant victims to report criminal offenses to 
     officials has been extremely helpful in advancing community 
     safety. The need for U visas is significant. In 2012, U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services ran out of available U 
     visas over a month prior to the end of the fiscal year. 
     Therefore, the lack of a vital increase in the number of 
     available U visas in S. 47 is extremely disappointing. 
     However, I am encouraged by your commitment to increase the 
     cap on U visas as part of immigration reform legislation.
       While I applaud efforts to swiftly move VAWA through both 
     chambers of Congress, I caution against any use of VAWA as a 
     means to expand immigration enforcement provisions of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act. These changes would be 
     detrimental to the central purpose of VAWA--to address the 
     critical issues of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating 
     violence, and human trafficking--and should remain outside of 
     the VAWA debate.
       LIRS commends your leadership in advancing this bill and we 
     are excited to continue to work with you to ensure the 
     inclusion of provisions to protect vulnerable migrant victims 
     in upcoming legislation. Please contact Brittney Nystrom, 
     LIRS Director for Advocacy with any questions.
           Yours in faith,

                                              Linda J. Hartke,

                                                President and CEO,
     Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
                                  ____

         Office of Public Witness, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 
           Compassion, Peace and Justice Ministry,
                                 Washington, DC, February 1, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: In the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), we 
     believe that ``domestic violence is always a violation of the 
     power God intended for good.'' We believe that ``God the 
     Creator is preeminently a covenant-maker, the One who 
     creates, sustains, and transforms the people of God. Domestic 
     violence and abuse destroys covenants in which people have 
     promised to treat each other with respect and dignity.''
       Because of these convictions, we strongly support a robust 
     reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and we 
     thank you for your leadership in sponsoring S. 47. Further, 
     we wish you to know that we have written to all of your 
     Senate colleagues, asking them to support final passage of 
     this bill, and urging them to oppose any amendments that you 
     have not endorsed.
       As you know, VAWA's programs support state, tribal, and 
     local efforts to address the pervasive and insidious crimes 
     of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
     stalking. These programs have made great progress towards 
     reducing the violence, helping victims to be healthy and feel 
     safe and holding perpetrators accountable. This critical 
     legislation must be reauthorized to ensure a continued 
     response to these crimes.
       Again, we thank you for your leadership on this important 
     issue and look forward to the bill's passage, so that we can 
     build upon VAWA's successes and continue to enhance our 
     nation's ability to promote an end to this violence, to hold 
     perpetrators accountable, and to keep victims and their 
     families safe from future harm. For our part, we commit to 
     continued ministry with victims and survivors of violence and 
     to do all we can, through our ministries and our advocacy, to 
     end this desperate cycle of violence and brokenness.
       We give thanks for your service to our nation and for your 
     leadership on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                The Reverend J. Herbert Nelson II,
                                      Director for Public Witness.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from 
New

[[Page S484]]

Hampshire would yield to me for a moment.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Always, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire is about to speak regarding the Violence Against Women Act. I 
would like to take a moment to thank her for all the work she has done 
in her State and in the Senate to help advance this legislation.
  Senator Shaheen and I are from rural States. We border each other. 
The Connecticut River runs down the border between our two States. We 
have so much in common. We face some of the same difficulties of 
weather and rural nature, and, of course, in a rural State there is the 
question of access to transportation. Senator Shaheen was the one who 
brought up, based on her experience in New Hampshire, that women were 
having trouble getting to crisis centers and courts. Of course, we have 
a similar challenge in a rural State such as mine. But Senator Shaheen 
worked with the Department of Justice to address this problem. As a 
result, the Office on Violence Against Women is now allowing rural 
communities to obtain VAWA grant funding for transportation needs.
  A number of the women who are going to be getting this transportation 
and desperately need it may not know how that came about, but I wish to 
congratulate Senator Shaheen on her successful efforts on behalf of not 
just women in New Hampshire or Vermont but throughout the country--
again, another example of what we are doing with this bill and the 
necessity to finish this bill. I hope we can finish it today.
  I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Leahy, both for his kind words and the tremendous leadership he has 
shown over the years in first passing this legislation and for getting 
it reauthorized time and again and now, after the bill died in the last 
Congress because of the unwillingness of the House to act, for his 
willingness to bring it forward so early in the session so that 
hopefully we can make sure all of those people who are victims of 
domestic violence and all of those advocates, the law enforcement 
community that is working so hard, can have the support they need as a 
result of this legislation. So I thank Senator Leahy very much.
  One of the reasons I am proud to support this bill is because it 
takes a truly comprehensive approach to the problem. It supports crisis 
centers for women and families to provide for immediate needs, such as 
shelter and counseling.
  Last year the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual 
Violence reported that they were able to provide shelter for 630 people 
who needed a place to sleep. Unfortunately, although they helped those 
630, they had to turn away 721 because they didn't have room. So even 
with the help that is in the Violence Against Women Act, they had to 
turn away more people than they could help.
  In the face of this need, sometimes it is easy to feel discouraged, 
to wonder whether we can really help at all. But when I speak to the 
brave women who are survivors who reached out for help to the advocates 
who have helped them rebuild their shattered lives, I know that we can 
and we must continue to make a difference.
  The Violence Against Women Act helps us do this by providing funding 
for police officers and prosecutors so abusers are held responsible. 
Time and again, we have heard from law enforcement that the Violence 
Against Women Act helps them keep our communities safe and helps stop 
the cycle of abuse--law enforcement officers such as a detective 
sergeant in New Hampshire's largest city of Manchester, who is an 
investigator and a domestic violence advocate.
  I brought with me today a chart that gives us a real picture of just 
how pervasive the problem of domestic violence is.
  As we can see in the chart, one in four women in the United States is 
a victim of domestic violence. Three women are murdered every day by 
their partners. This has been a very big problem in New Hampshire where 
half of all murders are domestic violence related.

  Maybe the worst statistic on this chart shows that 15 million 
children are exposed to domestic violence every year. I call this maybe 
the worst because, in fact, the cycle of domestic violence continues 
because so many children are exposed every year. They are not able to 
get out of this cycle. Let's recommit to shielding our children from 
senseless violence.
  Another reason I am proud to support this bill is because it treats 
all victims equally, and it recognizes that members of the LGBT 
community are just as deserving of our support as any other survivor of 
domestic violence. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control 
shows us that those in LGBT relationships actually experience higher 
rates of violence than heterosexual couples. Let's recommit to helping 
all Americans regardless of whom they love or who has abused them.
  Finally, I want to end with a quote from a woman in New Hampshire who 
sought help at a crisis center that receives funds from VAWA, the 
Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention. Before she left that 
shelter--as she was putting her life back together--she told the case 
managers there:

       You all have really made my life worth holding onto and not 
     giving up. Please don't ever give up doing what you do 
     because you truly saved my life.

  I think that represents what we hear from so many survivors of 
domestic violence. Just as we are not going to give up on those 
survivors, we must not give up until this legislation is on President 
Obama's desk and signed into law. There are too many victims who are 
counting on us.
  I certainly urge all of my colleagues in the Senate--as we did in the 
last session of Congress--to join me in supporting the Violence Against 
Women Act. I also hope our colleagues in the House will recognize how 
significant this challenge is and be willing to take up this 
legislation and get it done so survivors across this country will get 
the help they need.
  Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, Indiana has a lot in common with Kansas, so 
I don't mind that label. I have been in the chair and made similar 
mistakes, so that doesn't bother me. We have a lot of similarities 
between Indiana and Kansas. We each hope to have a Final Four team in 
the basketball tournament coming up in the Final Four. We have some 
competitive teams, so it is a nice blend.


                              The Economy

  I would like to speak about the sequestration issue that is facing us 
as a Congress in the next few weeks. But, first, let me just say, I 
returned from the National Prayer Breakfast. Several of our colleagues 
were there: Senator Sessions, a Republican, and Senator Pryor, a 
Democrat, representing Alabama and Arkansas, but more importantly they 
are cochairs of the Senate Prayer Breakfast. They led the effort today. 
Both the House Prayer Breakfast group, which meets weekly, and the 
Senate Prayer Breakfast group, which meets weekly, supports and puts 
together the annual Prayer Breakfast. People from more than 160 
countries and all 50 States attended. It is quite a remarkable event.
  Beyond the socialization and bringing people together around the 
issue of faith and prayer, we find in our weekly Prayer Breakfast 
meetings in the Senate and the House that it is the one time when 
Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives, people of no 
particular ideology, get together and talk about the common interest on 
the basis of their faith. It is always very refreshing to do that, and 
it was a pretty remarkable session this morning.
  Senator Schumer from New York read from the Old Testament, and our 
former colleague, Senator Dole from North Carolina, read from the New 
Testament. Dr. Ben Carson, head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns 
Hopkins University--recognized as one of the world's leading pediatric 
neurosurgeons--spoke to us. I heard him 16 years ago. What a remarkable 
life story. What a remarkable impact he had on the crowd that was 
there.
  He talked about political correctness and how it is detrimental to 
the kind of honest, straightforward debate we

[[Page S485]]

need in this country over any range of issues, from our religious 
beliefs to our political beliefs. He talked about how we need to be 
willing to be transparent and honest with the people we represent, to 
speak out about what we believe in and how healthy the debate is even 
if we come to different positions on separate issues.
  That is one of the reasons I have been coming down here virtually 
every day since the Senate came back into session for the 113th 
Congress. I come here to talk about what I think is one of the 
challenges--if not the leading challenge--facing us in this 2-year 
term. Without question, our fiscal crisis and debt has an impact on our 
people and on the economy, but more importantly, on our people. This 
has an effect on the average family in America and the young people 
coming out of high school and college who are looking for a job. The 
impact of this more than 4-year economic malaise started with a deep 
recession. It is now getting to the point where our growth is far below 
what we need to get everybody back to work and get the economy moving 
again on a good upward path. We are looking for solutions to the root 
of our problem. This body, along with the House and the administration, 
has been dealing with this for well over 2 years. We have been trying 
to find a solution to get us on the right path to fiscal health. We 
have taken several steps in that regard, but each step has come up 
short. There have been several one-step-forward and half-a-step-back 
efforts, but most of it has simply been pushing it down the road and 
saving the big debate for another day.
  In August 2011 we ended up passing the Budget Control Act, which 
addressed the debt ceiling at that time. Through that the 
administration first proposed--President Obama proposed--a measure 
known as sequestration, which was designed to force the Congress to 
step up to the plate and deal with the real problem. The real problem 
is continued deficit spending at a record level that has accumulated 
year after year.
  We are now at the point where the clock is ticking. We have a $16.5 
trillion debt which is up from nearly $5.5 trillion in just the last 4 
years. The math proves and history clearly shows that this is 
unsustainable. This is the great challenge before this Congress. We 
need to do what is necessary to get on the right path to fiscal health 
before it all comes down.
  We had a warning shot fired across our bow in 2009 as to the 
distortions in our economy, and the consequences were grave. We have 
warning shots being fired every day from virtually across the Atlantic 
as to what the European Union and the European nations are trying to 
deal with because they allowed their deficit spending, their debt, and 
overpromises by politicians to constituents to continue, which simply 
cannot be fulfilled. Now the bank is running out of money. We simply 
don't have the resources to continue to pay the debt, and the interest 
on the debt gets worse every day that goes by.
  So we had this Budget Control Act in 2011 that included an 
enforcement mechanism called the sequester, which is simply an across-
the-board cut. However, the sequester was not an across-the-board cut. 
It was heavily weighted in cuts to defense. There were exemptions to 
the major drivers of our debt and deficit, which are the mandatory 
spending programs.
  Let me be straight and say the things we are not supposed to say 
because it is political suicide: If we don't reform Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Social Security, it doesn't matter what else we do, we cannot solve 
this problem. That is the conclusion of just about everyone in this 
body. More importantly, it is the conclusion of everyone who doesn't 
have a political stake in mind.
  Analysts and economists who look at our fiscal plight and the history 
of economic performance and nonperformance all come to the same point: 
We need to address and reform mandatory spending programs. We don't 
want to impose sacrifice and pain on people; we want to save them from 
much greater pain down the road. We need to reform programs so they are 
viable and so that people who are contributing to Social Security and 
Medicare on every paycheck will be able to receive those benefits when 
they need them in retirement.
  To save those programs and to keep from denying people their hard-
earned benefits, we need to take steps and we need to take them sooner 
rather than later. The Medicare and Social Security trustees keep 
giving us additional warnings to do it now. It will be less painful 
than doing it later. It will help keep us from making Draconian cuts to 
benefits or Draconian increases in taxes that will break the back of 
the American taxpayer.
  Unfortunately, the supercommittee that was formed--six Republicans 
and six Democrats from each body--was unable to come up with a 
solution. As a result of that, we have this sequester--across-the-board 
cuts with certain exceptions--that is to occur soon. It has been 
delayed once before and now. March 1 is the new date.
  We need to step up and put together the big plan that will get us on 
the path to fiscal health. Republicans in the House of Representatives 
have been proposing and putting forth their plans, but we have had 
nothing come out of this body. Unless there is support from both 
Houses, nothing can be accomplished, and this will fail.
  Frankly, we have had a lot of rhetoric coming out of the White House 
about what we need to do, but we have had no serious attempt to address 
the part of the equation that needs to be addressed, and that is the 
excessive spending over the years that we have put into law. As 
politicians, we have made promises to our constituents over the years 
which we know cannot be fulfilled.
  It is time we stand up and be honest with the American people. We 
need to be transparent and basically say: Folks, we have a problem. It 
is simple math. We cannot continue to borrow $1 trillion or more a year 
and be in a sound fiscal position. We have to take some steps to 
address that problem and that challenge before us.
  If we don't begin that process now, we are going to see devastating 
across-the-board cuts. It will have very detrimental effects on our 
national defense and national security because it is so heavily 
weighted to slash those areas.
  The major three contributors and drivers of the debt are the 
entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If those 
are not addressed--no matter what else we do here--we cannot solve the 
problem. Yet the political tendency is to simply pass it along, push it 
down the road, and get past the next election. It apparently is too 
politically dangerous to stand up and say these things and be honest 
with the American people. Well, I think the American people know better 
and are telling: We are ahead of you. We understand the problem, and we 
want results. We want you to work together, find a solution to this 
problem, and put it before us. It is our responsibility to go out and 
present the plan. But without the President's support, despite his 
rhetoric--all we hear from the White House is that more taxes will 
solve the problem. They just got $630 billion worth of taxes from the 
fiscal cliff deal. The President's commitment and obsession with taxing 
the rich and the job creators was fulfilled, and the top percent--the 
people he described in his campaign and afterward in the negotiations--
are now paying higher taxes, but that does not begin to even come close 
to solving the problem. So what we need to do is be straightforward 
with what it is we must do and not be afraid of being honest with the 
American people.

  There is now talk about delaying, once again, the sequester. So 
whether it is the debt limit, whether it is the spending bills, or 
whether it is the budget, we keep hearing: Push it down the road. Do it 
some other time. It is too painful to do now. I would suggest the time 
to do it is now. Even though the sequester is imperfect, even though it 
imposes more pain and more detriment to one of the essential functions 
of government; that is, providing for our national security, which is 
part of the reason I opposed the Budget Control Act, these cuts are 
going to take place and need to take place if we don't come up with a 
better solution because it now is the law.
  I am pleading with my colleagues: Let's not do this in a way that is 
not the soundest way to reduce spending and achieve what we need to 
achieve. By the way, while the sequester, once again, will be an 
important step forward, it doesn't begin to deal with the

[[Page S486]]

real problem. The real problem is finding the political will and 
courage to be honest with the American people and pass a fiscal package 
that will reassure investors, consumers and the world that the United 
States of America has finally taken the steps necessary to address the 
cause of our debt and put us on a path to return to fiscal soundness.
  I think, given our position in relation to where we are with other 
nations, this type of package would result in an amazing increase in 
our economy, get people back to work, and send the message that America 
can return to its place of leadership in the world because it has 
gotten their economic house in order. Without that, we will continue to 
decline, which will have consequences not only for our generation but 
for generations to come. This also would have potentially dangerous 
consequences for security around the world because of our inability to 
lead. It would have serious consequences for young people and for 
middle-aged people and others who simply want to get back to work. They 
simply want to get back to a place where they get a paycheck at the end 
of the week so they can cover the mortgage and save money to send the 
kids to school and so they can make those necessary payment commitments 
to lead the kind of life they are aspiring to lead. Without Congress 
taking action, they are going to continue to live under this cloud of 
uncertainty about our future and people are going to continue to 
struggle to find meaningful work.
  It all comes down to the individual and to families. It doesn't come 
down to some accountant's balance sheet. It comes down to the pain and 
suffering so many people have gone through over the past 4 years and 
are continuing to encounter because of our lack of responsibility to 
take the necessary steps to go act.
  I am going to keep talking about this. I am going to come to the 
floor and talk about how we can potentially achieve a much leaner, more 
effective, and efficient government. I am going to use as a model not 
just my State but many States with Governors who have had the courage 
to step forward and do what is necessary to put their State in fiscal 
balance, in contrast to other States that are doing what we are doing; 
that is, pushing the tough decisions down the road and trying to deal 
with it at another time.
  As we go through the Federal budget, there are literally hundreds of 
billions of dollars simply being spent in the wrong place, simply going 
to programs that are no longer effective and efficient if they ever 
were in the first place. We are not making priorities in terms of how 
we spend our money. Senator Coburn and others have been down to this 
floor talking about egregious examples of overspending, of bloated 
bureaucracy, talking about programs that perhaps had a value at one 
point in time but are simply not doing the job anymore and are not 
necessary. We have been talking about the kinds of things that ought to 
be done at the State and local level rather than the Federal level. We 
have been talking about how Congress needs to stop making promises to 
people that everything we spend is for a vital, national purpose if 
that isn't the case.
  We need to do some serious triage and take a serious look at how we 
spend taxpayer dollars. We can come up with money to offset necessary 
programs. We can come up with money to lower the demands so we don't 
have to continue to go to the American people and say we have to raise 
your taxes one more time. We have said that too much.
  The burden is not tax revenues; the burden is dealing with our 
spending issue, and part of that has to be dealing with the mandatory 
spending that is ever driving this deficit and debt.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I request the time to make my statement as 
required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the 
Violence Against Women Act, but before I do that, I wish to say I 
appreciate the comments of my friend from Indiana. We all want to get 
this budget under control. We all recognize we have to get it under 
control not only for today's generation but for multiple generations to 
come.
  During the last few years we have been able to cut almost $2 trillion 
of our budgetary costs over the next 10 years, cuts we have been able 
to accomplish in a bipartisan way but led a lot by this side. Let me 
remind folks where we are. Four years ago this economy was flat on its 
back--an economy that didn't have any air in it. It was in a grave 
situation. But where are we today? We have a 5-year housing start, 
incredible activity within the automobile industry, with record-high 
sales going on there. The stock market has doubled in the last 4\1/2\ 
years. Most recently, the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office, a 
bipartisan office which doesn't show any favoritism to any side--
verifies that in 4 years we have cut the annual deficit by 40 percent. 
I know that is not where it should be yet because we want to balance 
it, but a 40-percent reduction in the annual deficit is significant.

  So we are on the road. Is it a slower road than we would like? Sure, 
but it is on the road to recovery. It is having a positive impact. As a 
matter of fact, now the deficit, as the amount compared to our GDP, is 
cut in half. So we are making some inroads.
  Democrats are not afraid at all to cut the budget where it is 
necessary, but we need to solve this problem with three types of moves. 
We have to cut the budget, deal with revenues, and invest in this 
economy for education, energy, and infrastructure. It is a three-
pronged approach. Even if we think we can do one of these and somehow, 
magically, a $16 trillion debt will just vanish overnight is in another 
world that doesn't exist on this planet.
  I appreciate the debate that goes on, but we need to be honest, 
realistic, and practical in dealing with these budgetary issues, and 
they will be tough. People will not like all of it. I can see it now at 
my townhall meetings when I go to them. They will say cut the budget, 
which we will do--don't get me wrong, we will do that--but then when I 
go back to my hometown they will say, I didn't actually mean that 
program. That will be the story.
  The fact is we have serious issues with which to deal. So this is not 
a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. When people come to the 
floor, we should think about this as an American issue and that we have 
to resolve this for the right reasons. We have done some exceptional 
work over the last 4 years, despite the hurdles, the political slogans, 
and all the other stuff that goes along with it in getting results. A 
40-percent reduction in the annual deficit in 4 years is significant. 
Is it zero? Is it balanced? No; because there have been 40-plus years 
of not paying attention to the budget.
  A lot of us are new around here. As a matter of fact, 60 percent of 
the Senate is made up of people who haven't been here more than 6 
years. I am looking at three Senators on the floor right now. We are 
here to solve this problem. However, do not be mistaken. We have made 
progress. The American people should be proud of what we have done. But 
is it perfect? No. Do we have more work to do? Yes. That is why we are 
here and that is why we are going to do this with a bipartisan 
approach.
  So I digress from the issue I came to discuss. I like the debates 
that happen on the floor, and I wish more would happen, but when a 
Member speaks, I want to make sure all the information is on the table.
  I came to speak on an important piece of legislation, the Violence 
Against Women Act. We debate issues that are important around here, but 
not too often can we stand on the floor of this Chamber and say our 
votes are a matter of life and death. In this case, it is absolutely 
true. This bill saves lives. It is our job to pass it now--today.
  The Senate, as we did last year, needs to send a simple and important 
message that America will not tolerate violence against its women, 
children, and families. We must do our part to reduce domestic violence 
and sexual assault. Even though the House has refused to act for over 
300 days since we sent the bill over there, we are now in a new session 
and there is bipartisan support in this Chamber. The VAWA bill passed 
the Senate with 60 votes last spring and there are at least 60 of us 
already signed up and cosponsoring this legislation.
  We know the reality. The fight to protect women and families from 
violence is far from over. VAWA was first

[[Page S487]]

passed just 20 years ago and it has not been reauthorized since 2006. 
The law has made a difference. We know a great deal more about domestic 
violence than when VAWA was first written. Services for victims have 
improved. Communities offer safer shelter. Local, State, and Federal 
laws are stronger. Yet there are still too many awful stories and 
inexcusable numbers, especially in my home State.
  Alaska continues to have some of the worst statistics in the country. 
Three out of every four Alaskans have experienced domestic or sexual 
violence or known someone who has. The rate of rape in Alaska is nearly 
2\1/2\ times the national average, even worse for Alaskan Native women. 
Child sexual assault in Alaska is almost six times the national 
average. Out of every 100 adult women in Alaska, nearly 60 have 
experienced physical or sexual violence or both.
  So my colleagues can see why I am standing here today. We need to do 
something about this not someday, not next year but today.
  In one typical day in my State, victim services agencies throughout 
Alaska serve an average of 464 victims, 114 hotline calls are answered, 
and 308 people across Alaska attend training sessions offered by local 
domestic violence and sexual assault programs. Yet people are still 
turned away because of a lack of funding, a lack of service. On an 
average day in Alaska, 52 requests for services are not met--basic 
needs such as transportation, childcare, language translation, 
counseling and legal representation. The bill before us is critical in 
ensuring all victims receive the services they need.
  I wish to spend just a few more minutes discussing the safety of 
women and children in Alaska Native and American Indian families. For 
the sake of our Nation's first peoples, the tribal provisions in this 
bill need to become law. Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of 
this Chamber are trying to strip out our expanded authority over 
domestic violence in Indian Country. Why are we debating this? One out 
of every three Native American women has suffered rape, physical 
violence or stalking. Yet some Members want to debate the rights of 
their abusers. I fully support the tribal provisions in this bill. Yet 
I must point out that none of the expanded criminal jurisdiction 
applies to Alaska Native tribes except for one true reservation at the 
very southern tip of Alaska. Today is not the day to fight that fight, 
but I will take it up again soon from my seat on the Indian Affairs 
Committee in the Senate.
  Study after study has concluded that the lack of effective local law 
enforcement in Alaska Native villages contributes to so many problems: 
increased crime, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and poor 
educational achievement. When it comes to protecting those most at 
risk, Congress must recognize the need for local control, local 
responsibility, and local accountability. This bill will take a big 
step forward today on Indian reservations in the lower 48.
  At a later time, we will get to my bill, which I have introduced in 
the past as the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act.
  My bill would establish small demonstration projects so a handful of 
federally recognized tribes in Alaska's villages can take action. They 
would be allowed to address domestic violence and alcohol-related cases 
within their villages and village boundaries.
  Our Native villages are vibrant, resilient communities, and we must 
answer their calls for help. That includes an ``all of the above'' 
approach to combating domestic violence and abuse. The one thing we 
know for sure is the status quo is not working. It is not just about 
slogans or feel-good statements. We need to act.
  But for now--for today--let's vote on VAWA and get this bill passed. 
Let's protect women and children and families all over this country. 
And let's send a strong message to our colleagues in the House, that 
this time there is no hiding. It is time to get the job done. It is 
time to put politics aside. Pass this bill and truly save lives.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Grassley, is he in the queue to speak?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. For 7 or 8 minutes.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Excuse me?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If I could have 7 or 8 minutes now.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Yes. The Senator is in the queue because 
Senator Begich just spoke. That would be great. I thank the Senator 
very much. I appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has long been bipartisan support 
for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. 
Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes even men, 
has been beneficial to our country.
  I support many of the provisions in the majority bill. There are 
consolidations of grants, cyber stalking, rural programs, assistance 
for individuals with disabilities, older victims, housing protections, 
and numerous other provisions I wholeheartedly support. There is 
overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in 
S. 47.
  The process on the Violence Against Women Act in the 112th Congress 
was very disappointing, and I expressed that last year during debate on 
this issue.
  Previously, the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized 
unanimously--I mean prior to the debate last year and this year.
  When new provisions were added in the past, prior to last year, they 
were consensus items. The law then was reauthorized by consensus. 
Something similar could have happened again last year, but it did not. 
New provisions were forced into the bill. Some of these provisions were 
controversial. Some raised serious constitutional concerns. But those 
on the other side of the aisle insisted on these provisions without 
change and refused any sort of middle ground. It appeared that the 
debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing 
help to women in need.
  Last Congress, both the Republican leader and this Senator offered 
that the Senate consent to striking a provision that violated the 
Constitution's Origination clause and then we would proceed to 
conference. Everybody knows that the Constitution's Origination clause 
says that issues involving raising revenue must start in the other 
body. Well, this bill raised revenue and, consequently, violated that 
constitutional provision.
  Yet today, S. 47 has removed that provision that raised this blue 
slip problem in the other body. It does this only a few months after 
the majority refused to drop it and proceed to conference. What I just 
said tells you, if it had been done as they are doing it right now, we 
could have gotten this bill to conference and had something to the 
President in the last Congress. The willingness of the majority today 
to eliminate that unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could 
have had a bill last year, and that is what I want to express to my 
colleagues as a terribly disappointing proposition for this Senator.
  It is not true that unless S. 47 is passed exactly as is, various 
groups will be excluded from protection under the law. Current law 
protects all victims. Vice President Biden wrote the current law. Every 
Member of the Senate who was a Member of this body when the Violence 
Against Women Act last was reauthorized voted for that bill, which 
backs up what I have been saying several times during my remarks, that 
this could have passed last year as a consensus piece of legislation 
and has passed in other reauthorizations as a consensus piece of 
legislation.
  Neither Vice President Biden nor any other Senator passed a 
discriminatory bill in the past. It is not the case that unless the 
controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists, 
without any compromise whatsoever, that any groups will be excluded.
  The key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the 
provision concerning Indian tribal courts. That provision raises 
serious constitutional

[[Page S488]]

questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the 
constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those tribal 
courts.
  We should focus on providing needed services for Native American 
women. But S. 47 makes political statements and expounds needlessly on 
Native American sovereignty. It raises such significant constitutional 
problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all 
for Native American women, while at the same time failing to protect 
the constitutional rights of other American citizens.
  Even the respected organization, the Congressional Research Service, 
has raised constitutional questions about the tribal provisions in this 
bill. I hope that whatever the Senate might do today, negotiations on 
these questions will continue. I am confident that if we can reach 
agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining 
issues can also be secured, allowing the bill to pass with overwhelming 
bipartisan support.
  So following up on some of the concerns I have raised this morning, I 
will yet today, if possible, offer a substitute that is much more 
likely to be accepted by the other body and then get to the President 
for signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
support for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. It is 
important that we are doing this early in the 113th Congress and 
unfortunate that we have to have this debate again. The Senate passed a 
nearly identical bill last April--a bill with strong bipartisan 
support--but the House failed to bring it up for a vote, allowing the 
law to expire at the end of last year.
  Many House Republicans opposed the Senate bill because it expanded 
VAWA protections to three groups: gays and lesbians, Native Americans, 
and undocumented immigrants. I support all three of these expansions.
  Today I want to again stress how crucial this measure is to Native 
American women. For the past 19 years, the Violence Against Women Act 
helped protect Native women from domestic violence, from sexual 
assault, and from stalking. This historic legislation has strengthened 
the prosecution of these crimes, and it has provided critical support 
to the victims.
  VAWA has long been bipartisan, with broad support. Democrats, 
Republicans, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, health 
professionals, all have supported this legislation. Why? Because it has 
worked. Since VAWA's passage in 1994, domestic violence has decreased 
by over 50 percent, and the victims of these crimes have been more 
willing to come forward, knowing they are not alone, knowing they will 
get the support they need, knowing that crimes against women will not 
be tolerated.
  Unfortunately, not all women have received the full benefits of the 
Violence Against Women Act. That is why the tribal provisions now are 
so important. Native American Women are 2\1/2\ times more likely than 
other U.S. women to be victims of rape. One in three will be sexually 
assaulted in their lifetimes. And it is estimated that three out of 
every five Native women will experience domestic violence.
  Those numbers are tragic. Those numbers tell a story of great human 
suffering, of women in desperate situations, desperate for support, and 
too often we have failed to provide that support. The frequency of 
violence against Native women is only part of the tragedy. Too often 
these crimes go unprosecuted and unpunished. Not only is violence 
inflicted but justice is denied.
  Here is the problem: Tribal governments are unable to prosecute non-
Indians for domestic violence crimes. They have no authority over these 
crimes against Native American spouses or partners within their own 
tribal lands.
  Instead, under existing law, these crimes fall exclusively under 
Federal jurisdiction. But Federal prosecutors have limited resources. 
They may be located hours away from tribal communities. Non-Indian 
perpetrators often go unpunished. Yet over 50 percent of Native women 
are married to non-Indians, and 76 percent of the overall population 
living on tribal lands is non-Indian.
  The result is an escalating cycle of violence. On some tribal lands, 
the homicide rate for Native women is up to 10 times the national 
average--10 times the national average. But this starts with small 
crimes, small acts of violence that may not rise to the attention of a 
Federal prosecutor.
  In 2006 and 2007, U.S. attorneys prosecuted only 45 misdemeanor 
crimes on tribal lands. For perspective, the Salt River Reservation in 
Arizona--which is relatively small--reported more than 450 domestic 
violence cases in 2006 alone. Those numbers are appalling.
  Native women should not be abandoned to a jurisdictional loophole. In 
effect, these women are living in a prosecution-free zone. The tribal 
provisions in VAWA will provide a remedy.
  The bill allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians in a narrow 
set of cases that meet the following specific conditions: The crime 
must have occurred in Indian country; the crime must be either a 
domestic violence or dating violence offense or a violation of a 
protective order; and the non-Indian defendant must reside in Indian 
country, be employed in Indian country, or be the spouse or intimate 
partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.
  This bill does not extend tribal jurisdiction to general crimes of 
violence by non-Indians. It does not apply to crimes between two non-
Indians, crimes between persons with no ties to the tribe. If they do 
not have any ties to the tribe, it does not apply. Nothing in this 
provision diminishes or alters the jurisdiction of any Federal or State 
court.
  I know some of my colleagues question whether a tribal court can 
provide the same protections to defendants that are guaranteed in a 
Federal or State court. The bill addresses this concern. It provides 
comprehensive protections to all criminal defendants who are prosecuted 
in tribal courts, whether or not the defendant is a Native American. 
Defendants would essentially have the same rights in tribal court as 
they do in State court. These include, among many others, the right to 
counsel, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process, the 
rights against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, and 
self-incrimination. A tribe that does not provide these protections 
cannot prosecute non-Indians under this provision.
  Some have also questioned whether Congress has the authority to 
expand tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover non-Indians. This issue 
was carefully considered in drafting the tribal jurisdiction 
provisions. The Indian Affairs and Judiciary Committees worked closely 
with the Department of Justice to ensure that the legislation is 
constitutional.
  As a former Federal prosecutor and attorney general of a State with a 
large Native American population, I know how difficult the legal maze 
can be for tribal communities. One result of this maze is unchecked 
crime. In situations where personnel and funding run thin and distances 
are long, violence often goes unpunished. This legislation will create 
a local solution for a local problem. Tribes have proven their 
effectiveness in combating domestic violence committed by Native 
Americans.
  But let me reiterate this very important point: Without an act of 
Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-Indian, even if he lives on the 
reservation, even if he is married to a tribal member. Without this act 
of Congress, tribes will continue to lack authority.
  This legislation will create a local solution for a local problem. 
Tribes have proven their effectiveness in combating domestic violence 
committed by Native Americans. But let me reiterate this very important 
point--without an act of Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-
Indian. Even if he lives on the reservation. Even if he is married to a 
tribal member. Without this act of Congress, tribes will continue to 
lack authority.
  This bill will also promote other important efforts to protect Native 
women from an epidemic of domestic violence, with increasing grants for 
tribal programs to address violence, with support for research on 
violence against Native women, and also by allowing Federal prosecutors 
to seek tougher sentences for perpetrators who

[[Page S489]]

strangle or suffocate their spouses or partners.
  All of these provisions are about justice. Right now, Native women do 
not get the justice they deserve. But these are strong women. They, 
rightly, demand to be heard. They have identified a desperate need and 
logical solutions. That is why Native women and tribal leaders across 
the Nation support the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and 
the proposed tribal provisions.
  There are many--far too many--stories of violence against Native 
women, and of the failure to protect them. Stories that should outrage 
us all. And that could end through local intervention. Local authority 
that will only be made possible through an act of Congress. We have the 
opportunity to support such an act in the tribal provisions of VAWA. 
With this bill we can close a dark and desperate loophole in criminal 
jurisdiction. Native women have waited too long already for justice. 
They should not have to wait any longer.
  Senator Leahy had asked that I put tribal statements in the Record. I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters from 
tribal and other organizations in support of the tribal provision in S. 
47, the Violence Against Women Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                            Pueblo of Tesuque,

                                   Santa Fe, NM, February 5, 2012.
     Re Support for S. 47, VAWA Reauthorization

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: I write on behalf of the Pueblo of 
     Tesuque to voice our strong support for S. 47, the Violence 
     Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013. This bill 
     will provide local tribal governments with the long-needed 
     control to combat acts of domestic violence against Native 
     women and children on Indian lands regardless of the status 
     of the offender.
       The current justice system in place on Indian lands 
     handcuffs the local tribal justice system. Non-Native men who 
     abuse Native women hide behind these federal laws and court 
     decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of 
     consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their 
     families.
       Nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5 
     times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women 
     will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will 
     suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     has found that the current system of justice, ``inadequate to 
     stop the pattern of escalating violence against Native 
     women.'' Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors 
     have testified to the fact that when misdemeanor acts of 
     domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become 
     emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate, 
     often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National 
     Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates 
     found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered 
     at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47 
     will crack down on reservation based domestic violence by all 
     offenders at the early stages before violence escalates.
       While the problem of violence against Native women is 
     longstanding and broad, the jurisdictional provisions 
     proposed in S. 47, Section 904, are well-reasoned and limited 
     in scope. They extend only to misdemeanor level crimes of 
     domestic and dating violence. They are limited to enforcement 
     of reservation-based crimes involving individuals that work 
     or live on an Indian reservation and who are in a serious 
     relationship with a tribal citizen from that reservation. S. 
     47 also provides the full range of constitutional protections 
     to abuse suspects who would be subject to the authority of 
     tribal courts.
       In June of 2010, the United States Senate, by unanimous 
     consent, passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). On July 
     27, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the measure 
     under suspension of the rules. The tribal provisions in S. 47 
     are subject to a more narrow set of crimes, are limited to 
     misdemeanor level punishments, and would provide a broader 
     range of protections to suspects of abuse than those required 
     under TLOA. With such broad support for TLOA, it is troubling 
     that some Members of Congress now claim that the narrowly 
     tailored proposal in S. 47 raises constitutional concerns. 
     Such concerns are unfounded.
       In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a similar 
     restoration of tribal government authority through an 
     amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act. Congress has this 
     authority, and Native women throughout the United States 
     desperately need us to act so that they can be afforded 
     similar access to justice that many others take for granted.
       In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding to divest 
     Indian tribes of authority over local reservation-based 
     crimes, made the following statement:
       ``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have 
     become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many 
     respects their state counterparts. . . . We are not unaware 
     of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations 
     which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try 
     non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to 
     weigh.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 
     211 (1978) (emphasis added).
       This statement and resulting gaps in criminal jurisdiction 
     on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal 
     communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come 
     for Congress to act. S. 47 takes reasonable well-tailored 
     measures to fill the gap in local authority, and will go far 
     in helping to prevent future acts of violence against Native 
     women nationwide. Thank you for again including these vital 
     provisions in your VAWA Reauthorization.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Mark Mitchell,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                         Samish Indian Nation,

                                  Anacortes, WA, February 4, 2012.
     Re Support for S. 47, VAWA Reauthorization

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: I write on behalf of the Samish Indian 
     Nation to voice our strong support for S. 47, the Violence 
     Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013. This bill 
     will provide local tribal governments with the long-needed 
     control to combat acts of domestic violence against Native 
     women and children on Indian lands regardless of the status 
     of the offender.
       The current justice system in place on Indian lands 
     handcuffs the local tribal justice system. Non-Native men who 
     abuse Native women hide behind these federal laws and court 
     decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of 
     consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their 
     families.
       Nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5 
     times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women 
     will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will 
     suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     has found that the current system of justice, ``inadequate to 
     stop the pattern of escalating violence against Native 
     women.'' Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors 
     have testified to the fact that when misdemeanor acts of 
     domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become 
     emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate, 
     often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National 
     Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates 
     found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered 
     at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47 
     will crack down on reservation based domestic violence by all 
     offenders at the early stages before violence escalates.
       While the problem of violence against Native women is 
     longstanding and broad, the jurisdictional provisions 
     proposed in S. 47, Section 904, are well-reasoned and limited 
     in scope. They extend only to misdemeanor level crimes of 
     domestic and dating violence. They are limited to enforcement 
     of reservation-based crimes involving individuals that work 
     or live on an Indian reservation and who are in a serious 
     relationship with a tribal citizen from that reservation. S. 
     47 also provides the full range of constitutional protections 
     to abuse suspects who would he subject to the authority of 
     tribal courts.
       In June of 2010, the United States Senate, by unanimous 
     consent, passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). On July 
     27, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the measure 
     under suspension of the rules. The tribal provisions in S. 47 
     are subject to a more narrow set of crimes, are limited to 
     misdemeanor level punishments, and would provide a broader 
     range of protections to suspects of abuse than those required 
     under TLOA. With such broad support for TLOA, it is troubling 
     that some Members of Congress now claim that the narrowly 
     tailored proposal in S. 47 raises constitutional concerns. 
     Such concerns are unfounded.
       In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a similar 
     restoration of tribal government authority through an 
     amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act. Congress has this 
     authority, and Native women throughout the United States 
     desperately need us to act so that they can be afforded 
     similar access to justice that many others take for granted.
       In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding to divest 
     Indian tribes of authority over local reservation-based 
     crimes, made the following statement:
       ``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have 
     become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many 
     respects their state counterparts. . . . We are not unaware 
     of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations 
     which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try 
     non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to 
     weigh.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 
     211 (1978) (emphasis added).
       This statement and resulting gaps in criminal jurisdiction 
     on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal 
     communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come 
     for Congress to act. S. 47 takes reasonable well-tailored 
     measures to fill the gap in local authority, and will go far 
     in helping to prevent future acts of violence against Native 
     women nationwide. Thank

[[Page S490]]

     you for again including these vital provisions in your VAWA 
     Reauthorization.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Wooten.
                                  ____

                                               Great Plains Tribal


                                       Chairman's Association,

                                 Rapid City, SD, February 4, 2013.
     Re Support for S. 47, VAWA Reauthorization

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: I write on behalf of the Great Plains 
     Tribal Chairman's Association to voice our strong support for 
     S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) 
     of 2013. This bill will provide local tribal governments with 
     the long-needed control to combat acts of domestic violence 
     against Native women and children on Indian lands regardless 
     of the status of the offender.
       The current justice system in place on Indian lands 
     handcuffs the local tribal justice system. Non-Native men who 
     abuse Native women hide behind these federal laws and court 
     decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of 
     consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their 
     families.
       Nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5 
     times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women 
     will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will 
     suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     has found that the current system of justice, ``inadequate to 
     stop the pattern of escalating violence against Native 
     women.'' Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors 
     have testified to the fact that when misdemeanor acts of 
     domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become 
     emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate, 
     often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National 
     Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates 
     found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered 
     at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47 
     will crack down on reservation based domestic violence by all 
     offenders at the early stages before violence escalates.
       While the problem of violence against Native women is 
     longstanding and broad, the jurisdictional provisions 
     proposed in S. 47, Section 904, are well-reasoned and limited 
     in scope. They extend only to misdemeanor level crimes of 
     domestic and dating violence. They are limited to enforcement 
     of reservation-based crimes involving individuals that work 
     or live on an Indian reservation and who are in a serious 
     relationship with a tribal citizen from that reservation. S. 
     47 also provides the full range of constitutional protections 
     to abuse suspects who would be subject to the authority of 
     tribal courts.
       In June of 2010, the United States Senate, by unanimous 
     consent, passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). On July 
     27, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the measure 
     under suspension of the rules. The tribal provisions in S. 47 
     are subject to a more narrow set of crimes, are limited to 
     misdemeanor level punishments, and would provide a broader 
     range of protections to suspects of abuse than those required 
     under TLOA. With such broad support for TLOA, it is troubling 
     that some Members of Congress now claim that the narrowly 
     tailored proposal in S. 47 raises constitutional concerns. 
     Such concerns are unfounded.
       In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a similar 
     restoration of tribal government authority through an 
     amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act. Congress has this 
     authority, and Native women throughout the United States 
     desperately need us to act so that they can be afforded 
     similar access to justice that many others take for granted.
       In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding to divest 
     Indian tribes of authority over local reservation-based 
     crimes, made the following statement:
       ``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have 
     become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many 
     respects their state counterparts. . . . We are not unaware 
     of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations 
     which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try 
     non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to 
     weigh.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 
     211 (1978) (emphasis added).
       This statement and resulting gaps in criminal jurisdiction 
     on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal 
     communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come 
     for Congress to act. S. 47 takes reasonable well-tailored 
     measures to fill the gap in local authority, and will go far 
     in ensuring domestic safety for Native women nationwide. We 
     urge you to support and vote for S. 47 when the measure moves 
     to the Senate floor. Thank you for your attention to this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
     Tex ``Red Tipped Arrow'' Hall,
       Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation, Three Affiliated 
     Tribes, Chairman, Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association.
                                  ____

                                      National Council of Juvenile


                                      and Family Court Judges,

                                       Reno, NV, February 4, 2013.
     Sen. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       To the Members of the U.S. Senate: On behalf of the 
     National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) 
     and its 2,000 members who represent the nation's 30,000 state 
     family and juvenile court judges, I am writing in support of 
     Title IX of S. 47, the bill to reauthorize the Violence 
     Against Women Act. In particular, I am writing to apprise you 
     of the NCJFCJ's strong support for the recognition of tribes' 
     need for and sovereign authority to establish tribal courts 
     to address the epidemic of domestic violence on tribal lands.
       On January 21, 2011, the NCJFCJ adopted an organizational 
     policy that states that we recognize tribal courts as equal 
     and parallel systems of justice to the state court systems. 
     We did so because our state court judge members have a strong 
     history of working with tribal courts and are aware of their 
     capacity to adjudicate local cases of domestic violence. Our 
     organization has long supported the efforts of tribal courts 
     to address these crimes, whether these crimes are committed 
     by Indian or non-Indian persons, in order to protect the 
     safety of the victims of these crimes, their family members, 
     and the local community.
       In our role as state court judges working alongside tribal 
     lands, we are in a unique position to see the shortcomings of 
     the current system of justice afforded to the tribes through 
     the federal district courts. Currently, only the U.S. 
     Attorneys can prosecute these cases--but they seldom do, 
     because there are not enough U.S. Attorneys to handle these 
     cases and because in many cases the nearest office of the 
     U.S. Attorney is several hundred miles away. The remote 
     locations of many tribal communities create serious obstacles 
     to access for victims of these crimes. They have no way to 
     get to federal court and the federal court has no capacity to 
     reach out to these geographically distant communities. Yet we 
     know how dangerous domestic violence cases can be, and cannot 
     stand by and let these crimes go unaddressed. Too many lives 
     are at risk; too many victims and children are left to suffer 
     because the only system of justice afforded to them is 
     utterly out of reach.
       We believe that the provisions contained in S. 47 create an 
     excellent path for supporting a system of tribal courts that 
     can quickly, appropriately, and fairly respond to the 
     epidemic of domestic violence on tribal lands. We base this 
     belief on the long history NCJFCJ has had in providing 
     training and technical assistance to tribal courts. There is 
     a dedication and willingness on the part of both tribal and 
     state courts to build the best possible system of justice for 
     Native victims of domestic violence. We ask the Senate to 
     recognize the appropriateness of tribal courts' providing 
     protection to their most vulnerable community members. In the 
     interests of justice for all, we ask you to vote for S. 47 so 
     that its tribal provisions can become law.
       If you have any questions, we stand ready to answer with 
     whatever information you may need.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Michael Nash,

                                    President, National Council of
     Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
                                  ____



                                  Susanville Indian Rancheria,

                                 Susanville, CA, February 4, 2013.
     Re Support for S. 47, VAWA Reauthorization

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: I write on behalf of the Susanville 
     Indian Rancheria to voice our strong support for S. 47, the 
     Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013. 
     This bill will provide local tribal governments with the 
     long-needed control to combat acts of domestic violence 
     against Native women and children on Indian lands regardless 
     of the status of the offender.
       The current justice system in place on Indian lands 
     handcuffs the local tribal justice system. Non-Native men who 
     abuse Native women hide behind these federal laws and court 
     decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of 
     consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their 
     families.
       Nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5 
     times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women 
     will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will 
     suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     has found that the current system of justice, ``inadequate to 
     stop the pattern of escalating violence against Native 
     women.'' Tribal leaders, police officers, and prosecutors 
     have testified to the fact that when misdemeanor acts of 
     domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become 
     emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate, 
     often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National 
     Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates 
     found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered 
     at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47 
     will crack down on reservation based domestic violence by all 
     offenders at the early stages before violence escalates.
       While the problem of violence against Native women is 
     longstanding and broad, the jurisdictional provisions 
     proposed in S. 47, Section 904, are well-reasoned and limited 
     in scope. They extend only to misdemeanor level crimes of 
     domestic and dating violence. They are limited to enforcement 
     of reservation-based crimes involving individuals that

[[Page S491]]

     work or live on an Indian reservation and who are in a 
     serious relationship with a tribal citizen from that 
     reservation. S. 47 also provides the full range of 
     constitutional protections to abuse suspects who would be 
     subject to the authority of tribal courts.
       In June of 2010, the United States Senate, by unanimous 
     consent, passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). On July 
     27, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the measure 
     under suspension of the rules. The tribal provisions in S. 47 
     are subject to a more narrow set of crimes, are limited to 
     misdemeanor level punishments, and would provide a broader 
     range of protections to suspects of abuse than those required 
     under TLOA. With such broad support for TLOA, it is troubling 
     that some Members of Congress now claim that the narrowly 
     tailored proposal in S. 47 raises constitutional concerns. 
     Such concerns are unfounded.
       In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a similar 
     restoration of tribal government authority through an 
     amendment to the Indian Civil Rights Act. Congress has this 
     authority, and Native women throughout the United States 
     desperately need us to act so that they can be afforded 
     similar access to justice that many others take for granted.
       In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding to divest 
     Indian tribes of authority over local reservation-based 
     crimes, made the following statement:
       ``We recognize that some Indian tribal court systems have 
     become increasingly sophisticated and resemble in many 
     respects their state counterparts. . . . We are not unaware 
     of the prevalence of non-Indian crime on today's reservations 
     which the tribes forcefully argue requires the ability to try 
     non-Indians. But these are considerations for Congress to 
     weigh.'' Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 
     211 (1978) (emphasis added).
       This statement and resulting gaps in criminal jurisdiction 
     on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal 
     communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come 
     for Congress to act. S. 47 takes reasonable well-tailored 
     measures to fill the gap in local authority, and will go far 
     in helping to prevent future acts of violence against Native 
     women nationwide. Thank you for again including these vital 
     provisions in your VAWA Reauthorization.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Stacy Dixon,
                                                  Tribal Chairman.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I know my colleague, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, is here today--another prosecutor, another 
Senator who knows the importance of this law. I very much appreciate 
her hard work in terms of bringing justice to tribal communities and 
bringing justice to women across this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to first thank the Senator from 
New Mexico for his great leadership on this issue. This is a national 
issue. It is a bipartisan issue. It crosses geographic lines. Those of 
us who have significant tribal communities know how important these 
provisions are to this bill.
  We tried very hard on the Judiciary Committee to make sure this bill 
is consistent with the bipartisan work we have done in the past, but we 
also saw it as an opportunity to consolidate some of the programs to 
save money and then to look at areas where we needed to be more 
sophisticated, where we needed to respond to changing issues in the 
law. Certainly, the tribal jurisdiction issue was one of those major 
issues.
  I rise today to talk about the importance of this bill. It is a law 
that has changed the way we think about violence against women in the 
United States of America. The Violence Against Women Act is one of the 
great legislative success stories in the criminal area in the last few 
decades. Since it was first passed in 1994, annual domestic violence 
rates have fallen by 50 percent. Now, you usually cannot say that about 
criminal prosecution efforts. I usually do not have that kind of 
number. But that is what we have--since 1994, a 50-percent difference 
in domestic violence rates.
  People have stopped looking at the issue of domestic violence as a 
family issue, and they have started treating domestic violence and 
sexual assault as the serious crimes they are. Last year Minnesota 
recorded the lowest number of domestic-related deaths since 1991--down 
from 34 in 2011 to 18. This is in no small part due to the Violence 
Against Women Act. Women have more access to intervention programs, and 
they feel more empowered to come forward.
  I know in my own county, where I was chief prosecutor for 8 years, 
thanks to the good work of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, and my 
predecessor Mike Freeman, we set up one of the most unique domestic 
violence service centers in the country. It has been a model for the 
rest of the country. Under my leadership, we also made changes to it to 
advance it to even higher levels. But the point is that it is a one-
stop shop for the victims of domestic violence, so they can come in, 
see a prosecutor, see a cop, have a place for their kids to play, be 
able to find a shelter and a place to live, all under one roof instead 
of walking through the maze of the bureaucracy in the Government 
Center.
  Both prevention and prosecution of domestic violence work were among 
my top priorities as a prosecutor. I know we have done good work, but 
there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.
  According to a recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, 
physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in this country. 
Approximately one in four women has experienced severe physical 
violence by an intimate partner at some point in her lifetime, and 45 
percent of the women killed in the United States are killed by their 
partner. Every year close to 17,000 people still lose their lives to 
domestic violence. These statistics mean that sexual assault, domestic 
violence, and stalking are still problems in America. That is why it is 
so important that we move quickly to take up this bill.
  Just like the two prior authorizations in 2000 and 2006, this bill 
strengthens current law and provides solutions to problems that we have 
learned more about since VAWA first passed in 1994.
  The Senate bill continues a tradition of bipartisan sponsorship, with 
60 cosponsors, including 7 Republicans. As we know, last April the 
Senate approved this bill by a 68-to-31 vote. All 17 women Senators--I 
see my colleague Senator Murkowski here from Alaska. We thank her for 
her support and vote for that bill. This truly brought the women of the 
Senate together to stand up against domestic violence.
  What does this bill do that is different from the last bill? Well, it 
consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. It provides 
greater flexibility for the use of grant money. It has new training 
requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims. As I 
mentioned, it takes important steps to address the disproportionately 
high domestic violence rates in Native American communities.
  I am disappointed that we were unable to include the modest increase 
in U visas for immigrant victims of domestic violence. There were 
technical objections to including that provision. It was removed in 
order to improve our chances of getting this bill done once and for 
all. U visas are an important tool for encouraging victims to come 
forward. I will press to increase the number of U visas available to 
victims when we work on the comprehensive immigration reform bill in 
the spring.
  One thing I wish to note about this bill is that it closes many gaps 
in the current system, ways to improve the current system. There was a 
bill I introduced with Senator Hutchison to address high-tech stalking, 
cases where stalkers use technology such as the Internet, video 
surveillance, and bugging to stalk victims. This is not something we 
probably would be talking about if I were standing here in 1994, but 
here in 2013, we know it is an issue. We have seen cases across the 
Nation of this kind of video surveillance and Internet bugging. In 
fact, we had a very high profile case involving a high profile 
newscaster who was willing to come forward and work with House and 
Senate authors on this bill. We are very pleased to have had the 
support from the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association, National Sheriffs' Association, and the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police. They have all endorsed 
this bill.
  This provision, the high-tech stalking provision, is included in the 
Violence Against Women Act, so we are very happy about that. Again, I 
believe our laws have to be as sophisticated as those who are breaking 
them. If they are using the Internet, if they are spying with video 
cameras through peepholes, we have to be able to respond to that.
  I wanted to end by telling a story I told when we first started to 
consider this bill over a year ago. A year ago,

[[Page S492]]

over the holidays, I went to one of the saddest funerals I ever 
attended. It was the funeral for Shawn Schneider. He was a Lake City 
police officer in Minneapolis. I have since gotten to know his widow. 
He died responding to a domestic violence case. He went up to the door. 
He had received a call from the 17-year-old victim--the department had. 
He went up there to that door, and he got shot in the head. His 
bulletproof vest did not protect him. Nothing protected him. When I was 
sitting in that church and saw his three little children, including 
that little girl in her little blue dress covered in stars, I thought 
to myself at that moment, the victims of domestic abuse are not just 
one victim. It is an entire family. It is an entire community. So in 
their honor today, in the honor of those children, I would like us to 
have strong bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. I 
believe we can do it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters 
from law enforcement and criminal justice organizations in support of 
S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         AEquitas, the Prosecutors' Resource on Violence Against 
           Women,
                                 Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Committee on Judiciary, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member 
     Grassley and Ranking Member Conyers: On behalf of AEquitas: 
     The Prosecutors' Resource on Violence Against Women, in 
     support for the Violence Against Women Act's (VAWA) 
     reauthorization. AEquitas' mission is to improve the quality 
     of justice in sexual violence, intimate partner violence, 
     stalking, and human trafficking cases by developing, 
     evaluating and refining prosecution practices that increase 
     victim safety and offender accountability.
       VAWA has unquestionably improved the nation's justice 
     system response to the devastating crimes of sexual violence, 
     intimate partner violence, and stalking. This critical 
     legislation must be reauthorized to ensure a continued 
     response to these crimes.
       Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has improved the 
     criminal justice system's ability to keep victims safe and 
     hold perpetrators accountable. As a result of this historic 
     legislation, every state has enacted laws making stalking a 
     crime and strengthened criminal rape and sexual assault 
     statutes.
       VAWA has undoubtedly had a positive impact on the efforts 
     of prosecutors to hold offenders accountable while supporting 
     victim safety. We urge Congress to reauthorize VAWA to build 
     upon its successes and to expand its ability to improve our 
     response to these crimes, hold perpetrators accountable, and 
     keep victims and their children safe from future harm.
       Thank you for your leadership and steadfast commitment to 
     supporting victims of sexual violence, intimate partner 
     violence, and stalking. We look forward to hearing of VAWA's 
     swift reauthorization. If you have any questions, please feel 
     free to contact me.
     Sincerely,
                                           Jennifer G. Long, J.D.,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                            American Probation and


                                           Parole Association,

                                  Lexington, KY, February 1, 2013.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Mike Crapo,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Crapo: The American Probation and 
     Parole Association (APPA) represents over 35,000 pretrial, 
     probation, parole and community corrections professionals 
     working in the criminal and juvenile justice systems 
     nationally and come from federal, state, local and tribal 
     jurisdictions. On behalf of our membership and constituents 
     we whole-heartedly support your efforts to have the Violence 
     Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorized.
       The VAWA initiatives have supported state, local and tribal 
     efforts to effectively address the crimes of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. These 
     efforts have shown great progress and promise towards keeping 
     victims safe and holding perpetrators accountable. The 
     reauthorization of VAWA is critical to maintaining the 
     progress of current initiatives and ensuring comprehensive 
     and effective responses to these crimes in the future for the 
     protection of all victims without consideration of race, 
     ethnicity or sexual orientation.
       Domestic violence perpetrators represent a significant 
     proportion of the total population on community supervision. 
     In 200 8 there were nearly 86,000 adults on probation for a 
     domestic violence offense in United States, and data from the 
     California Department of Justice indicates that in 2000 
     approximately 90 % of adults convicted of felony domestic 
     violence offenses in that state were sentenced to a period of 
     probation, either alone or coupled with incarceration. 
     Domestic violence offenders are among the most dangerous 
     offenders on community supervision caseloads, and in order to 
     supervise domestic violence offenders effectively, community 
     corrections professionals must receive adequate training.
       Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has been 
     instrumental in increasing our constituents' attention to and 
     understanding of these crimes as well as provided significant 
     assistance in humanizing their responsiveness to victims and 
     improving their practices related to accountability and 
     intervention with perpetrators of these crimes. VAWA has 
     without question been instrumental in developing community 
     supervision practices that keep victims and their families 
     safe from future harm and improved compliance and behavioral 
     change for perpetrators.
       We stand ready to assist you throughout the reauthorization 
     process. If you have any questions or require further 
     information or assistance, please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Carl Wicklund,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    Association of


                                        Prosecuting Attorneys,

                                 Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: On behalf of the Association of 
     Prosecuting Attorneys, which represents and supports all 
     prosecutors, I am writing today regarding the Violence 
     Against Women Act's (VAWA) reauthorization. VAWA has improved 
     the criminal justice system's response to the devastating 
     crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault 
     and stalking. The reauthorization of this critical 
     legislation ensures a continued response to these crimes.
       Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has dramatically 
     enhanced our nation's response to violence against women. 
     More victims report domestic violence to the police, the rate 
     of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has 
     decreased by 63%, and VAWA saved nearly $14.8 billion in net 
     averted social costs in just the first six years.
       The reauthorization of VAWA builds upon existing efforts to 
     more effectively combat violence against all victims. The 
     reauthorization of VAWA renews a range of important programs 
     and initiatives for law enforcement to address the various 
     causes and far-reaching consequences of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. VAWA 
     Reauthorization will further build upon the successes of 
     these programs by including measures to ensure an increased 
     focus on sexual assault prevention, enforcement, and 
     services; and providing assistance to law enforcement to take 
     key steps to reduce backlogs of rape kits under their 
     control.
       VAWA has undoubtedly had a positive impact on the efforts 
     of law enforcement agencies nationwide to keep victims and 
     their children safe and hold perpetrators accountable. Thank 
     you for your leadership and steadfast commitment to 
     supporting victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
     sexual assault, and stalking. We look forward to hearing of 
     VAWA's swift reauthorization. If you have any questions, feel 
     free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Steven Jansen,
     Vice President/COO.
                                  ____

                                             Board of Supervisors,


                                      County of Santa Barbara,

                              Santa Barbara, CA, January 31, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the Santa 
     Barbara County Board of Supervisors to urge you to take 
     action on legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against 
     Women Act (VAWA).
       Thank you for introducing S. 47, the Violence Against Women 
     Reauthorization Act. Programs authorized by VAWA have saved 
     lives as well as providing resources and training needed in 
     communities like Santa Barbara County to address these 
     reprehensible crimes, and the Board recognizes the importance 
     of reauthorizing and enhancing the resources provided by this 
     important public safety program.
       The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act would expand 
     the law's focus on sexual assault and help ensure access to 
     services for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It 
     also responds to these difficult economic times by 
     consolidating programs, focusing on the most effective 
     approaches, and adding accountability measures to ensure that 
     Federal funds are used efficiently and effectively.
       The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because 
     it has consistently had

[[Page S493]]

     strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. Please work 
     with the members of your committee to expedite action on S. 
     47 or similar legislation to reauthorize VAWA.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Thomas P. Walters,
     Washington Representative.
                                  ____



                                     American Bar Association,

                                    Chicago, IL, January 30, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael D. Crapo,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Crapo: On behalf of the American 
     Bar Association (ABA), with nearly 400,000 members across the 
     country, I write to commend your continued bipartisan 
     leadership in the cause of justice and equal rights with the 
     introduction of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
     Act of 2013. The ABA strongly supports your effort to renew 
     proven and effective programs that support victims of 
     domestic, sexual, stalking and dating violence and their 
     families.
       The ABA has long supported efforts to address domestic, 
     sexual and stalking violence, and we recognize that the legal 
     profession fulfills an important role in addressing these 
     crimes. Since 1994, the ABA's Commission on Domestic & Sexual 
     Violence has also worked to increase access to justice for 
     victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking by 
     mobilizing the legal profession.
       In recent years, the ABA has adopted policies that 
     specifically address VAWA reauthorization, including some of 
     the more challenging issues that ultimately proved to be 
     barriers to reauthorization during the last Congress:
       February 2010: urging reauthorization and highlighting the 
     need for legislation that ``provides services, protection, 
     and justice for underserved and vulnerable victims of 
     violence, including children and youth who are victims or are 
     witnesses to family violence, and victims who are disabled, 
     elderly, immigrant, trafficked, LGBT and/or Indian.''
       August 2012: urging Congress ``to strengthen tribal 
     jurisdiction to address crimes of gender-based violence on 
     tribal lands that are committed by non-Indian perpetrators.''
       VAWA reauthorization was a legislative priority for the 
     association during the 112th Congress and a focus of our 
     annual grassroots lobbying event, ABA Day 2012, when ABA, 
     state, local, and specialty bar leaders from al l 50 states 
     met with members of Congress of both parties on this issue.
       VAWA reauthorization remains a priority for the American 
     Bar Association during the 113th Congress. We appreciate your 
     leadership and look forward to working with you to ensure 
     passage of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Laurel G. Bellows.
                                  ____



                                 Attorney General of Missouri,

                             Jefferson City, MO, February 6, 2013.
       Dear Members of Congress: In 1994, this nation's leaders 
     enacted the Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA''). This 
     landmark piece of legislation put in place a legal framework 
     that better enabled states like Missouri to effectively 
     investigate violent crimes against women, prosecute and 
     punish offenders, and protect victims from further harm. In 
     the decades since VAWA's enactment, Congress has twice voted 
     to reauthorize the law. With each reauthorization, Congress 
     not only strengthened the provisions of the law, it also 
     reaffirmed this country's commitment to support survivors of 
     personal violence and sexual assault. It is time to do so 
     again.
       Missouri women and their families rely on the programs and 
     services that VAWA makes possible. For example, non-profit, 
     community, and faith-based organizations use federal funds 
     directed through VAWA's Sexual Assault Services Program to 
     provide vital support to victims of sexual assault. And 
     Missouri prosecutors, police officers, and court personnel 
     participate in training funded through the STOP (Services 
     Training Officers Prosecutors) program, equipping them to 
     better address violent crime against women.
       But the work is just beginning. In 2011, over 40,000 
     incidents of domestic violence were reported in Missouri. 
     Thirty women were killed by their husbands or boyfriends. 
     Missouri women reported more than 1,400 forcible rapes or 
     attempted forcible rapes. And although over 10,000 women in 
     need were able to find a place at a shelter, nearly 20,000 
     more were turned away.
       By reauthorizing VAWA, this Congress will continue the 
     effort undertaken nearly twenty years ago--the effort to 
     eliminate violent crime perpetrated against our mothers, our 
     sisters, our daughters, our neighbors, and our friends. I 
     urge each of you to support this important legislation.
           Respectfully,
                                                     Chris Koster,
                              Attorney General, State of Missouri.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, first I would like to follow my 
colleague from Minnesota in voicing my support for passage of the 
Violence Against Women Act. As she noted, I have been a cosponsor of 
this very important legislation not only this Congress but last. I have 
urged on multiple occasions that we move forward with reauthorization 
of this very significant legislation, have urged the House to do the 
same last year. They failed to do that.
  You do not give up when the cause is right. This is far too important 
to too many around the country. My colleague has cited some of the 
statistics and the issues and the initiatives she worked on when she 
was back home in her home State of Minnesota. It is something I think 
we all share--a concern for the levels of domestic violence within our 
respective States. In a State such as Alaska where we have so much to 
be proud of, unfortunately our statistics as they relate to domestic 
violence are appalling. Appalling.
  So anything that we can do, whether it is here in Washington, DC, at 
the local level, the State level, we must do. We need to act here. So I 
join not only my colleague from Minnesota but so many who have led the 
charge here to do right as we work to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act. I will have an opportunity to speak more on the VAWA 
reauthorization later.


               Decision by the Department of the Interior

  I wanted to take some time this morning to come to the floor to speak 
about an issue that has absolutely inflamed me this week. This week I 
learned that the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the 
Interior has made a decision to deny the construction of a single-lane 
gravel emergency access road through a very, very tiny portion of a 
national wildlife refuge located on the Alaska Peninsula in southwest 
Alaska.
  You might think, well, why is this such a big deal? You have heard me 
here on the floor or others here in this body have certainly heard me 
many times advocate on behalf of Alaska and the development of our 
resources to benefit the people of Alaska, to benefit the country as a 
whole. This is not a development project I am talking about here today. 
What I am addressing today is the health and the safety--the safety of 
the residents of a small Aleut community located in the Aleutian 
Islands. These are 748 people who really do not have the audiences so 
many constituents in Alaska or in other parts of the country enjoy.
  They are kind of out of sight, out of mind, if you will. They are not 
out of sight, out of mind, out of my heart.
  One of the most important responsibilities we have as U.S. Senators, 
as Members of Congress, is to protect the safety of those people we 
represent.
  I wish to tell the story of King Cove, AK, and what is going on. You 
have seen the picture of the map of Alaska, the big beautiful State. I 
don't have it superimposed over the rest of the lower 48, because my 
point today is not to talk about how big we are in comparison to the 
rest of the Nation as a whole but to put in context what we are talking 
about here when we talk about the community of King Cove, AK.
  You have the Aleutian peninsula here that stretches out approximately 
1,000 miles. You might not appreciate the length and scope we are 
talking about here, but the Aleutian chain is just exactly that.
  King Cove is right on the end of this peninsula area in this diagram. 
It is kind of out there. When I say ``kind of out there,'' there is 
nothing else around there. There are no roads that connect you to get 
anywhere when you want to go to ``town.'' Town is Anchorage, AK, 
probably about 600 miles away, maybe even a little bit longer. It is 
most likely a $1,000 airplane ticket to get there. That puts it in 
context here. This is King Cove, AK.
  To put it in a little better context as to what we are speaking 
about, this is the community of King Cove right on the end of this 
lagoon, this bay. All the way around the other side of the bay is an 
area called Cold Bay. Cold Bay was designated during World War II as an 
air base this country relied on. During the war, they constructed a 
10,000-foot runway. It is the second longest runway in the State of 
Alaska right now, and it is in pretty good shape. It is used as a 
divert runway. NASA uses it as one of its divert places. It is a pretty 
good solid airport.
  Keep in mind, Cold Bay has about 100, maybe 110 people on a good day 
who live there. Around here, King Cove is an Aleut community. It has 
been

[[Page S494]]

around for maybe 1,000 years, maybe a couple of thousand years. It has 
been around a long time. The Aleut people have lived in this part of 
the country for thousands of years. This community now is host to about 
748 people, give or take. During the fishing season you might get it up 
as high as possibly 1,000 people. It is not a booming metropolis by any 
stretch of the imagination.
  King Cove, as you can see, is kind of isolated. There is water all 
around it. That is fair, that is good. This is a situation where this 
community is ringed by mountains.
  I have a picture here of King Cove. When you look at the location of 
the water, you see where the mountains are. These are pretty fjord-
like. These are not timid and tame mountains. These are the types of 
mountains that get your attention when you are flying in.
  The air strip here for King Cove sits right back up in this area. You 
need to come through these high mountains on all sides. When the cloud 
layer is low, as it usually is in this area, there are some issues as 
to whether you have a safe fly-out range.
  There are clouds, not only cross currents that hit as you are coming 
into the airport, but you also have the downdraft coming off these very 
strong, very prominent mountains. This type of downdraft causes 
turbulence that particularly impacts helicopters which might be coming 
into this community for a rescue.
  Again, as you look at the options of getting in and out of King Cove, 
your airport sits about here. You are rimmed with mountains. You may 
either fly in up this way or you may fly in and out that way. Either 
way you cut it, you are moving through very high mountainous terrain 
with winds on all sides coming from above, clouds coming from below. It 
is as tricky and as difficult a navigational issue as about anywhere in 
the State.
  Going back to where King Cove sits in the ocean here, weather comes 
in off the Bering Sea up here and there is weather that comes up from 
the Gulf of Alaska here. It all kind of comes together right around the 
Aleutians. The Aleutians are known to be one of the areas, at least in 
this country, of--excuse the expression, but we call it snotty weather. 
It is foul weather too many times of the year, not just in the winter.
  We saw last month the incident with Shell's vessel trying to move 
from Unalaska across the Gulf of Alaska during January and encountering 
seas of up to 40 feet. This is the weather we deal with in Alaska. 
There are difficult seas, and there are difficult flying situations. 
Yet there are people who call King Cove home and have for thousands of 
years.
  You might ask why I am spending so much time talking about the 
weather. It sets the stage for this action the Department of Interior 
has taken and why I feel this decision is so wrongheaded, so 
shortsighted, and so wrong to the people who call this area home.
  Talking again about the weather and what it means, when you are in a 
small community that doesn't have a hospital--you don't have a hospital 
if there are 748 people. We have an IHS clinic, an Indian Health 
Service clinic. To provide for health needs is a community health aid, 
and we might have a PA every now and again, but not always reliably. We 
actually did have a doctor out in King Cove some years ago. He was 
there in 2006, and he left after 6 months. We don't have the medical 
assistance we need. When somebody suffers a heart attack, when a woman 
has a complication with a pregnancy, it is not as if you can stay there 
in King Cove and seek medical help.
  What happens? They have to get out. Well, how do they get out? They 
can get out by boat. They can move around by boat from King Cove over 
to Cold Bay, where we have the second largest runway in the State of 
Alaska. It seems like a pretty simple situation. The problem is that a 
boat is about as dangerous oftentimes as flying. What happens is if you 
have weather this stinky, it raises the waves, making getting a fishing 
vessel across with a sick person, trying to get them to the dock on 
Cold Bay side and out of that vessel, a harrowing event.
  This is a picture we took from a video which had been taken by the 
residents of King Cove. It might be difficult to see this, but what you 
are looking at here is a steel ladder, a ladder going up the side of 
the dock. It is about a 20-foot area there. Way down at the bottom here 
you see the base of a fishing vessel. What they are trying to do is to 
haul a sick, elderly gentleman up this metal ladder in the rain, sleet, 
and snow that is coming. You have a boat that is pitching and heaving 
here, with somebody up at the top of the dock ready to pick up this 
individual underneath their arms and haul them up onto the dock. This 
is not a condition you want if you are feeling at all poorly. The 
fishing vessel isn't helping, so maybe we could do something else. 
Congress back in 2005 said maybe we could put a hovercraft there so it 
can fly the waters between this point here and Cold Bay over here, 
because there is a road that can take you right along here and take you 
across to the water.
  The problem was not only the seas wouldn't accommodate, but also the 
operational costs were through the roof. It made no sense, and the 
people in King Cove and Cold Bay had acknowledged it was not going to 
make any sense. They tried it, they were game, but it hasn't worked.
  What happened was action needed to be taken because we were seeing 
too many people whose lives were at risk. We were seeing too many 
people who were killed trying to get out in an effort to seek the 
medical help they needed.
  At some point in time you say this doesn't work. When you have a way 
out, and it could be a simple road, why wouldn't we do that to address 
the life safety of the people who live here?
  Back in 1979 and 1980, there were a number of airplane crashes that 
happened as they were trying to take off and land in King Cove. In 1981 
we had a medevac plane go down. We lost a nurse, her helper, the 
patient, and the medevac's pilot--all killed. They were trying to 
airlift an individual who had suffered a heart attack. Everybody was 
killed.
  In 2010, there was an airplane crash that occurred well on landing 
into King Cove. Della Trumble, who has long been an advocate for a 
solution to help the people of King Cove, was watching that plane land 
because her daughter was coming home. To be sitting there at the air 
strip, watching the plane come in to deliver your daughter, knowing the 
weather is foul, knowing the conditions are sketchy, and then seeing 
that airplane crash in front of your eyes--fortunately for Della and 
her daughter, she walked away. Think about that trauma.
  In February of 2011, the Coast Guard was forced to dispatch a 
helicopter out of Kodiak, moving a helicopter from Kodiak over to King 
Cove. They were trying to transfer a 73-year-old woman who was 
suffering from chest pains. A few days later the Coast Guard tried and 
failed to reach King Cove with a helicopter to airlift an 80-year-old 
woman who was also suffering chest pains. Fortunately, she survived. 
Two days later, there was another medical airlift that was delayed 6 
hours from leaving.
  I just received the statistics from the Coast Guard for last year. 
How many rescue missions did the Coast Guard take on to go into King 
Cove to help those who needed help--not because the medevacs didn't 
want to go help or because it was going to be too costly--because the 
medevacs refused to go in because they will not take those risks.
  What do we do? We call on our fabulous Coast Guard to come in and do 
the job. It was five times last year. It is scary work. The Coast Guard 
does it, and fortunately nobody was killed last year. How many people 
need to be killed when you have an option for a road to get you to the 
second longest runway in the State of Alaska?
  Let me share with others what it is we actually did to address this 
problem. We said this is not acceptable. Five years ago this Congress 
approved a land exchange. In that exchange the Aleut people and the 
State of Alaska agreed to give up 56,400 acres of prized waterfowl 
habitat. They said, okay, we are going to give up 56,000 acres here to 
add to the Alaska peninsula and Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. We 
are going to trade this and, in return, the government will give back 
about 1,800 acres.
  Do the quick math on this. This is a 300-to-1 exchange the people 
agreed to,

[[Page S495]]

and it is even less when we isolate it. We are talking about 206 acres 
that are at issue--206 acres to allow for construction of a one-lane 
gravel road that will have no commercial use. This is to be used for 
emergency access. If someone needs to get out of King Cove because they 
have some kind of a condition, all they would need to do is drive 20 
miles--20 miles. Think about that. We drive 20 miles to get from here 
to wherever. We drive all the time and we don't think about it. We are 
talking about 20 miles to save people's lives.
  But it is even better than that. Because when we are talking about 
what we are putting through a refuge, it is about a 10-mile road. I 
hate to even describe it as a road. It is a one-lane gravel area 
through this lagoon we are talking about and not for commercial use. We 
have agreed to this. In exchange for this 10-mile road, we said: We are 
going to give the Federal Government 56,400 acres to add to a 
wilderness area. What a deal--what a deal.
  I hope you can see this, Mr. President, because it is important to 
understand what we are talking about. This area in the black is what 
would be subject to the exchange. This is what is going into the 
wilderness area. All this, plus other acreage that is not shown on this 
map, in exchange for these red corridors here--about 206 acres.
  So back in 2009 we figured in the Senate and over in the House it was 
important to address the safety needs of the people of King Cove, and 
if we could do that by allowing for 10 miles, 11 miles of new road 
through the Izembek Refuge, we could solve a lot of problems. Again, I 
reiterate, this road is specifically not allowed to be used for 
economic development. In the omnibus bill we passed the language is 
specific: ``Primarily for health and safety purposes and only for 
noncommercial purposes.''
  There were some who were so concerned we were going to see a volume 
of traffic going back and forth between this community of 748 people 
and the 110 people over here and that somehow there was going to be 
this wild traffic going back and forth that was going to disturb the 
migratory waterfowl, the birds that come through here, the animals in 
this refuge area. I think it is important to recognize this is not an 
area that has never been tracked by man; that has never seen a 
presence. Again, I will remind my colleagues, this was an Air Force 
base in World War II. This is the second largest runway in the State. 
This is an area that has seen traffic through vehicles, ATVs, over the 
years because of the war.
  In this chart, we can see the red tracks here. These are all the 
areas where all-terrain vehicle use is currently in play, and this has 
been in play since 2005 to 2008. Then the areas that are kind of red 
dotted are the predicted ATV vehicle travel corridor. We can see this 
is all within the Izembek Refuge area, the wilderness area. So it is 
not as if this is without any kind of access that is in place.
  If we look at this next picture, this is an example of what we are 
talking about with this proposed road. It is out in the middle of some 
pretty amazing, sweeping landscape, as we can see. But the road is 
pretty much a one-lane gravel road. There is not going to be any stuff 
such as street lights. There are not going to be any dividers, 
meridians, sidewalks. There will not be any overpasses. This is pretty 
much what we are talking about here.
  This next chart shows the existing trails that are currently within 
the refuge area. Again, it is pretty much a small, narrow, one-track 
road. It is not like we are going to be able to pass one another moving 
through the area.
  The last picture I wish to show is a view of what the area looks 
like. It is amazingly flat. It is surrounded by a lagoon area. It is 
beautiful, absolutely. But these are roads that are currently in 
existence in the area now. So what we are talking about doing is 
adding--adding--about a 10-mile strip that would allow us to connect 
the roads that exist in Cold Bay to connect to a community that needs 
to have an emergency way out that is safe. They need to be able to 
connect to those who are on the other side of this lagoon, and the way 
to do it is this simple road.
  I have mentioned the concern about the waterfowl, and this is why the 
Secretary of the Interior called me and he said: I listened to the 
biologists, and the biologists tell me the best way to respect this 
refuge is to not allow any road, to not allow any road so we can 
respect the refuge. He listened to the biologists, but the Secretary of 
the Interior did not listen to the people of Alaska. He did not listen 
to the people of King Cove. He did not even accept a meeting with them 
the numerous times they have asked to meet with him. They have flown 
across country to make their case. But he listened to the biologists 
because he wants to respect the refuge, and, instead, the lives of 
these people are not being respected.
  If this is the attitude of this Department of Interior--that we are 
going to respect the animals and we are going to respect the birds, but 
we are not going to respect the people who live there--then this is the 
wrong way to be going. This is the wrong way to be going, and I will 
not stand for it.
  I want to make sure we have refuge areas. I want to make sure we have 
wilderness areas. In this exchange we adopted 5 years ago, we allowed 
for that. We are putting in place wilderness area--the first new 
wilderness area designated by Congress in a generation, with 45,456 
acres of prime waterfowl habitat added to wilderness in Alaska. But you 
know what, that is gone. Those lands will not remain in wilderness 
designation unless this road is permitted because the exchange is then 
going to be nullified if that road is not going to be built.
  We have offered a pretty sweet deal--a 300-to-1 exchange--in exchange 
for the safety of the people who live there. Anyone who thinks we can't 
build a one-lane gravel road that will allow for a coexistence between 
the waterfowl that migrate through there and the people who live there, 
they have another thing to be thinking about. We will not have a 
practical impact on the waterfowl in the refuge. While the land 
exchange involves 206 acres, far less is actually going to be impacted 
by the construction. It is far less than 1 percent of the refuge. 
Again, the Federal Government is getting 300 times more land.
  It is just inconceivable to me we would not be able to have a 
resolution that works for both sides. For the Secretary to move forward 
with a designation that says no road--no road--it is just stunning to 
me. Some might say it is because it is going to cost us money. There is 
no cost to the Federal Government. The State of Alaska is going to be 
building this.

  Too many people have died for there to be any legitimate excuse for 
further delay, and I challenge those officials within the Department of 
the Interior to come and visit King Cove and don't necessarily come 
during the good weather--although the people of King Cove would tell us 
they are not entirely sure when the good weather is--but come and see 
them. Come and see what we are talking about. I have been there. To 
Deputy Secretary Hayes' credit, he, too, has been there, and I 
appreciate that. I appreciate that others have tried and perhaps have 
not met with success because the weather didn't allow them in because 
we weren't about to take a risk with them. But at a minimum, the 
Secretary of the Interior needs to be there. He needs to meet with 
people--real people, such as Carl Smith, a King Cove elder, an Aleut 
warrior. He was recognized as one of the amazing veterans. He is an 
Eskimo Scout with the Territorial Guard. Look these people in the eye 
and tell them their lives are not worth as much as the lives of the 
birds, the black brants, that inhabit the area.
  It is not too late. While this decision of the Department of the 
Interior has been made, the Secretary--or if Secretary Salazar is no 
longer there, his designee--has a legal obligation under this 2009 act 
to base a decision on the road on what is deemed the ``public 
interest.'' Right now it seems to me the Department of the Interior has 
deemed the public is made up solely of birds and sea otters. My 
public--my public--is the real human beings who live in King Cove.
  So we need to make sure a decision is not based on an incomplete and 
misleading EIS that concludes, with lives at stake, no action is 
somehow acceptable. I repeat: No action is absolutely not acceptable.
  I am going to end my comments by letting you know what has happened 
in

[[Page S496]]

some other refuges. It was just a few years ago, we will all remember, 
when we were transfixed by what was called ``the miracle on the 
Hudson.'' There was a commercial jetliner that hit a flock of Canadian 
geese, lost power, and landed in the Hudson River. Through the amazing 
skills of that pilot, nobody was harmed. But what was the result of 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. What actually happened a couple years after that 
incident was that USDA's Wildlife Service agents went into the Jamaica 
Bay Wildlife Refuge, rounded up and killed 751 Canadian geese. The plan 
was to kill 1,0000, but they couldn't catch them fast enough.
  Essentially, we see it is OK to kill birds in New York refuges, but 
we can't inconvenience the birds in Alaska. Maybe geese are less exotic 
than black brants or maybe it is because Members of this body and their 
families and friends fly through La Guardia and they worry about that. 
Well, I worry about the lives of Alaskans. I worry about the people of 
King Cove, and I am not going to rest on this. The decision that came 
out of the Department of the Interior was a travesty. It will not be 
allowed to stand, and I will do everything I can to ensure it does not.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial 
from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that also opposes the decision of 
the Department of the Interior, as well as the press accounts I have 
referred to of the New York geese story.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner]

       Preferred Paths: Agency Recommends Against King Cove Road

       Almost four years ago, the federal administration signed 
     off on a national wilderness act with a provision offering a 
     small, wind-plagued village on the Alaska Peninsula the 
     possibility of future road access to a safer airport. This 
     week, the Obama administration appears poised to snatch that 
     provision back. It should not do so.
       The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday that the 
     federal government should not proceed with a land swap that 
     would allow construction of a road through the Izembek 
     National Wildlife Refuge. That road would allow the community 
     of King Cove access to a 10,000-foot airfield and cross-wind 
     strip at Cold Bay.
       The environmental impact statement was required by the 
     legislation authorizing the land swap, the Omnibus Public 
     Land Management Act of 2009. That legislation proposed that 
     about 56,000 acres now owned by the state and the King Cove 
     Native corporation would become official federal wilderness 
     in exchange for rights to build a one-lane road through an 
     isthmus separating Cold Bay from Izembek Lagoon. Total road 
     acreage: 206.
       It was a generous offer from the state and corporation. Yet 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could not accept the road.
       Roads and trails have provided decades of access from Cold 
     Bay to other parts of lagoon area for hunters and 
     birdwatchers. However, the agency believes a new road 
     connected to the much larger community of King Cove would 
     greatly increase traffic by off-road vehicles. The agency 
     admits this is just an educated guess, though. ``It is 
     impossible to quantify the amount of human use (i.e., 
     hunting, fishing, etc.) or illegal off-road vehicle use that 
     would occur adjacent to the road if it is built,'' it said in 
     response to public comments that raised the issue. ``The 
     analysis presented in the EIS was based on previous 
     experience of the authors and reviewed by staff familiar with 
     the area and other areas in rural Alaska.''
       Other educated guessers could point to areas set aside in 
     Alaska, near far larger communities, where wildlife thrives 
     and off-road trespassers are kept to a minimum.
       The agency discounted the value of the state and Native 
     corporation land it would receive in the exchange. It said 
     those lands weren't such critical wildlife habitat as the 
     isthmus, which is a fair statement. It also said no one was 
     likely to do any development soon on the state and Native 
     lands, which also is fair.
       Nevertheless, the mere size of the offer, the potential 
     benefits to King Cove and the uncertainty about the real 
     impacts of off-road vehicles should tip the balance in favor 
     of the exchange.
       Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who must issue a 
     record of decision on the swap within 30 days, appears 
     already to have accepted the service's assessment of the 
     swap. ``After extensive dialogue and exhaustive scientific 
     evaluation,'' he said in a news release, ``the agency has 
     identified a preferred path forward that will ensure this 
     extraordinary refuge and its wilderness are conserved and 
     protected for future generations.''
       Unfortunately, that preferred path excludes King Cove's 
     preferred path.
                                  ____


Federal Agents Kill 750 Geese From Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Near JFK 
                                Airport

                 (By Carly Baldwin and Daniela Bernal)

       New York.--They're back.
       Agents with the U.S. Department of Agriculture removed more 
     than 700 Canada geese from Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Monday 
     morning, at the prodding of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
       In the hours between 7 a.m. and noon, 711 of the birds, 
     including possibly goslings, were rounded up and put into 
     crates, said Carol Bannerman, with the Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service, a division within the USDA.
       They were then drive to a meat processing plant in upstate 
     New York, where the geese will be killed and their meat will 
     be given to food banks upstate, Bannerman told Metro. In the 
     past carbon dioxide has been used to gas the geese to death.
       The more than 700 geese rounded up today comes after USDA 
     agents removed 40 geese from a landfill near John F. Kennedy 
     airport two weeks ago, said Bannerman. In total, 751 geese 
     have been removed from area around JFK in the past two weeks.
       That leaves only about 750 Canada geese remaining in the 
     federally protected preserve. Before the round-up, there were 
     1,500 geese in the park, said Gateway National Recreation 
     area spokesman John Warren.
       According to Warren, the feds originally called for killing 
     up to 1,000 geese in the park. But molting season ended 
     before that many could be taken, he said.
       Bannerman told Metro there will be no more further cullings 
     planned for this summer.
       But today's surprise killing shocked and outraged many New 
     Yorkers.
       ``I was sick to my stomach,'' said Brooklynite David 
     Karopkin when he heard of the killings yesterday. Karopkin, 
     27, runs GooseWatch NYC, which seeks to monitor and record 
     the controversial cullings of geese in the metro area. ``New 
     Yorkers have been kept in the dark about what's going on. 
     These operations are done with no transparency, no public 
     approval--for the most part we're told after the fact.''
       ``It's really a disgrace and a shock that New York City's 
     only wildlife and bird sanctuary has been opened up to a 
     wildlife slaughter for no good reason,'' Edita Birnkrant, the 
     New York director of Friends of Animals, said. ``I'm in utter 
     disbelief at the stupidity of some of the people in office.''
       Gillibrand has been pushing for more than three years to 
     allow agents into the Jamaica Preserve, a 9,000-acre estuary 
     and bird sanctuary that surrounds JFK's runways. The birds 
     are a hazard to planes taking off from JFK and LaGuardia 
     airports, she and others argue.
       Just this past April, a Delta jet hit geese when it took 
     off from JFK. The cabin filled with smoke, but the plane made 
     a safe emergency landing.
       Gillibrand specifically wanted the geese culled before the 
     end of their June and July molting phase, when the adult 
     birds and goslings cannot fly and can be easily rounded up.


                          Geese-plane strikes

       The USDA first started removing geese from the NYC area in 
     July of 2004. In the five years before that, there were nine 
     bird strikes on planes at LaGuardia, said Carol Bannerman.
       In the five years after 2004, to July of 2009, there have 
     been three bird strikes.
       The most famous of which is when geese brought down the 
     ``Miracle on the Hudson'' flight in January of 2009.
       But according to Karopkin, the geese that brought down that 
     flight were migrating from Canada, and did not nest in the 
     metro area.
       ``So even if you killed every animal in New York City you 
     would not have prevented that crash,'' he said.


                         A history of cullings

       Number of geese removed from around the city:
       2009  1,276 geese removed and killed
       2010  1,676 geese removed and killed
       2011  575 geese removed and killed
       2012  751 killed so far this year
       Source: USDA.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 2 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders 
or their designees; that following the swearing in of our new Senator I 
be recognized; and that following my remarks Senator Franken be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S497]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________