Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 19 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)

[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.

____________________