[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 19 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S497-S514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2013--Continued

  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues today in 
support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. I do 
so not just as a Senator but also as the mother of two daughters.
  This critical legislation has been held up for far too long, and it 
is past time for reauthorization. We have a serious responsibility to 
ensure that women and families are protected.
  The rates of violence and abuse in our country are astounding and 
totally unacceptable. According to a 2010 CDC study, domestic violence 
affects more than 12 million people each year. Across the United States 
15\1/2\ million children live in homes in which domestic violence has 
occurred. In my home State of North Carolina alone, 73 women and 
children are killed on average every year because of domestic violence.
  Let me say that number one more time. Seventy-three women and 
children are killed every year due to domestic violence. These are 
alarming statistics, and we must act now to address them.
  Since 1994, VAWA programs, and in particular the STOP Program that 
provides grants for services, training, officers, and prosecutors, have 
made tremendous progress in helping victims of domestic violence and 
sexual assault and have transformed our criminal justice system and 
victim support services.
  These grants have assisted law enforcement and prosecutors in 
tracking down perpetrators and bringing them to justice. They have also 
saved countless lives and provided needed services to victims of these 
violent acts.
  In one instance in my State a man was on pretrial release after being 
charged with stalking his wife. Thanks to this STOP grant funding, he 
was being monitored electronically, and he was caught violating the 
conditions of his release when he went to his estranged wife's home. 
The supervising officer was immediately notified of this violation, and 
police officers found the man with the help of a GPS and arrested him 
in his estranged wife's driveway. Because of this VAWA program, we had 
one less victim in my State. This is just one example of how VAWA is 
protecting women and saving lives.
  Title V of this bill includes legislation that I sponsored in the 
last Congress, the Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act, which 
updates and improves the health care system's response to domestic 
violence and sexual assault. My provision is simple: It provides 
training and education to help the health care professionals respond to 
violence and abuse. By equipping doctors and nurses to recognize the 
signs of domestic abuse and make sure they have the training to 
respond, we can better care for our survivors and prevent future 
crimes. It also consolidates existing programs to streamline and 
strengthen the health care system's response to violent crimes.
  Since my time in the North Carolina State Senate, I have been 
dedicated to reducing the backlog of unanalyzed rape kits. This bill 
includes the bipartisan SAFER Act, which helps fund audits of untested 
DNA evidence and reduces this backlog of rape kits.
  Before my efforts in the State senate, what used to happen in North 
Carolina, and continues to happen today in many States, is that a woman 
would be raped, she would go to the hospital, DNA would be collected 
and then placed in a box. Then that box would go and sit on a shelf in 
a police department or in a sheriff's department totally unanalyzed 
unless the woman could identify who attacked her.
  I ask you: What other victims in America have to identify the 
attacker before authorities will take action? None.
  When I first brought this issue to the forefront, I was told there 
was not enough money for all of these rape kits to be tested. We found 
that funding in North Carolina. Now with the help of the SAFER Act, our 
law enforcement agencies will have the ability to track and prioritize 
their untested DNA evidence to ensure that victims can find their 
perpetrators and hold them accountable, and we can remove violent 
criminals from the streets.
  Unfortunately, until Congress acts to reauthorize the Violence 
Against Women Act, the well-being of women across the country hangs in 
the balance. This bill has never been a partisan football, and there is 
no reason it should be today. I hope we will pass this bill swiftly and 
without further disputes. We must ensure this bill's passage for 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking not only in North Carolina but around the country.
  Finally, I do want to thank the North Carolina Coalition Against 
Sexual Assault, the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 
and North Carolina's State and local law enforcement agencies that have 
truly been leaders in combating this problem. I applaud them for all 
the work they have done to reduce and address the incidents of domestic 
violence and sexual assault, and I am grateful for the work they do 
every day on the front lines of this issue.
  So I am asking my colleagues to join me in moving the Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act through the Senate swiftly and 
without further delay. Millions of victims across the country are 
waiting for us to enact this lifesaving legislation, and we simply 
cannot wait any longer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, last spring, just before the Senate 
passed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I came to the 
floor to share some words from my late dear friend Sheila Wellstone 
whose commitment to ending domestic violence is an everlasting source 
of inspiration to my wife Franni and to me.
  I shared with my colleagues something Sheila said, which was this:


[[Page S498]]


       I have chosen to focus on domestic violence because I find 
     it appalling that a woman's home can be the most dangerous, 
     the most violent, and, in fact, the most deadly place for 
     her. And if she is a mother, it is dangerous for her 
     children. . . . It's time that we tell the secret; it's time 
     that we all come together to work toward ending the violence.

  Sheila's words rang true in her time, but they have perhaps never 
rung more true than they do today. It is time that we all come together 
to work toward ending the violence.
  We passed the VAWA Reauthorization Act in the Senate last April, but 
the House did not let it go to the President for signature and 
enactment, so we are back here today voting on the bill again because 
those of us who believe in VAWA will continue to fight for the bill's 
passage until it is signed into law. I encourage my colleagues, both in 
the Senate and in the House, to come together to work toward ending the 
violence, to support this bill.
  The bill's managers, Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy and 
Senator Mike Crapo, have demonstrated remarkable resolve and 
leadership. We all are grateful for that. I also thank them for 
inviting me to author two parts of the VAWA reauthorization bill, which 
I would like to describe briefly.
  First, the VAWA Reauthorization Act includes provisions from the 
Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act. We just heard Senator 
Hagan talk about an aspect of that. This is one of the first bills I 
introduced after being sworn in to the Senate. When this bill becomes 
law, never again will survivors of sexual assault suffer the indignity 
of paying for the forensic medical exam, the rape kit. VAWA provides 
State and local governments with funding to administer these exams, 
which are used to collect evidence in sexual assault cases. The problem 
is that under current law, grant recipients can charge the survivor--
the victim--for the upfront cost of administering the exam, leaving her 
to seek reimbursement later. Too often survivors get lost in a maze of 
paperwork and they are not reimbursed. Under my bill, grant recipients 
will be able to charge insurance companies or victims' assistance funds 
or other sources, but they cannot charge the survivor. I believe 
survivors of sexual violence have endured enough already. They should 
not have to pay for rape kits, and they will not have to once this bill 
is passed and signed by the President and becomes law.
  Second, the VAWA reauthorization bill includes the Housing Rights for 
Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence Act, legislation I introduced 
with Senator Collins and Senator Mikulski in the fall of 2011. This 
bill will help women stay in their homes when they are the most 
vulnerable, when they need a roof over their heads the most. The link 
between violence and homelessness is undeniable. By one account, nearly 
40 percent of women who experience domestic violence will become 
homeless at some point in their lives. Once a woman becomes homeless, 
she becomes even more vulnerable to physical or sexual abuse. In my 
State, nearly one in three homeless women is fleeing domestic violence, 
and half of those women have children with them. That is unacceptable.
  Franni and I have visited battered women's shelters, and I have to 
tell you it is heartbreaking. They are crowded. They are full. And a 
lot of mothers are there with their kids. On a bitter-cold Minnesota 
night, these women often have nowhere to go. Transitional housing is 
really important. If a woman has a choice between going out in the cold 
winter night in Minnesota or maybe going back to her abuser and 
exposing children to that, that is wrong. This can be heartbreaking.
  But there is something heartwarming too about seeing people come to 
each other's aid in their time of need. That is what the people who run 
the shelters do every day--the staff of Advocates for Family Peace in 
Itasca County, the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, the Casa de 
Esperanza, and the many other advocacy groups across my State. Talk to 
these folks about VAWA, and they will tell you what it means for women 
in Minnesota. It means nights spent under a roof instead of in a tent 
or in a car or on a street or, even worse, having to go back to live 
with their abuser and exposing their children to that danger, to 
witnessing that violence. We need these shelters and transitional 
housing programs for women who are fleeing danger. The VAWA 
reauthorization bill provides continued support for these programs.
  My housing rights legislation provides additional support. It is a 
preventive measure that is intended to keep women from becoming 
homeless in the first place. My bill will make it unlawful to evict a 
woman from federally subsidized housing just because she is a victim of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. A 
woman may be living away from her abuser in Federal housing and the 
abuser comes and knocks down the door and the landlord will say: Let's 
evict her. Under my bill, that cannot happen in Federally subsidized 
housing. This bill is for every woman who has hesitated to call the 
police to enforce a protective order because she is afraid she will be 
evicted from her home if she does so.
  The VAWA Reauthorization Act is a crucial bill. It is a good bill. It 
is an important bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
these letters from professional medical 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:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                    Chicago, IL, February 5, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Crapo,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Crapo: On behalf of the physician 
     and medical student members of the American Medical 
     Association (AMA), I am writing to express our support for S. 
     47, the ``Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. 
     '' This bill, which reauthorizes the landmark Violence 
     Against Women Act (VAWA), would strengthen and improve 
     existing programs that assist victims and survivors of 
     domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
     stalking.
       While violence against adult women has decreased 60 percent 
     since VAWA was first passed in 1994, it remains a critical 
     problem in our country and much more work remains to be done. 
     According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 
     National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey released 
     in December 2011, one in five women in the United States has 
     been raped in her lifetime and one in four women has been the 
     victim of severe physical violence by a partner. Domestic and 
     sexual violence is a health care problem and one of the most 
     significant social determinants of health for women and 
     girls.
       We are pleased that S. 47 would address some of the 
     critical gaps in delivery of health care to victims by 
     strengthening the health care system's identification and 
     assessment of, and response to, victims. We also appreciate 
     and support language in Title V of the bill on the 
     development and testing of quality improvement measures for 
     identifying, intervening, and documenting victims of domestic 
     violence that recognizes and aligns with the important work 
     underway by the AMA, the National Quality Forum, and other 
     stakeholders in the quality improvement arena.
       We commend you for your long-standing support for victims 
     of violence and abuse and for your leadership in introducing 
     the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. We 
     urge swift passage of your bill in the Senate and look 
     forward to working with you to ensure enactment of this 
     important legislation this year.
           Sincerely,
     James L. Madara, MD.
                                  ____



                           American Psychological Association,

                                 Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mike Crapo,
     Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo: On behalf of the 
     137,000 members and affiliates of the American Psychological 
     Association (APA), I am writing to thank you for your 
     invaluable leadership in introducing the Violence Against 
     Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (S. 47). As the legislative 
     process advances, APA offers its full support of your efforts 
     to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive reauthorization of 
     the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
       As you know, nearly one in four women in the United States 
     reports experiencing domestic violence at some point in her 
     life, and 15 million children live in families in which 
     intimate partner violence has occurred within the past year. 
     Domestic violence can result in significant mental and 
     behavioral health consequences including depression, anxiety, 
     post-traumatic stress disorder, relationship problems, 
     diminished self-esteem,

[[Page S499]]

     social isolation, substance use disorders, and suicidal 
     behavior. VAWA programs can help to mitigate these negative 
     outcomes by providing a vital link to services and supports 
     for survivors and their families.
       APA applauds your commitment to protect survivors of 
     intimate partner violence with a comprehensive VAWA 
     reauthorization. In particular, we appreciate the inclusion 
     of essential public health provisions to reauthorize and 
     strengthen the health care system's identification, 
     assessment, and response to violence, as well as provisions 
     to protect vulnerable populations, including Native women, 
     immigrants, and LGBT individuals.
       We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address 
     these important issues. For further information, please 
     contact Nida Corry, Ph.D., in our Public Interest Government 
     Relations Office at (202) 336-5931 or [email protected].
           Sincerely,

                               Gwendolyn Puryear Keita, Ph.D.,

                               Executive Director, Public Interest
                                                      Directorate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in my previous life, I was attorney 
general of the State of Texas. In that capacity, I had the opportunity 
to work with numerous victim rights groups, primarily because part of 
my responsibility--the office's responsibility--was to administer the 
Crime Victims Compensation Fund, which took a small portion of the fees 
paid by criminal defendants who are convicted of crimes or pled guilty 
to crimes and put it into a fund that could be used then to help 
victims. As attorney general of Texas, I became a supporter of the 
crime victims rights community and their interests as well as the VAWA.
  This is really an important point. Since it was first enacted in 
1994, the VAWA has been reauthorized on two separate occasions, each 
time by unanimous vote of the Senate. Let me say that again. On the two 
previous occasions the Senate has voted to reauthorize the VAWA, it has 
been unanimous. There were no differences between Democrats and 
Republicans--we were all together in supporting this legislation. For 
that reason, I hope Members of both parties will think long and hard 
before turning this critical law into just another vehicle for scoring 
political points or bowing to special interests instead of the public 
interest.
  I am enormously proud and grateful that this bill contains a version 
of the SAFER Act, which I first introduced last year with strong 
bipartisan support. I had the privilege of meeting several 
extraordinary Texas women, including Carol Bart, Lennah Frost, and 
Lavinia Masters, all of whom decided to go public with their story in 
hopes of helping other victims of sexual assault. It has been a moving 
experience.
  I am delighted that our bill and our effort via the SAFER Act to 
address the untested rape kit scandal in this country is so close to 
the finish line. Why is this legislation so important? Right now there 
are as many as 400,000 untested rape kits sitting in police evidence 
lockers or labs across the Nation. Each one of those rape kits--which 
is a sample of DNA that could then be used to match up against an FBI 
database to make an identification of a sexual assailant--right now 
400,000 of them, it is estimated; we really don't know the exact 
number--are sitting in evidence lockers and police storage facilities 
all across the Nation. Each one of these kits has the potential to 
solve a crime, to identify a rapist and deliver justice for a victim.
  The SAFER Act would help law enforcement officials reduce that 
backlog of untested rape kits and improve public safety. Indeed, it 
would help us address what can only be considered a national scandal. 
It would help bring peace of mind to rape victims. And it would help 
get dangerous criminals off the street before they commit another 
crime. That is why the SAFER Act has been endorsed by a wide range of 
victim advocacy groups, such as the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National 
Network; the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; the Fraternal 
Order of Police; and the National Organization for Women. That is why 
we are so eager to see this legislation become law.
  But beyond the SAFER Act, the VAWA provides funding for shelters, 
counseling programs, and legal services that help ensure that our 
justice system leaves no victim behind.
  For all these reasons, we can and we must reauthorize the VAWA. As we 
have done on previous occasions, we should do so with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. We could easily do that.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill also contains a separate provision 
that is blatantly unconstitutional. It would deny U.S. citizens their 
full constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights in tribal 
courts. Needless to say, this is a big problem, but it is also a 
solvable problem. I have drafted an amendment that would allow Native 
American tribes to prosecute U.S. citizens for domestic violence as 
long as those tribes followed the Constitution and allowed all 
convictions to be appealed in the Federal court system.
  This amendment is a sensible compromise, and I have discussed it with 
all of the various organizations that are interested in passage of a 
reauthorization of VAWA. We have negotiated in good faith, but 
unfortunately that good-faith effort to try to find a solution has run 
into a brick wall of opposition, and the chairman has decided to not 
change the controversial language that would deny certain Americans 
full protection of the Bill of Rights. What I cannot understand is why 
anyone would want to pick a political fight and not find a solution if 
a solution is at hand and it makes so much sense.
  Once again, I passionately support the SAFER Act. I am grateful that 
provision at long last is included in this law, which will allow us to 
address that national scandal of hundreds of thousands of untested rape 
kits. This is a bill which could do so much good in the battle for 
victims' rights, but unfortunately it is being held hostage by a single 
provision that would take away fundamental constitutional rights for 
certain American citizens.
  And for what? For what? In order to satisfy the unconstitutional 
demands of special interests.
  I remain hopeful that we can eventually come to a compromise that 
upholds the Constitution, if not here in the Senate then in a 
conference committee between the House of Representatives and the 
Senate, so we reconcile the differences between the two bills passed by 
each House.
  For now I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a bill that violates 
the U.S. Constitution. I cannot, in good conscience and in fidelity to 
my oath of office, vote for a provision that I know is 
unconstitutional. I will, however, vote for the alternative bill that 
is offered by Senator Grassley which eliminates this unconstitutional 
provision. It reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act and contains 
the SAFER Act which addresses this backlog of untested rape kits.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President. By the way, what a pleasure 
it is to see the new Senator presiding.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, I rise every week on this Senate floor to talk about 
the dangers of carbon pollution to our atmosphere and to our oceans. 
This week I want to preface my remarks by talking about America and her 
role in the world.
  I can use some very well-known words to make my point. From John 
Winthrop to Ronald Reagan, we have described our great American 
experiment as ``a city on a hill.'' Indeed, our hymn ``America the 
Beautiful'' sings about our ``alabaster cities' gleam.'' President 
Kennedy's inaugural address said that ``the glow from [our] fire can 
truly light the world,'' and a generation later, President Obama's 
first inaugural noted that our ``ideals still light the world.'' We 
Americans have described ourselves as a beacon of hope, a light in the 
darkness, our lamp lifted up in welcome and in example.
  Daniel Webster years ago said that our Founders ``set the world an 
example.'' That was what the founding of America meant--our Founders 
``set the world an example.'' President Clinton has pointed out that 
the power of our example, the power of that example in

[[Page S500]]

the world, has always been greater than any example of our power. That 
was the way Bill Clinton described it. And when Daniel Webster said 
that our Founding Fathers had set before the world an example, he went 
on to say this:

       The last hopes of mankind, therefore, rest with us; and if 
     it should be proclaimed, that our example had become an 
     argument against the experiment, the knell of popular liberty 
     would be sounded throughout the earth.

  I have spoken before about this small globe of ours, the light of 
dawn sweeping each morning across its face, lighting cities and 
cottages, barrios and villages, and across the globe's face people 
coming forth from homes and hovels into that morning Sun, each knowing, 
from our American example, that life does not have to be the way it is 
for them, knowing that an example of liberty and self-government stands 
free before them, that America stands as an alternative and a rebuke to 
the tyranny, to the corruption, or to the injustice in which they may 
be enmired.
  So like many of my colleagues, I believe America has a special 
destiny in the world. America's special destiny does not come easy, and 
it does not come alone. America's special destiny confers upon us a 
special duty. What is that duty? That duty is to live up to our own 
example, to see to it that our lamp gleams brightly, to be the promise 
that each dawn America offers this small globe.
  So let's look at climate change in that light. What if our carbon 
pollution is, in fact, changing the planet? What if, in fact, we know 
this, we know this to any reasonable degree of responsible certainty? 
And what if, knowing this, we do nothing? And what if the reason we do 
nothing is the influence of special interests who profit from that very 
pollution or the groundless ideology of a fringe? What sort of example 
is that for America to set? How does that meet our special duty? How 
does that advance our special destiny?
  Look at what other continents and nations will experience, 
particularly those that have not enjoyed the economic development we 
achieved through our carbon economy.
  I will start in Africa, where temperatures are expected to increase 
faster than the rest of the world. Rainfall patterns are also expected 
to change, decreasing in some areas, increasing in others. Floods, 
droughts, and new crop diseases linked to changes in temperature and 
rainfall will hurt African farmers in a continent where subsistence 
farming is still so important to so many individuals' way of life. 
Research shows that production of crops, such as maize--a core staple 
in Africa--will decrease by 30 percent over the next 20 years due to 
climate change. More frequent and severe extreme weather will have dire 
consequences there. We saw, just a few weeks ago, the worst flood in a 
decade, killing at least 38 people in Mozambique and leaving 150,000 
homeless.
  Parts of Russia have warmed between 3.5 and 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit 
just in the last century, leading to the loss of permafrost. Russians, 
like Alaskans--whom I spoke about before--build homes and roads and 
infrastructure on the permafrost. When it disappears, communities lose 
the very foundations on which they are built. NOAA says that the 
Russian heat wave of 2010, which killed tens of thousands of people, 
was the most severe since records were first kept back in 1880. And 
this type of heat wave is now more and more likely.
  Go to the Land Down Under, where warmer and more acidic oceans have 
fueled a widespread coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef. The 
Great Barrier Reef is a natural wonder. It is one of the great wonders 
of the world. Economically, it is the basis of a $4 billion tourism 
industry in Australia, and it is dying before our eyes. Scientists say 
that climate change heightens the devastation from other natural 
disasters in Australia, such as the 2009 bushfires that claimed 173 
lives, the 2011 flooding that killed dozens, and the wildfires that 
have already damaged hundreds of homes and displaced thousands of 
Australians this year.
  Europe is getting hotter, with increased risk of summertime droughts 
in Central Europe and in the Mediterranean. Tree lines creep higher in 
European mountain ranges. Glaciers in Central Europe shrink. Alpine ski 
areas have been forced to adapt to higher temperatures and less snow.
  South America has been warming, and glaciers in the Andes are 
retreating at an increasing rate. I have a symbol of that retreat in my 
office. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and Clark Weaver of 
NASA loaned me this artifact. It is a piece of a plant that has been 
preserved under the Quelccaya Ice Cap in Peru for at least 5,200 
years--more than 3,000 years before Jesus Christ walked the Earth. This 
plant was overcovered by glacier and has stayed that way ever since. 
Now, thanks to glacial retreat, that piece of plant, which was 
preserved by the weight and cold of the glacier, is in my office.
  Closer to home, in Canada, a tropical fungus that causes lung disease 
and meningitis has been discovered. Scientists think the deadly yeast 
likely came to Vancouver Island in ballast water from ships, but now--
now--it can survive there because of higher temperatures.
  In the Arctic, we are losing sea ice, permafrost, glaciers, and ice 
sheets. Arctic sea ice is shrinking at about 5 percent per decade. With 
that shrinkage, there is less ice to reflect sunlight back into space. 
More heat is captured, and the warming accelerates. At this rate, 
Arctic summers will be ice free within decades. For the United States, 
that means new Arctic waterways to defend, an expanded theater of 
operations in the Arctic, and increased competition for Arctic 
resources.
  Wherever you look around the globe, climate change changes habitats, 
changes where plants can grow, and loads the dice for more frequent and 
more severe extreme weather. Heat waves, droughts, floods, and storms 
create victims and refugees who require humanitarian relief. The 
poorest nations, those least prepared to weather natural disasters, 
will suffer the most. Those nations will look to us and to the rest of 
the developed world for help. They will not look to us for help without 
reason. The United States is responsible for one-quarter of all 
industrial-age carbon pollution in the world. Today we no longer emit 
the most carbon dioxide; China has passed us.
  But we have emitted the most over time. Nations all over the world 
have implemented carbon reduction plans. Some have implemented carbon 
pricing. Many invest far more than we do in renewable energy. The 
United States is falling behind rather than leading. Even China, 
today's biggest polluter, recently committed to reduce the amount of 
carbon it emits relative to its economic output.
  In 2009, China passed the United States of America in renewable 
energy investment. Looking at all that, it is hard to imagine that 
those who will suffer, those who will be displaced, those who will lose 
their ancient livelihoods all around the world will look benevolently 
upon our Nation.
  It is hard to believe they will not resent that they are forced to 
bear those burdens at the price of our carbon economy. One can readily 
imagine extremists who wish to rally disenchanted people against us, 
even to violence against us, finding fertile opportunity where that 
resentment festers.
  Will it not be, as Daniel Webster said, ``an argument against [our] 
experiment?'' Will it not be an argument against our experiment that 
our democracy, our great American democracy, seized in the grip of 
polluting special interests or fringe political ideology, was unable to 
respond to the facts around us to protect ourselves and our world?
  Will there not be ready ears easy to fill with that argument against 
our experiment, among those who have been uprooted from traditional 
homes and livelihoods or among those whose homes and livelihoods have 
been disturbed by climate refugees?
  Destiny means duty. Destiny means duty, and we are failing in that 
duty. It is time for us to awake in this moment to that duty. We can 
expect in the long and blessed future of this country to have to face 
unpleasant facts, facts more unpleasant than the facts of carbon 
pollution and climate change and ocean acidification.
  We have done this before. With God's help, we will do it again. But 
if we cannot bring ourselves to our senses now, in this moment, in our 
day and hour to wake and face these facts, what a terrible admission 
that is by this generation of Americans.

[[Page S501]]

  Stand we a chance of being looked back at as a greatest generation if 
we fail to address this greatest issue facing our planet? Lord Acton 
noted ``the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on 
wrong.'' Truly, that penalty will be inflicted on us, on our 
generation, if we do not awaken to these plain facts and to our plain 
duty.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is nearby 
and may well seek the floor with respect to the Violence Against Women 
Act.
  I yield the floor and 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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 thank Senators Murray, Shaheen, Begich, 
Udall of New Mexico, Klobuchar, Murkowski, Hagan and Franken for their 
statements today in support of the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act.
  I also note that the ranking Republican member on the Judiciary 
Committee made a statement today from which I take some hope. The 
Senator from Iowa indicated that this measure could have been enacted 
last year. I wish it had been enacted last year after the Senate voted 
with a strong majority to do so and did everything I could, including 
reaching out to the Republican Speaker of the House, to try to make 
that happen.
  I will not respond to all that my friend from Iowa said but I do want 
to correct any notion that I have abandoned my efforts to increase U 
visas to help law enforcement and immigrant women. As I have said 
repeatedly, I remain committed to these provisions that I originally 
introduced and will pursue them in the context of comprehensive 
immigration reform. I hope that the Senator from Iowa will join me and 
support them. We will need them later this year.
  I am encouraged that our bipartisan bill has 62 cosponsors. I am 
disappointed that Senators who say it should have passed last year are 
still opposing it. I hope that after a vote on the Republican 
substitute, remaining opponents will join us and support Violence 
Against Women Act reauthorization. That is what Senator Hutchison did 
last year when the Senate rejected her alternative; she joined with us. 
I praised her for it. Let us join together and pass the strong Senate 
bill.
  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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today about the 
importance of passing the Violence Against Women Act, how this has been 
a long-time bipartisan bill back to 1994 when the late Senator Paul 
Wellstone was involved in this bill, as well as Vice President Biden. 
People came together and said we have to do something about domestic 
violence. This is no longer a hidden crime behind closed doors.
  Do you know what we have seen since then? We have seen a 50-percent 
reduction--a 50-percent reduction--in domestic violence in this 
country. This is a victory. We do not want to go backward. 
Unfortunately, the bill that has been submitted by Senator Grassley, 
the substitute amendment, I believe would take us backward. Let me 
explain why.
  First of all, we know the VAWA reauthorization bill was months of 
negotiation between the two lead authors, Senator Leahy, the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Crapo. It has bipartisan 
consensus and was drafted after months of input from numerous 
stakeholders.
  Unfortunately, the Grassley substitute doesn't do a lot of the things 
that are so important to us in this Violence Against Women bill. This 
is not an acceptable substitute.
  While much of this bill is consistent with past policy in the 
Violence Against Women Act, there were some changes that we felt 
necessary to match the times. One of them is a growing problem of 
tribal domestic violence. Domestic violence in tribal communities, 
unfortunately, is an epidemic. Four out of five perpetrators of 
domestic or sexual violence on tribal lands are non-Indian and 
currently cannot be prosecuted by tribal governments. The only way is 
to have the U.S. Attorney's Office come in. They do a lot of good work. 
My United States Attorney's office has done great work historically 
through several administrations with our tribal communities, but these 
cases should be able to be prosecuted not only by U.S. attorneys but 
also by tribal governments. The Leahy-Crapo VAWA reauthorization bill 
builds on the protections for Indian women by recognizing tribes' 
authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit domestic violence against 
their Indian spouses or dating partners. Let me say this was narrowly 
tailored for these acts of domestic violence with specific 
requirements.
  The Grassley proposal, unfortunately, does not provide the tribes the 
authority to enforce laws against domestic violence on their own lands. 
It also takes money away from other Justice Department grant programs 
to install Federal magistrate judges and prosecutors on tribal lands. 
Bringing in large numbers of Federal officials goes against the locally 
based solutions to domestic violence that VAWA has so successfully 
promoted.
  Federal judges and prosecutors already, as I pointed out, have 
authority to handle cases on tribal lands. This has not stemmed the 
plague of violence against Indian women. That is what you do with the 
reauthorizations. That is why you don't have bills go on forever and 
forever into eternity. You have reauthorizations to try to address some 
issues which can make things better.
  Here we have addressed one. While the Violence Against Women Act has 
helped so much with so many victims of domestic violence in this 
country, we still see incredibly tragic numbers when it comes to 
domestic violence against American Indian women. That is why we have 
made these changes. It allowed us the reauthorization to adjust.
  While the Grassley proposal allows a tribe to petition a Federal 
court for a protective order to exclude individuals from tribal land, 
this does not begin to address the problem of non-Indian perpetrators 
who are not arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for those heinous 
crimes. This is a false alternative that does almost nothing to solve 
the epidemic of violence against Native women.
  Another issue. There was a very careful negotiation that went on with 
where the funding went. We had to make cuts to funding this year in 
many areas, including this one. We negotiated how much of the funds 
would go to sexual assault and how much would go to domestic violence. 
The Leahy-Crapo VAWA reauthorization bill includes a 20-percent set-
aside for sexual assault programming in the STOP program, a balance 
that was achieved after months of discussions with domestic violence 
and sexual assault service providers. The bill increases the focus on 
sexual assault without endangering domestic violence victims. It was a 
big deal that we were able to get it done. Unfortunately, the Grassley 
proposal makes a change to that and goes against the negotiation we 
already had in place.
  Finally, there is the issue with the Grassley proposal on U visas. As 
you most likely heard, we actually made changes to the original bill on 
U visas already in this negotiated bill. We were going to be able to 
use U visas that had been issued in prior years but not actually used, 
and be able to use those numbers in the coming years. We ended up 
taking that out. I didn't agree with that, and I hope it is something 
we can address and fix in immigration reform. Unfortunately, the 
Grassley proposal goes even farther. It adds more restrictions on U 
visas.
  Let me stop for a moment to explain what these U visas are. This is 
when you have an immigrant victim of domestic violence. When I was a 
prosecutor for 8 years, we would have a number of cases where an 
immigrant was a victim. What do you think her perpetrator did to get 
her to be scared to come forward? They said, We are going to deport you 
if you come forward to law enforcement. You will never be able to stay 
in this country.

[[Page S502]]

  What the U visas do is give that victim a status to remain in the 
country to make sure this person gets prosecuted and then work on some 
kind of a permanent immigration status. That is what the U visas are. I 
think they are a necessary component. There have been agreed-upon 
numbers for years when this bill has been reauthorized.
  Unfortunately, as I said, the Grassley proposal adds restrictions on 
U visas which are a law enforcement tool to encourage immigrants to 
report and help prosecute crime. The restrictions are put in there--I 
am sure Senator Grassley, who is so good at fighting fraud, put them in 
there for good reason--to deter fraud, but no study or report has been 
cited to indicate that there is an issue here. U visas already have 
fraud protections because law enforcement officers must personally 
certify that the victim is cooperating with the criminal investigation. 
I tend to believe the personal certification from a law enforcement 
officer, and that is the proof that we have to issue the U visas.
  No program is perfect. I am sure we can work with Senator Grassley in 
the future if there are some fraud issues here. At this point, after a 
year of negotiation in trying to get the bill through here, we have 
significant bipartisan support. It is not the time to put a substitute 
in.
  I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the substitute Grassley amendment, embrace this 
bill, and vote for it. It is a good bill.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is the Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act. We considered it over a year ago. 
The bipartisan reauthorization passed the Senate with 68 votes more 
than 9 months ago. To someone who has suffered domestic violence abuse 
and is in need of help, it is amazing to think that what used to be an 
easy bipartisan issue has been tied up in the obstruction between the 
House and the Senate since then. There is absolutely no excuse for 
failing to enact this legislation. Now is the time to do it. We have a 
strong sensible bill before us.
  Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is 
guiding it on the Senate floor. This is an interesting issue. It is an 
emotional issue. If you haven't had domestic violence in your family, 
you can be grateful. Many people have seen it firsthand, and I don't 
think it is something they will easily forget.
  I was invited a few years back to go to Champaign, IL, to a domestic 
violence shelter to meet with one of the victims. It was an important 
meeting for me. Sitting across the table from a woman with two black 
eyes, her eyes red from crying, she could barely choke out a few words 
about what life had been like as a victim of domestic violence. She was 
humiliated by the scars her face and body showed and ashamed she had 
reached that point in her life. She had nowhere to turn. She didn't 
trust anybody. She was afraid of her spouse and so she came to this 
domestic violence shelter with her child. She didn't know where to 
turn. The shelter was trying to protect her, No. 1, and give her a 
chance for a better life.
  That is what this bill is about. It is also about a group of people I 
have come to know personally and really respect in Chicago. There is a 
group called Mujeres Latinas En Accion. What a dynamic group. I met 
them 14 or 15 years ago. They were operating out of an old house in 
Pilsen, one of the Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago. It was one of 
these beat-up, old places that a lot of charities take on and hope to 
call home and use for their purposes--in this case a domestic violence 
shelter primarily for the Hispanic neighborhood. The rooms were all 
packed. There were cots and diapers and food and all the things you beg 
for from friends to sustain a family in need of help.
  I remember going there with Amalia Rioja Castro, and she explained to 
me what they were doing in receiving people from the community. These 
were women most often with children who came in and had been 
victimized. It was tougher for them than for most. Many of them 
struggled with English. Many of them struggled with a culture that many 
times is too patriarchal in these circumstances, and many of them 
struggled with the same embarrassment as the woman I met in Champaign, 
IL. But they finally realized they had no choice; they had to ask for 
help. So they came to that shelter. And, thank goodness, those 
volunteers and people were there offering them a safe place and willing 
to take on the issues of protecting this mother and her children from 
further abuse. They saved a lot of lives in the process.
  That is what this bill is about, and it is one of the reasons this 
bill hasn't passed. You see, the difference between the Senate approach 
and the approach in the House of Representatives comes down to two or 
three things, but they are all three important things. One of them 
relates to the undocumented.
  If an undocumented woman--mother--walks into a domestic violence 
shelter in this country, beaten up, running from an abusive husband, 
holding her baby, will we help her? That is the question. Ordinarily, 
one would say: Of course. But some say: No, she is undocumented. We 
don't help those people.
  Really? We don't? Is that who we are in America? It isn't. Of course, 
we help her. Of course, we help her child. Our bill said we did; the 
House disagreed.
  Native American communities are much more complicated. In Illinois I 
don't live with these tribal communities and know all of the issues 
associated with them, but it turns out that many times in cases of 
domestic violence, the tribal courts are unable, unwilling to deal with 
the prosecutions in a timely and effective way. We tried, in the Senate 
version of the bill, to make sure when it came to Native American 
populations, tribal populations, the same protections would be there. 
The House disagreed.
  Then, of course, came the question about sexual orientation. What if 
the abuse is not man to woman, heterosexual abuse, but something else. 
Will that type of abuse also be protected? The answer is yes. In the 
Senate version of the bill, it was clearly yes. The House disagreed.
  Because of those three basic disagreements, nothing is happening. I 
shouldn't say nothing is happening. Thank goodness, Barbara Mikulski, 
now chairman of the Appropriations Committee, chaired the subcommittee 
that kept funding the bill. So we kept our commitment to these violence 
shelters around America, but we didn't reauthorize them. We didn't put 
in new language. We didn't do our job. We just stopped for a year on a 
bill that shouldn't even be debated, to a great extent. It certainly 
shouldn't be partisan.
  According to a recent survey, in the United States, 24 people every 
minute become victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking. That 
means in the time it takes me to finish this statement dozens will have 
been victimized. Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act, 
known as VAWA, has provided valuable and even lifesaving assistance to 
hundreds of thousands of people in America. The impact is profound.
  The Bureau of Justice statistics tell us the rate of domestic 
violence against women has dropped by more than 50 percent since we 
first enacted this bill. There aren't many pieces of legislation we can 
point to with that track record, but there are so many more who need 
help. That is evident from the statistics.
  The Centers for Disease Control tells us approximately one in four 
women has experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner, 
and nearly one in five women has been raped. One in five? In a study of 
undergraduate women, 19 percent have experienced an attempted or actual 
sexual assault while in college. All together more than one in three 
women have experienced rape, stalking, or physical violence by an 
intimate partner in their lifetime. That is a fact.
  The consequences are ongoing. For example, 81 percent of women who 
have experienced this report significant short- or long-term impacts, 
and the consequences can be severe. By one report, in 2007, 45 percent 
of the women killed in the United States died at the hands of an 
intimate partner.

[[Page S503]]

  This reauthorization ensures that funding will continue to go to the 
organizations and individuals who need help the most. It places 
increased emphasis on responding to sexual assault, in addition to 
domestic violence. It does things such as encourage jurisdictions to 
evaluate rape kit inventories and reduce backlogs. It incorporates 
important accountability mechanisms, consolidates programs, and 
actually reduces spending.
  It also includes vital provisions to help Native American women and 
protect immigrant communities. A provision helping to ensure the 
availability of U visas for victims of crime was taken out. I am sorry 
it was. It is a budget item; a constitutional item. But we want to make 
sure other critical provisions in the bill remain--provisions that 
protect immigrant communities that are strongly supported by those who 
work with them.
  The reauthorization also ensures that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender communities are not discriminated against when it comes to 
these services. I say this to my colleagues on both sides of the 
Chamber. Now is the time to pass the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act. Our country has to come together to make sure all 
of the victims are protected.
  Take the Native American communities, for example. According to a 
survey by the Centers for Disease Control, 4 out of every 10 American 
Indian or Alaska Native women--4 out of 10--have been victims of rape, 
physical violence, or stalking in their lifetime. That is unacceptable 
in America, a country that prides itself on its commitment to human 
rights.
  This bipartisan bill is supported by victims, experts, and advocates. 
It is supported by service providers, faith leaders, and health care 
professionals, prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials, and it 
ought to be supported by both Chambers of Congress.
  The last two VAWA reauthorization bills have carefully expanded the 
scope of the law and improved it. This reauthorization is no exception. 
It implies lessons learned from those working in the field and renews 
our commitment to reducing domestic and sexual violence. We ought to 
listen to the people on the front lines protecting those vulnerable 
populations. We should be able to pass a strong reauthorization that 
addresses the needs of all women.
  I thank Senator Leahy and many others in this Chamber for their 
leadership. I want to take a moment to discuss a provision which I 
mentioned earlier in the bill.
  A troubling episode of ``Frontline,'' the PBS program many of us 
watch and respect, detailed one woman's story in great detail, but that 
wasn't an isolated incident. The National Prison Rape Elimination 
Commission, created by Congress, said:

       As a group, immigration detainees are especially vulnerable 
     to sexual abuse and its effects while detained.

  The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, known as PREA, was designed 
to eliminate sexual abuse of those in custody. It was bipartisan and 
championed by the late Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Sessions of 
Alabama, and I cosponsored it. PREA required the promulgation of 
national standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape in 
America. There had been questions raised about whether those standards 
would apply to immigration detainees, and as I have said before, when 
we drafted and passed PREA it was our intent it would apply to all in 
Federal detention, including immigration detainees.
  I was pleased when President Obama issued a memo clarifying that PREA 
applies to all Federal confinement facilities and directing agencies to 
act accordingly. I was also pleased with the Department of Homeland 
Security drafting standards to comport with PREA. Secretary Napolitano 
and I have discussed this problem of sexual assault in detention, and I 
applaud the Secretary for her strong commitment to this issue.
  It was critical to me to have a provision in this VAWA 
reauthorization that clarifies that standards to prevent custodial rape 
must apply to immigration detainees--all immigration detainees--a 
provision that codifies the good work DHS is now doing and ensures 
strong regulations pertaining to immigration will remain in place in 
the future.
  Mr. President, I have visited some of these immigration detainee 
facilities. They are not quite prisons but almost. Those who are being 
detained before being deported have little access to the outside. In my 
case, I went down to deep southern Illinois, 300-plus miles from 
Chicago--more than 300 miles from Chicago. It was hard for them to get 
a telephone they could use for access to family or attorneys. It was a 
pretty isolated situation. They are clearly in a remote place. Many are 
treated well but many are not.
  Custodial sexual assault is just one of the many issues addressed by 
this VAWA bill. I urge my colleagues to work together and reauthorize 
this bill. If this is truly a new day after this last election, if we 
are truly determined to do things on a bipartisan basis, why isn't this 
the first thing we do? It used to be bipartisan. It didn't even take 
that much time to pass it because we were all together on it.
  Everybody understands domestic violence--if not from their family, 
certainly from their life experience and watching what happens in these 
domestic violence shelters. We have had broad bipartisan support for 
this in the past. This last year, despite Chairman Leahy's 
extraordinary efforts, it fell apart in the House of Representatives. 
We want to give them another chance--a chance to get it right, a chance 
to join us in passing a bipartisan bill that we are likely to pass from 
this Chamber.
  The dozens of individuals who have been victimized since I stood up 
to begin this speech need help now. This is our opportunity. Let's show 
them that when it comes to protecting America's most vulnerable 
populations, we will be there.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time because I think it is 
important people recognize that what we do has such an important impact 
on local law enforcement and on local agencies.
  Last year I hosted a roundtable discussion in Prince George's County, 
MD, to discuss the importance of reauthorizing the Violence Against 
Women Act, known as VAWA. This roundtable brought together victims, 
social service agencies, law enforcement, clergy, and others on the 
frontline of providing support and protection to victims of domestic 
violence.
  VAWA has a proven track record of protecting women from domestic 
violence, and it is hard to understand opposition to legislation with 
the goal of curbing domestic violence. Saving women's lives should not 
be a partisan issue. The statistics of domestic violence are alarming. 
Yet domestic violence remains one of the most underreported crimes in 
the country. These victims need to know they have our support, 
including access to justice, help with housing, medical care, and 
economic opportunity.
  In 2010, there were 10,574 protective orders in my State, and peace 
order filings in Prince George's County was one-fifth of the total 
50,363 filings in the State of Maryland--so 10,000 in Prince George's 
County, 50,000 in Maryland.
  At the roundtable I held in Prince George's County, I heard a number 
of examples of the importance of VAWA from those on the frontline of 
combating domestic violence.
  Prince George's County sheriff Melvin High told me the oath he took 
obligates him to protect all people without political consideration. He 
strongly stated that VAWA should be reauthorized; that it is an 
extremely important tool that he uses to help protect the people of 
Prince George's County.
  State attorney Angela Alsobrooks told me that for more than a decade, 
her office has received funding from VAWA that has allowed her domestic 
violence unit to provide greater services to the victims of abuse. 
Without this funding, she told me she would lose a domestic violence 
advocate and a prosecutor who is assigned specifically to domestic 
violence cases, reducing their ability to help victims. She

[[Page S504]]

urged the House at that time--because we had passed the bill in the 
Senate--to pass the Senate version of VAWA in order to ensure they 
continue to receive this critical funding.
  Malinda Miles is the executive director of the Family Crisis Center 
in Prince George's County, which is the premier domestic violence 
program in the county, serving women and children for more than 30 
years. She stated she believes the House bill, if passed, would set 
back women 50 years--the bill they were considering last year--and 
would be a travesty for the women and children of this Nation now and 
for years to come, urging at that time that the bill we passed last 
year--the bill we are considering on the floor now--needs to pass as 
quickly as possible.
  Prince George's County police chief Mark Magaw told me that combating 
domestic violence remains a primary focus of his department, and he is 
thankful for support provided by the VAWA grant program.
  The Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress and signed into 
law in 1994 by President Clinton. This law has a proud and bipartisan 
history. Congress passed this legislation in 1994 after growing 
awareness of crimes associated with domestic violence, including sexual 
assault and stalking cases. Congress needed to address the prevailing 
attitude at the time that domestic violence was a private so-called 
family matter, which in many cases police were hesitant to arrest 
abusers and prosecutors were reluctant to send abusers to jail. We have 
changed that, and VAWA helped us change that. The passage of VAWA will 
help our local agencies protect women and hold those abusers 
accountable for their actions.
  VAWA enhanced investigators and prosecutors of sex offenses and 
created a number of new grant programs that included law enforcement, 
public and private entities, services providers, and victims of crime. 
Congress approved reauthorizations of VAWA that expanded its 
protections by bipartisan votes in 2000 and 2005. In 2000, Congress 
enhanced Federal domestic violence and stalking penalties, added 
protections for battered immigrants, and added new programs for elderly 
and disabled women. In 2005, Congress enhanced penalties for repeat 
stalking offenders, added protection for battered and trafficked 
immigrants, and added programs for sexual assault victims and American 
Indian victims, as well as programs designed to improve the public 
health response to domestic violence.
  Now, in 2013, the Senate is trying to approve VAWA once again, since 
its original passage nearly 20 years ago. The Senate-passed version of 
the law includes measures to ensure that victims are not denied 
services because they are gay or transgender. It protects Native 
American women from domestic violence and sexual assault and includes 
nondiscrimination provisions for all victims, regardless of their race, 
color, religion or gender.
  VAWA encourages collaboration among law enforcement, judicial 
personnel, and public and private service providers to victims of 
domestic and sexual violence. It also works to increase public 
awareness.
  One in four women will experience domestic violence in their 
lifetime. An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical 
assault by an intimate partner every year. In Maryland, in 2009, there 
were more than 18,000 reported cases of domestic abuse and 38 
fatalities. That period of time has been the lowest number of domestic 
violence-related deaths on record for the State, but these numbers are 
still very much unacceptable.
  I am disappointed that last year the House refused to take up this 
legislation we approved and also refused to allow us to go to 
conference to work out the differences between the two bills. I urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues in the House to quickly take up the Senate bill and enact it 
into law.
 Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I am in support of S. 47, the 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. I am a cosponsor of 
this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this 
important piece of legislation.
  The grants created by this act have helped ensure services to 
domestic violence victims since 1994. VAWA has helped raise public 
awareness on an issue that too often went unreported and ignored under 
the guise of politeness and privacy by family, friends, and neighbors.
  Yet, while VAWA has raised awareness, increased reporting, and 
provided victims of domestic violence and similar crimes with better 
services and protection against perpetrators, there is still much work 
to be done to eliminate these crimes. Specifically, I am concerned 
about the high instances of domestic violence in Indian Country. I am 
pleased that S. 47 includes language to provide tribal governments the 
force they need to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators who commit these 
crimes on tribal land. There is no reason a non-Indian perpetrator 
should go unpunished because a tribe lacked jurisdiction over him or 
her, and it is especially egregious that in such cases, the perpetrator 
may go unpunished for crimes committed on tribal land. Every citizen of 
this Nation deserves the safety and security that comes with a peaceful 
home and safe relationship.
  Indeed, I believe noncitizen immigrants who have moved to this 
country and found themselves trapped in an unsafe relationship or 
family setting also deserve the protections provided by VAWA. S. 47 
provides the types of protections necessary to assist law enforcement 
in prosecuting crimes that might otherwise have gone unreported by 
immigrants fearful of losing their status.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S. 47 and will work 
to make the bill and the services and protections it provides as strong 
as possible.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express support for 
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA.
  For the last 18 years, VAWA has been the centerpiece of the Federal 
Government's efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, 
stalking and sexual assault, and it has transformed the response to 
these crimes at the local, State, and Federal levels.
  VAWA was first signed into law in 1994. This body reauthorized it in 
2000 and again in 2005 on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.
  Unfortunately, final approval of the VAWA reauthorization bill came 
to an abrupt halt in Congress last year, when some Republicans insisted 
on removing provisions that would provide expanded protections for gay 
and lesbian individuals and undocumented immigrants who are the victims 
of domestic abuse.
  In my view, these expanded protections are improvements. Domestic 
violence is domestic violence, regardless of the victim's immigration 
status or sexual orientation.
  Domestic violence and crimes against American women have never been 
partisan issues in the past. This is why, candidly, I'm surprised that 
I find myself on this floor urging a vote a vote on a historically 
bipartisan bill.
  Today, as a result of VAWA, more victims report incidents of domestic 
violence to the police, and the rate of non-fatal partner violence 
against women has decreased by 53 percent since 1994, according to the 
Department of Justice.
  Because of VAWA, States have the funding to implement ``evidence-
based'' anti-domestic violence programs, including lethality screens, 
which help law enforcement predict when a person is at risk of becoming 
the victim of deadly abuse.
  In my home State of California, with the help of VAWA funds, we 
reduced the number of domestic violence homicides committed annually by 
30% between 1994--the year of VAWA's enactment--and 2010.
  In my days as the mayor of San Francisco, many of the most difficult 
calls for the city's law enforcement officers were those of domestic 
abuse. It was a big problem then, and it remains a big problem today.
  In California in 2010, there were 166,361 domestic violence calls, 
including more than 65,000 that involved a weapon.
  Fortunately, over 5,000 victims receive assistance each day from 
local domestic violence service providers in the State. These providers 
offer services that are essential to ending the cycle of abuse that is 
faced by so many domestic violence victims.
  Let me share a success story about a woman from Lake County, CA who 
received vital assistance from a local domestic violence center that 
receives Federal VAWA funding.

[[Page S505]]

  Mary--her name has been changed to protect her confidentiality--
contacted the Lake Family Resource Center after leaving her abusive 
husband. Mary was assigned to a domestic violence family advocate who 
offered her one-on-one counseling and legal assistance.
  The family advocate helped Mary file and obtain a temporary 
restraining order against her husband. This order kept him away from 
Mary and gave her temporary custody of their children.
  The family advocate also accompanied Mary to several court hearings 
and was able to connect her with other local service providers. This 
support allowed Mary to remain independent and keep her children safe.
  After several months of counseling and assistance, Mary obtained full 
custody of her children and their lives have improved significantly. 
For the first time ever, the children are now able to invite friends to 
their home and participate in normal social activities. In addition, 
their grades have improved dramatically, with one child receiving the 
Student of the Month Award from his school.
  The positive impact of VAWA funding is undeniable. Yet many 
California service providers report a critical shortage of funds and 
staff to assist victims in need.
  Reauthorizing VAWA would address these shortages through grant 
programs administered by the Department of Justice that provide funding 
for emergency shelters, counseling, and legal services for victims of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
  The bill would also continue support for State agencies, rape crisis 
centers, and other organizations that provide services to vulnerable 
women.
  The bill we are considering today gives increased attention to 
victims of sexual violence. This form of violence is particularly 
destructive because, for many years, our society viewed sexual violence 
as the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator.
  Although VAWA has always addressed the crime of sexual assault, a 
smaller percentage of grant funding has been allocated to sexual 
assault victims than is proportional to their rates of victimization. 
This reauthorization bill does three things to address this imbalance:
  1. It provides an increased focus on training for law enforcement and 
prosecutors to address the ongoing needs of sexual assault victims.
  2. The bill extends VAWA's housing protections to these victims.
  3. And the bill ensures that those who are living with, but not 
married to, an abuser qualify for housing assistance available under 
VAWA.
  The bill also updates the Federal criminal code to clarify that 
cyberstalking is a crime. With increasing frequency, victims are being 
stalked over the Internet through e-mail, blogs, and Facebook. When 
stalking is done online, the message sent by the perpetrator is 
memorialized forever, making it more difficult for victims to put the 
painful experience in the past and move forward in their lives.
  Simply put, VAWA saves lives. It protects American women. And it is a 
lifeline for women and children who are in distress. To me, this bill 
is a no-brainer. We must continue our ongoing commitment to ending 
domestic and sexual violence. This commitment has always been 
bipartisan, and it should be again. Let's not further victimize at-risk 
American women because of partisan politics.
  Let's do our job and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act with 
strong bipartisan support, as we always have.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today the Senate should have been able 
overwhelmingly to support reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, 
but the majority made that impossible. In fact, S. 47 is not really a 
reauthorization bill but a bill to use the Violence Against Women Act 
to venture into new ideological territory. For that reason, I cannot 
support S. 47 but am a cosponsor of the true VAWA reauthorization bill 
introduced by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
  Two decades ago during the 103rd Congress, as ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, I worked with Chairman Joe Biden to develop 
legislation to combat domestic violence and sexual assault against 
women. That first passage of the Violence Against Women Act had 
bipartisan support, although it was by no means without controversy. I 
took more than my share of criticism from the right, but it was the 
right thing to do, and I worked to promote a genuine bipartisan 
consensus behind this legislation.
  In 2000, I again cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act which was 
included in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, and 
the Senate voted 95-to-0 for the conference report. I cosponsored the 
VAWA reauthorization bill again in 2005, and this time the Senate 
passed it by unanimous consent without even a roll call vote. Clearly, 
the trend has been toward broader support.
  Unfortunately, the majority today has deliberately stopped that 
trend. The majority has insisted on injecting into this legislation 
highly controversial and divisive provisions that were guaranteed to 
fracture the growing support that VAWA has enjoyed in the past. Many of 
us asked them not to do it this way but to address these issues 
separately so that there could be hearings and proper debate. Instead, 
the majority chose to use VAWA as cover for sidestepping the 
legislative process on these issues.
  Let me give just one example. One of those divisive issues concerns 
the jurisdiction of courts on Native American reservations. Section 904 
of S. 47 would give tribal courts jurisdiction over nontribal 
individuals in domestic violence cases. This presents numerous 
constitutional problems. Native American reservations are sovereign 
nations, and key provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights 
have been interpreted not to apply there. This legislation lists 
certain rights to be afforded nontribal defendants but not only stops 
short of guaranteeing all constitutional rights but also does not 
provide for direct review of convictions in U.S. courts. I simply 
cannot support depriving American citizens of constitutional rights and 
judicial protection.
  I want to applaud my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, who has 
been trying mightily to correct this grave constitutional defect in S. 
47. He has negotiated in good faith in a principled and fair way. Like 
me, he wants to support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act. But like him, I will do so only on the appropriate constitutional 
and policy grounds.
  I have cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act three times. I 
voted last year to reauthorize it and will do so again today. But while 
I support reauthorizing VAWA, I cannot support using VAWA as a vehicle 
to enact divisive and controversial new measures that have not been 
properly evaluated on their own terms. Had the majority taken the same 
approach as we did in 2000 and 2005, this legislation would have been 
passed and signed into law months ago. Instead, the majority has 
destroyed the bipartisan consensus in favor of unconstitutional and 
divisive efforts to favor special interests.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the leader, Senator Leahy, for 
his leadership in trying to get the Violence Against Women Act passed 
and for being down here and working on an agreement with the other side 
of the aisle so we can vote either today or in the near future. 
Hopefully, we will bring this issue to an end and get along with 
protecting the rights of women throughout the United States of America.
  I am very anxious to help and further that debate. I come to the 
floor as the chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and as 
somebody who has spent a lot of time dealing with tribal leadership in 
the State of Washington and throughout the Pacific Northwest. I know 
the Presiding Officer has a very large tribal population within her 
State too. I am sure she has had had many experiences with those 
tribes. Like me, she wants to make sure all victims of domestic 
violence are protected in America.

[[Page S506]]

  In Washington State, we receive over 30,000 domestic violence calls a 
year. That is more than 500 incidents per week. Our domestic violence 
programs serve about 1,800 people each day, and that is why we need to 
move past this debate, get this legislation reauthorized, so we make 
sure we help protect victims.
  A woman named Carissa Daniels came to one of our events recently. She 
fled from a very abusive domestic violence situation with her 3-year-
old daughter. She said she is alive because of the Violence Against 
Women Act. Those safeguards and protections protected her and her 
daughter.
  I come to the floor, and I am a little frustrated this debate has 
been bogged down over a few issues, particularly this issue as it 
relates to Native Americans and the rights of Native Americans.
  I think we had the Department of Justice come to the Congress with a 
very good solution because their point was we have an epidemic of 
violence against women in Indian country, and we don't have a ready 
solution as it relates to the necessary law enforcement there to 
protect them.
  I don't mean to be elementary, but going back through our country's 
history and our relationship with tribal governments, it is a Federal 
relationship. To secure that Federal relationship, we have basically 
said these are rights for the Federal Government and not the States. In 
many ways, we have eliminated what States can do as it relates to 
tribal land. The challenge we have is that on these tribal reservations 
we need to make sure the law is enforced--a Federal law--and that there 
are individuals to carry out that Federal law.
  By voting for the underlying amendment, maybe my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have an appropriations authorization that says 
this is how we are going to deal with it: We are going to give you a 
Federal prosecutor and a Federal agent on every tribal reservation or 
in every jurisdiction. I don't know how many that would be in my State. 
We have vast and huge amounts of land. I guess, if they thought that 
was going to be effective, there would have to be a prosecutor and a 
Federal agent in probably 39 different parts of my State. If we 
multiply that in the West--or even just in the Presiding Officer's 
State--we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars the Federal 
Government would have to dole out to properly police and enforce 
Federal law as it relates to crimes against these women.
  Why isn't anybody recommending that? Because I think the Department 
of Justice has adequately seen that the best way to do this is to build 
a partnership with those tribal jurisdictions to get that done.
  In looking over the history of this, I am always amazed at what 
previous administrations--Republican administrations--said about this 
tribal relationship. Even George H.W. Bush's Solicitor General Kenneth 
Starr stated in a filing in the Supreme Court that ``it remains true 
today that the State has no jurisdiction over on-reservation offenses 
involving Indians. . . . ''
  George W. Bush's Solicitor General said that ``the policy of leaving 
Indians free from State jurisdiction and control'' is one that ``is 
deeply rooted in the Nation's history.''
  So here are Republican administrations that have basically said the 
way to deal with this is a Federal relationship. I am saying to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that unless they are willing 
to put a Federal prosecutor and a Federal agent on all tribal 
reservations, who do they think is going to prosecute these crimes? 
Who? Who is going to prosecute them? That is why the Department of 
Justice came to us and said: We have an idea on how we might do it. 
Let's try to get a partnership with tribal jurisdictions to make sure 
justice is being brought on tribal land but do so by protecting the 
civil liberties of American citizens as we go through this process.
  That is the legislation that is before us. It passed out of the 
Judiciary Committee and is now on the Senate floor. My colleagues 
across the aisle are trying to strip those very rights that Native 
American women would have.
  The way this would work is obviously tribal jurisdictions would 
prosecute these individuals. If there is anyone who doesn't think this 
is a problem--it is amazing to me to think this concept that one of our 
other colleagues might be proposing, that somehow we would say: OK. A 
solution would be to say it is a lesser crime if an Indian woman is 
assaulted on a tribal reservation, and it would be a misdemeanor. 
Somehow aggressive abuse and violent attacks against women would be a 
misdemeanor. I am not going to treat Native American women as second-
class citizens in the United States of America.
  I get that might have been the cultural norm of the 1700s and 1800s, 
but it has no place in our history in 2013. This is about legislation 
that will protect tribal women on Indian reservations and make sure 
these cases of abuse--whether they are done by a Native American or 
non-Native American--are protected.
  Consider the case of Diane Millich. Her ex-husband was never arrested 
any of the more than 100 times he had beaten her or attacked her. 
Finally, he showed up at her workplace with a gun to kill her. She is 
alive because an individual from her workplace pushed her out of the 
way. Her husband is being treated as a first-time offender because all 
those other times he beat her or domestically assaulted her, he was 
never prosecuted because it took place on a reservation.
  This epidemic is so great that now these people who are involved in 
sex and drug trafficking are targeting reservations and Indian women 
because they know they will not get prosecuted. They know this.
  We are allowing an intolerable situation to grow in great extremes 
simply because we are missing a vital tool. I get that many of my 
colleagues may not understand the history of tribal law and the history 
of our country and securing a relationship with tribes and the treaties 
we signed.
  Again, as I said before, this is a relationship we have preserved for 
the Federal Government, and the Federal Government is saying this is 
how we can best solve these crimes by getting the help and support of 
tribal jurisdictions.

  I wish to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
because I have heard some of them say that somehow this violates the 
civil liberties of non-Native Americans if these crimes happen in 
Indian Country, that nothing could be further from the truth.
  First of all, all tribal courts also adhere to the Indian Civil 
Rights Act, which is basically our 14th amendment. So the security of 
the 14th amendment is right there in the law and will protect any non-
Native American who is charged with this crime on a reservation.
  Secondly, this law has specifically broad language, making sure the 
defendant would be protected with all rights required by the United 
States in order for this jurisdiction to have oversight. It is almost 
like a double protection--saying it twice--that the habeas corpus 
rights of individuals will be protected under this statute.
  The notion that this is somehow abrogating individual rights just 
because the crime takes place on a tribal reservation is incorrect. So 
I ask my colleagues: Do we want to continue to have this unbelievable 
growth and petri dish of crime evolving--when criminals know there is a 
porous border, that is where they are going to go--or do we want to 
partner with a recommendation that has been determined by the 
Department of Justice, which has the authority to carry out this 
Federal law on tribal reservations and is asking for this partnership 
but with due protection so we can root out this evil in our 
communities.
  I would say to my colleagues, it is time to pass this legislation and 
protect these rights for all individuals. We cannot vote for an 
amendment on the other side of the aisle that basically strips the 
rights of Native American women and treats them like second-class 
citizens, nor can we just go silent on what is an epidemic problem in 
our country. What we have to do is stand and realize that the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Country is a 
very mature relationship with a lot of Federal case law behind it. A 
lot of Republican administrations recognize it is a Federal 
relationship and that we can--asking Indian Country to help us--solve 
this problem and prosecute these individuals under the rights we have 
as constitutional citizens of the United States.

[[Page S507]]

  I am confident we can get to an answer and resolve this issue. I say 
to my colleagues: We need to do so with urgency. We cannot allow 
another 1,800 calls to go unanswered or not supported because we have 
not authorized this legislation. Let's get our job done and protect all 
women throughout the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I would like to speak on the amendment, 
if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Earlier this week, my colleague Senator Blumenthal spoke 
about an amendment we are offering to the Violence Against Women Act, 
and it is an amendment that has to do with child sex trafficking. I am 
pleased to join him in offering this important amendment and talking 
about it today.
  This is really a technical correction to the underlying legislation 
to enhance the safety of our youth and our children in the area of sex 
trafficking.
  Last November, Senator Blumenthal and I started the Senate Caucus to 
End Human Trafficking. We have been working with our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle and have been making bipartisan progress on this 
issue. In general, we are working to raise awareness of human 
trafficking, and with regard to the underlying bill, the issue of child 
sex trafficking.
  This issue cuts across all party and philosophical lines. It is 
something that is more fundamental. It is about who we are as a people, 
and how we respect and protect basic human dignity. It is important to 
acknowledge that human trafficking is not something we hear about that 
happens overseas; it happens right here in America. Unfortunately, 
human trafficking is an issue present in communities in Ohio and 
Connecticut--where Senator Blumenthal is from--and in all of our 
States.
  Children and youth are among the most vulnerable individuals and are 
at the greatest risk. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
there are now nearly 300,000 young Americans who are at risk of 
commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking.
  The Department of Justice reports that between 2008 and 2010, 83 
percent of sex trafficking victims found within the United States were 
U.S. citizens. By the way, 40 percent of those cases involve sexual 
exploitation of children. Human trafficking has a devastating impact on 
so many Americans across this country.
  One of the reasons we lack data on the definitive number of victims 
is that there are limited programs and resources available to serve 
these children nationwide, and this problem is not limited to large 
cities or metropolitan areas.
  In Ohio, the 2012 Human Trafficking Commission Report surveyed more 
than 300 Ohio youth victims of sex trafficking. The report found that 
40 percent were also victims of sexual abuse; 47 percent of the victims 
surveyed confirmed they had been raped 1 year before being trafficked.
  Dr. Celia Williamson, from Toledo, OH, is one of the key individuals 
responsible for this report and continues to work to strengthen the 
response to sex trafficking in Ohio. Dr. Williamson developed the 
program, RESCUE CHILD, which educates first responders and everyday 
citizens on how to recognize the signs of child sex trafficking.
  This is an important issue for Ohio. Toledo, OH, is among the highest 
in the country in terms of prosecution and investigations of sex 
trafficking. Dr. Williamson has helped to educate folks to identify 
signs of sex trafficking and high vulnerability. Some of the key signs 
of high vulnerability to sex trafficking are youth who have run away 
from home and children who are victims of sexual assault, emotional 
abuse, child abuse, or neglect. In order to fight human trafficking, we 
have to prioritize services to these vulnerable youth and connect 
victims of sex trafficking with appropriate resources.

  So this amendment is really just a technical amendment to ensure that 
we protect these child victims of sex trafficking and provide them with 
what is necessary to fully recover from this devastating trauma.
  Section 302 of the reauthorization of VAWA is appropriating titled 
``Creating Hope Through Outreach, Options, Services, and Education for 
Children and Youth.'' The intent of this section is to ``develop, 
expand, and strengthen victim-centered interventions and services that 
target victim-centered youth who are victims of domestic violence, 
dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.''
  Section 302 omits the term ``sex trafficking'' except in the context 
of a ``co-occurrence'' with one of these other factors I mentioned. So 
in order to be covered under this section, victims would have to be 
victims of sexual assault or another violation as well as victims of 
sex trafficking.
  The omission of ``sex trafficking'' seems to be inadvertent because 
it is inconsistent with the similar sections of the reauthorization. 
One example of this is found in Section 902, which provides grants to 
Indian tribunal governments for the safety of women and youth. This 
section provides for ``services to address the needs of youth who are 
victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, sex 
trafficking, and stalking.'' So sex trafficking is in one section but 
not in another. We want to clarify that being a victim of sex 
trafficking alone should be sufficient to be covered under this act.
  I thank Senator Blumenthal for his commitment to this issue, and I 
thank my colleagues, including the ranking member and the chairman who 
are here on the floor today. I hope to offer this amendment at the 
appropriate point in the process, but I wanted to speak a little bit 
about it and explain why Senator Blumenthal and I would like to offer 
this. Again, we hope it will be a noncontroversial, technical 
correction to ensure that sex trafficking is included among those 
provisions that are listed in Section 302.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I hope to offer an amendment that 
would be a Republican substitute, so whenever that happens--I don't 
know exactly when, but I wish to discuss my amendment at this point.
  My amendment does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic 
violence and sex crimes than does the underlying piece of legislation. 
There are many ways in which this is so. Under the substitute amendment 
I will offer, more money goes to the victims and less to bureaucrats. 
It requires that 10 percent of the grantees be audited every year to 
ensure that taxpayer funds are actually used to combat domestic 
violence. It seems to me that when dollars are short, that is a very 
important point that people ought to take cognizance of.
  The Justice Department inspector general conducted a review of 22 
VAWA grantees between the years 1998 and 2010. Of these 22, 21 were 
found to have some form of violation of grant requirements, ranging 
from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy record keeping 
and failure to report in a timely manner. In 2010 one grantee was found 
by the inspector general to have questionable costs for 93 percent of 
the nearly $900,000 they received from the Department of Justice. A 
2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was 
questionable.
  These fiscal irregularities continue. An inspector general audit from 
last year found that the Violence Against Women Act grant recipient in 
the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 of questionable spending. 
Also, a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho had about $250,000 in 
improperly spent funds, including $171,000 in salary for an unapproved 
position. In Michigan last year, a woman at a VAWA grant recipient used 
some of those funds to purchase goods and services for her personal 
use.
  After all of those examples, the point is this: We should make sure 
Violence Against Women Act money goes to victims. That hasn't been the 
case under the current situation, and the substitute works toward 
improving that situation.
  The substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to 
lobby for more taxpayer funds. That seems to be pretty common sense.
  My amendment will ensure that more money is available for victim 
services. That is where the money is supposed to go. Money that goes to 
grantees and is squandered helps no woman or other victims.

[[Page S508]]

  In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of VAWA 
funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to just 7.5 
percent. The present underlying bill, S. 47, contains no such limit. If 
we want the money to go to victims and not to bureaucrats, then those 
overhead expenses should be capped.
  The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of the 
STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protection orders are 
targeted on sexual assault. The underlying bill sets aside only 20 
percent for sexual assault.
  The substitute requires that training materials be approved by an 
outside accredited organization to ensure that those who address 
domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not on ideology. 
That will result in more effective assistance to the victims. The 
underlying bill contains no such requirement.
  The substitute protects due process rights the majority bill 
threatens. Now, I am sure the majority writers don't feel their bill 
threatens due process rights, so let me explain. The majority bill says 
that college campuses must provide for ``prompt and equitable 
investigation and resolution'' of charges of violence or stalking. This 
essentially does nothing but codify a proposed rule of the Department 
of Education that would have required the imposition of a civil 
standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a 
criminal charge--one that, if proved, rightfully should harm 
reputation. But if established on a barely-more-probable-than-not 
standard, reputations can then be ruined unfairly. The substitute 
eliminates this provision as well as another provision that allowed the 
victim who could not prove such a charge even under this reduced 
standard to appeal if she lost, creating a kind of double jeopardy.
  The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to 
issue protective orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians 
based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country. Noting that the due 
process clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only 
those persons who have ``minimum contacts'' with the forum, the 
Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional concerns with 
this provision. The substitute contains provisions that would benefit 
tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.
  Tribes could seek protective orders in Federal court. The substitute 
establishes up to $25 million for Federal prosecutors and magistrates 
to be placed near tribes for criminal domestic violence and sexual 
assault cases as well as to hear tribal motions for protective orders.
  The grant funds are paid for by reducing the overhead of other 
Justice Department grant funds. However, there will be no reduction in 
available grants for law enforcement or victims. These programs are not 
currently funded to their authorized levels, so the reductions will not 
reduce services provided.
  Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for 
those who commit these terrible crimes. The substitute I am referring 
to creates a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for Federal convictions 
for forcible rape. The majority bill even eliminates the 5-year 
mandatory minimum sentence for this crime that was in the bill last 
year and supported last year by the Judiciary Committee.
  Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence 
against women. Our alternative amendment establishes a 1-year mandatory 
minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim 
depicted is under 12 years of age. I believe the mandatory minimum for 
this crime should be higher and that in light of the systematically 
lenient sentences that too many Federal judges hand out, there should 
be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession 
convictions. But the substitute at least is a start. This is especially 
true because the majority bill takes no action against child 
pornography.
  Our alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for 
the crime of aggravated sexual assault. This crime involves sexual 
assault through the use of drugs and by otherwise rendering the victim 
unconscious. The underlying bill does nothing about aggravated sexual 
assault. The status quo appears to be fine for the other side.
  The Republican substitute establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum 
sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in 
the death of a victim. It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory 
maximum sentence for the crime where it results in life-threatening 
bodily injury to or the permanent disfigurement of the victim. It 
increases from 10 to 15 years the mandatory maximum sentence for this 
crime when serious bodily injury to the victim is the result. The 
underlying bill contains none of these important protections for 
domestic violence victims.
  Also included in my substitute are commonsense immigration reforms 
that put integrity back into the Violence Against Women Act self-
petitioning process and the U visa program.
  This last Congress, the Judiciary Committee heard the powerful 
testimony of Julie Poner. She described her personal experience as a 
victim of immigration marriage fraud and with the fraudulent use of 
Violence Against Women Act self-petitions. Ms. Poner told us she 
married her husband in the Czech Republic and moved her husband and 
kids back to the United States. Within days of receiving notice of an 
interview with the immigration service to finalize her husband's 
immigration status, he told her he was divorcing her. He instructed her 
to file for the divorce and continue to sponsor him for his green card. 
He then became abusive toward her children. Her husband was a hockey 
player--6 feet 2 inches tall. However, he knew he risked deportation if 
the truth came out, so he turned the tables on his wife and claimed he 
was the one abused--actually being abused by Ms. Poner. Ms. Poner never 
was allowed to share her side of the story. The immigration service 
believed his claims and allowed him to remain in the United States.
  Our committee also received written statements from more than 20 
individuals who maintained they were victims of marriage fraud or were 
falsely accused as part of the Violence Against Women Act self-
petitions. These witnesses told of their firsthand experiences and how 
foreign nationals prey on U.S. citizens simply to get a green card. The 
U.S. citizens thought it was all for love, but after saying ``I do,'' 
the foreign national lodged false allegations, sometimes of physical 
abuse, in order to get out of the marriage, collect alimony, and secure 
a green card.
  Witnesses have said their side of the story was never--never--heard 
because under the process used by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, the citizen's side of the story is not considered. The U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services handles all of these green card 
applications in one service center that relies exclusively on paper, 
without interviewing either the alleged abused foreign national or the 
accused citizen.
  To this day, I am disappointed that antifraud measures have not been 
included in the Violence Against Women Act. We cannot allow a law 
intended to prevent abuse to be manipulated as a pathway to U.S. 
citizenship for foreign con artists and criminals. If we are truly 
concerned about helping and protecting the victims of domestic 
violence, then we should include a provision that allows our 
immigration agents to hear both sides of the story when a foreign 
national applies for a green card after alleging domestic violence by a 
U.S. citizen.
  So my amendment, obviously, addresses this fraud. It would require an 
interview of the applicant and allow the government to gather other 
evidence and interview other witnesses, including the accused U.S. 
citizen or legal permanent resident.
  Before adjudicating the self-petition, the government would have to 
determine whether other investigations or prosecutions are underway for 
the petitioning alien. If there are other allegations or investigations 
pending, the immigration adjudication would have to consider all facts.
  The second immigration-related section of my amendment would 
strengthen the requirements of a U visa. Under current law, the 
requirements for receiving a U visa are generous. My

[[Page S509]]

amendment implements some commonsense requirements to guide law 
enforcement who help sponsor these individuals.
  In addition to confirming that the alien has been helpful, each law 
enforcement certification will also have to confirm that, one, the 
alien reported the criminal activity to a law enforcement agency within 
120 days of its occurrence; two, the statute of limitations for 
prosecuting an offense based on the criminal activity has not lapsed; 
three, the criminal activity is actively under investigation or a 
prosecution has been commenced; and, four, and last, the alien has 
information that will assist in identifying the perpetrator of the 
criminal activity and/or the perpetrator's identity is known.
  With these changes, U visas will become a true law enforcement tool. 
The additional requirements will ensure that the help given is real and 
significantly advances an actual investigation and prosecution.
  Another immigration-related section of my amendment includes a 
Government Accountability Office report to assess the efficiency and 
reliability of the process for reviewing applications for U visas and 
self-petitions under the Violence Against Women Act, including whether 
the process includes adequate safeguards against fraud and abuse.
  It will also identify possible improvements in order to reduce fraud 
and abuse.
  The final immigration provision I want to highlight in my substitute 
would allow the U.S. Government to deport repeat drunk drivers. Section 
1005 would add habitual drunk driving to the list of aggravated 
felonies for which an alien may be deported.
  Every day--every day--an innocent life is taken because someone 
decides to drink and drive. An individual who gets behind the wheel 
after drinking is not exercising sound judgment.
  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals are 
required to be of ``good moral character'' before they are able to 
adjust status or become citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, 
habitual drunk driving does not stand in one's way from gaining these 
benefits. In other words, it is not a deportable offense.
  There are numerous stories about individuals who have taken innocent 
lives because they were driving under the influence of alcohol. In 
2011, an undocumented alien in Cook County, IL, killed a man in a drunk 
driving accident. Unfortunately, he was released by the county, 
absconded, and remains in the United States. There was also a Virginia 
man who killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County in 2010. He was 
an illegal immigrant and repeat offender and never should have been 
allowed to remain in the country.
  There are many more cases, and, unfortunately, the law will allow 
drunk driving to continue without repercussions for foreign nationals 
who are on a path to citizenship. It is time that these offenses were 
classified as an aggravated felony. It is time to get these people off 
the streets. Residing in the United States is a privilege, not a right.
  The Congress has every prerogative to dictate which behavior is 
acceptable, especially for noncitizens who should be of ``good moral 
character.'' Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee adopted an 
amendment to this bill that would have classified habitual drunk 
driving offenses as aggravated felonies. But in the bill before us now, 
the majority has dropped that provision. I cannot understand why we 
would be so lenient with respect to habitual drunk drivers.
  When we get to amendments--the substitute I just talked about--I 
intend to offer that substitute, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Republican substitute bill being 
offered by the Senator from Iowa does not meet the needs of victims of 
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 
Respectfully, I must say it is a poor substitute for the bipartisan 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act we developed over the last 2 
years that has 62 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. I urge Senators to vote 
against it.

  The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act already 
reflects many efforts we have undertaken to address the concerns of 
Senator Grassley and to meet Republican members halfway, and to 
accommodate them where we could. Our bill includes significant new 
accountability provisions modeled on language Senator Grassley had us 
include in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
  Our bill significantly reduces authorization levels to all programs. 
This is the first time a reauthorization reduced authorization levels, 
and we do so by almost 20 percent. Our bill consolidates and 
streamlines 13 programs. Our bill limits the percentage of grants that 
organizations can use for planning purposes. In drafting our bill, we 
eliminated several provisions that Senator Grassley indicated were 
problematic. We took these steps in an effort to work together to pass 
a bipartisan bill.
  The proposed substitute bill would remove fundamental points of 
fairness that are at the core of this legislation. We need to cover 
everyone who experiences domestic and sexual violence in this country. 
No exceptions.
  About 3\1/2\ years ago, the Congress finally adopted the Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which protected 
those targeted with violence in a similar way to what we are 
considering today. We should not retreat from that position when we are 
addressing domestic and sexual violence.
  The Republican substitute abandons VAWA's historic emphasis on abuse 
of women. Women are still more often the victims of domestic and sexual 
violence with more catastrophic results. The Republican substitute not 
only fails women, it also fails to guarantee that services will 
actually reach those victims who have in the past been unable to access 
them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  We should listen to those on the front lines of these tragedies who 
have told us about underserved communities needing protection. We 
should respond to law enforcement when they tell us about the 
importance of the U visa program, which enables them to take dangerous 
people off the street. We should not adopt the measures included in the 
Republican substitute that would make it more difficult for victims to 
apply for U visas. The Republican substitute would abandon our 
provisions that address domestic and sexual violence in tribal areas, 
which has reached epidemic proportions with rates of victimization far 
exceeding those in the general population. Taking money from other 
Justice Department programs to impose Federal judges and prosecutors on 
Indian lands is costly, unworkable and a non-solution to the problem. 
The bipartisan reauthorization bill, by contrast, takes the approach 
recommended by our Committee on Indian Affairs. We include local, 
community-based approaches to domestic violence that have worked so 
well in so many VAWA programs. Federal prosecutors already have 
authority to prosecute on these lands and have not solved the problem. 
Federal judges have plenty to do and our Federal courts are stretched 
thin with 83 current vacancies. Giving tribes the authority to 
prosecute those who commit violence against Indian victims on Indian 
land is a better and less costly solution than bringing in large 
numbers of Federal officials to Indian country.
  All these differences are in the wrong direction and would result in 
leaving victims out. The Grassley substitute also includes costly and 
inefficient bureaucratic provisions that could cripple the delivery of 
needed services to victims and tie up the work of the Justice 
Department's Office of Inspector General.
  In contrast to the Republican substitute, the bipartisan VAWA 
reauthorization bill responds to the needs we have heard from the 
professionals, including law enforcement, who work every day to help 
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and 
stalking. No one I have worked with has identified Federal sentencing 
as an area requiring changes. The sentencing provisions in this 
substitute, which include mandatory minimum sentences, are unnecessary 
and counterproductive. In fact, leading sexual assault advocacy groups 
like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence oppose mandatory 
minimum sentences because they have a chilling effect on reporting and 
prosecution of

[[Page S510]]

sexual assaults. The sentencing provisions in the substitute make 
victims and, by extension, our communities less safe.
  We should not include extraneous provisions, as this substitute does, 
that have nothing to do with domestic violence or sexual assault. 
Comprehensive immigration reform is coming before us. The Judiciary 
Committee is hard at work on that. Proposals to change deportations may 
be appropriate in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. They 
have nothing to do with VAWA. Yet they are included in the Republican 
substitute. And when a provision of that type was included in the 
measure last year, its author nonetheless opposed VAWA reauthorization. 
It can be considered with comprehensive immigration reform, not here.
  Every previous reauthorization of VAWA has contained new protections 
for immigrants and underserved communities. Our bill builds on that 
foundation with changes that are modest and widely supported.
  The Republican substitute would gut core provisions of our bipartisan 
legislation that we all know we need and that professionals in the 
field tell us are needed. I thank Senator Cantwell, Senator Klobuchar, 
and Senator Durbin for their excellent statements in opposition and 
urge all Senators to oppose the substitute and support the bipartisan 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I listened to everything the chairman 
said. I am not going to rebut point by point. I wish to take a little 
bit of time to emphasize the key points I have tried to make. In a 
sense, I might be asking the chairman to think in terms of what we are 
trying to accomplish just on a couple of points.
  First of all, I think this is pointed out with the underlying bill 
that somehow all victims are not protected. The point is, that for 
however many years now--I suppose it is 25 years that this legislation 
has been on the books--all victims are protected under the substitute 
and, I want to emphasize, under current law.
  It was then-Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden, writing the 
current law. His law did not discriminate. As Senator Leahy says, those 
who provide domestic violence services believe a victim is a victim. 
They do not discriminate.
  On another point about the tribal courts, I made reference to the 
Congressional Research Service when I gave my longer remarks on this 
point of questionable constitutional issues. As for the tribal court 
provisions, the Congressional Research Service has raised serious 
constitutional problems both with respect to the authority of tribal 
courts to prosecute non-Indians and the constitutional rights of non-
Indians. What is very cruel is to provide tribal women the illusion of 
a solution that courts may well strike down on constitutional grounds 
in the future.
  I yield the floor, and 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to 
the bill: Grassley substitute amendment No. 14, Leahy amendment No. 21, 
Portman amendment No. 10, Murkowski amendment No. 11, Coburn amendment 
No. 13, Coburn amendment No. 15, and Coburn amendment No. 16; that the 
time until 4 p.m. be for debate on the Grassley substitute; that the 
debate be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Grassley 
substitute amendment; that there be no amendments in order to any of 
the amendments on this list prior to votes in relation to the 
amendments; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill 
following any leader remarks on Monday, February 11, the time until 
5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees 
prior to votes in relation to the remaining amendments and passage of 
the underlying bill as amended, if amended; further, that Senator 
Cornyn have 45 minutes under his control on the Republican side; and 
there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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. Madam President, I have spoken on this earlier, but I 
would just tell my colleagues why I will oppose this substitute which 
will be voted on in a few minutes. The substitute does not meet the 
needs of victims of domestic violence or dating violence or sexual 
assault or stalking. I think it is a poor substitute for the bipartisan 
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that we have developed over 
the last 2 years, and which has 62 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. That 
is why I will urge Senators to vote against it.
  The proposed substitute bill would remove fundamental points of 
fairness that are at the core of this legislation. We need to cover 
everyone who experiences domestic and sexual violence in this country, 
with no exceptions. Again, I have said 100 times on this floor, a 
victim is a victim is a victim; violence is violence is violence. You 
can't say this victim will get protection, but this victim won't get 
protection. The police never do that; we shouldn't do it.
  Also, this substitute abandons VAWA's historic emphasis on abuse of 
women. Women are still more often the victims of domestic and sexual 
violence, with more catastrophic results. The substitute not only fails 
women, it fails to guarantee that services will actually reach those 
victims who in the past have been unable to access them.
  Every previous reauthorization of VAWA has contained new protections 
for immigrants and underserved communities. Our bill builds on that 
foundation with changes that are modest and are widely supported by 
faith-based organizations, the law enforcement community, and those who 
work against domestic violence.
  We have gone all over this country to find the best way to do this. 
This is what we have done in this bill. And what bothers me the most 
about the substitute is that it guts the core provisions of our 
bipartisan legislation. We know we need these services, and 
professionals in the field tell us they are needed. Look at what we 
have in our bipartisan reauthorization bill. It responds to the needs 
we have heard of from the professionals, including law enforcement. 
These are the people who work every day to help victims of domestic 
violence and sexual assault and dating violence and stalking.
  No one I have worked with has identified Federal sentencing as an 
area that requires changes, so the sentencing provisions in the 
substitute are unnecessary and counterproductive.
  Earlier I went through this I think point by point. I won't repeat 
that, but I would say to all the Members of this body, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, who have worked to craft this bipartisan piece of 
legislation: Please vote against this substitute amendment, because it 
is nothing, nothing at all like what we have worked on.
  Madam President, what is the amendment before us now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been offered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, under the unanimous consent request 
agreement, am I correct the Grassley substitute is to be voted on in 
about 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, normally I would call it up, but I 
understand Senator Grassley is almost here. As a matter of courtesy, I 
will not call it up; but if there is going to be a delay, because 
people are expecting this 4 o'clock vote--
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: What is the order 
right now?

[[Page S511]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order is for the Grassley substitute to be 
offered and voted upon.
  Mrs. BOXER. At 4 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 4 o'clock.
  Mrs. BOXER. Due to what is happening here, I would say that if he 
doesn't make his presentation in 5 minutes that we could vote.


                            Amendment No. 14

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, and 
probably to his dismay, I call up the Grassley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Grassley, 
     for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Johanns proposes an amendment 
     numbered 14.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     McCain
     McConnell
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--65

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Coburn
      
      
  The amendment (No. 14) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                       Carl Levin's 12,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, a few minutes ago Senator Carl Levin cast 
his 12,000th vote. It is my honor to say a few words about Carl Levin. 
He has served the State of Michigan for 35 years and is the longest 
serving Senator in the history of that State. During his 35 years in 
the Senate, he has been known as a workhorse. If there is a problem 
that needs to be looked over by someone who understands the issue, go 
to Senator Levin. He is a person who dots all the I's and crosses all 
the T's. I depend--and have depended--on him so much for issues that 
are difficult.
  He is a native of Detroit and attended Swathmore College. He 
graduated--as I always remind him--from Harvard Law School. I called 
them several times, but obviously my application was lost. I never 
heard back from them.
  He served as general counsel to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission 
and as assistant attorney general for the State of Michigan. He ran for 
the Detroit City Council and served two terms there. He was elected in 
1978 to the U.S. Senate where he has served six terms and is an 
effective champion for the people of Michigan.
  Public service runs in his family. Sander Levin is his older brother, 
who came to the House of Representatives in 1982 with me, Durbin, 
Carper, Boxer, to name just a few.
  Senator Levin has heard me say this several times, and I will 
continue to say it because it is one of the most impressive, memorable 
statements I have ever had in a very personal setting. I was in the 
House of Representatives, and I was thinking about running for the 
Senate. I went over to meet with Carl Levin to get his ideas. As I was 
trying to establish some rapport with him, I said: I am serving with 
your brother. He and I came here together. Without hesitation and so 
sincerely, he looked up at me and said: Yes, he is my brother, but he 
is also my best friend.
  I have never, ever forgotten that. That speaks so well of the Levin 
family. Sandy has been the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee 
and is now the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee. 
Carl is very proud of his brother's service, as Sandy is proud of the 
service of his brother.
  Carl Levin has been the chair of the Armed Services Committee, which 
of course is one of the most important and powerful committees in the 
entire Congress. He is a respected voice on issues dealing with 
national security. He has done so much to improve the status of men and 
women in the military for our great country.
  The very first bill he introduced as a Senator speaks to the kind of 
person he is and the issues he cares about. He introduced a bill to end 
discrimination by credit card companies. Two Congresses ago we did some 
real good reforms during the credit card debate. Senator Levin was 
involved in that, as well he should have been, because he was the first 
to bring to the attention of the American people what needed to be 
done.
  He is also the chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, which for decades has done great work for this country. 
Under his guidance and leadership, it has done some remarkably good 
work. He was the one who delved deeply into the Enron collapse. Again, 
that committee has done a lot of work on abusive credit card practices. 
It is one of the main reasons we were able to get the credit card 
reform done.
  He led investigations in the 2008 financial crisis. He has looked 
very closely and did a wonderful report on what I refer to as tax 
loopholes, and I think that is how he refers to it also. He has been 
one of the country's leading experts--and certainly one of the leading 
experts in this body--of American manufacturers. We know that 
manufacturing has had such strong forces in Michigan in years past and 
they are coming back as a result of the work the Michigan delegation 
has done, led by Senator Levin.
  He is someone who understands that we have a new world, we have 
global markets, and we have to continue working hard to make sure we 
are a part of that, and we are.
  He has fought to protect the Great Lakes--Michigan's signature 
natural resource.
  He is married to Barbara, a wonderful woman, who has been so 
thoughtful and kind to me, but especially my wife, during her recent 
illness. They have been married since 1961. They have three daughters 
and six grandchildren.
  Carl Levin is somebody whom I so admire. He has a lot of service left 
in him. There are so many things he is capable of doing as a result of 
the positions he now holds in the Senate. The one thing I admire so 
much about Carl Levin--as I have already indicated--is how strongly he 
feels about his family. He and his brother have a piece of property in 
Michigan. They call it the tree farm. In Searchlight I still have my 
hat they gave me that says ``Tree Farm.'' He has talked to me on many 
occasions--we haven't talked lately--about how he and his brother like 
to walk on their tree farm. There is nothing there but trees, but it is 
an occasion for them to be together as brothers.
  Congratulations to Carl Levin on reaching this impressive milestone 
of 12,000 votes. Not only has he left that mark--he left that mark in 
my mind and anyone who has served with him--but he has left his mark as 
being an extraordinary man.

[[Page S512]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been my honor to have served 
with the senior Senator from Michigan for almost three decades now, and 
I too want to rise and congratulate him on achieving this milestone. 
There is no Member of the Senate who is brighter or more hard working. 
We have had a good example of that here in the last couple of months of 
Senator Levin's respect for the institution and his desire to protect 
the traditions of this institution. I want him to know that he is 
widely respected all throughout the Senate, and particularly on this 
side of the aisle.
  I congratulate him for this important achievement and look forward to 
working with him in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan. This is the day he has 
cast his 12,000th vote. What is most significant is not the quantity of 
his votes, but the quality of his votes. Each one of those has had 
Michigan's face on it when he cast those votes.
  As our majority leader indicated, Senator Levin has been a champion 
for the automotive industry, manufacturing, his beloved Detroit, our 
beautiful and wonderful Great Lakes, the Department of Defense and, 
more particularly, the men and women who serve us every day.
  I rise on behalf of everyone in Michigan to say how proud we are of 
Senator Levin. We have great confidence in his judgment, integrity, and 
hard work. In my book, there is nobody better.
  Of course, I am very thrilled with the wonderful family he and 
Barbara have. He is ahead of me on grandchildren, but I am working on 
it. He is not only someone with the right ethics, integrity, and love 
for his family, nobody fights harder and does the right thing for 
Michigan more than Carl Levin.
  I join in congratulating him. Once again I want to say it is not 
about the number of votes but the quality of votes. Every one of those 
12,000 votes has had Michigan's name on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first I want to thank my dear colleague 
from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. We have worked so closely together on 
Michigan issues. She is one great partner, and I am proud to represent 
Michigan with her at my side and her as a partner.
  Talking about partners, my wife Barbara has been married to me for 51 
years, and she is my lifelong--excuse me. I have to straighten this 
out. My brother is my lifelong best buddy. He was there when I was 
born. I have to modify what Senator Reid said. For the last 51 years, 
my wife has been my best buddy, and my brother has been my second-best 
buddy, but I am blessed with family. I would like to thank everyone for 
mentioning my family.
  I am blessed with a staff that is led by David Lyles. I have great 
friendships here in this body and there is no substitute for the kind 
of friendships and relationships which make this body work. Even when 
it doesn't appear to be working, it is working. I know the public gets 
frustrated with us at times, but this is an extraordinarily resilient 
body.
  Many times during the 34 years I have been here there have been 
periods when we have been frustrated in terms of getting our work done, 
but we pull through in this wonderful, noble institution. This 
venerable institution is being protected here by people who love it, 
and I cherish those relationships with the people who do cherish this 
body and what it uniquely stands for in the world. There is no other 
body like it in the world. I only wish that people such as Robert Byrd 
and Danny Inouye could live forever to help protect this body, but that 
is not the case.
  I want to mention one other thing. I am very grateful to Senator Reid 
and Senator McConnell for their comments. I wanted to speak about 
something Senator McConnell referenced.
  A few weeks ago this body did something which was very bipartisan and 
very essential to its health and its survival, and that was to make 
sure we continue to protect the minority but not to overprotect the few 
Members if those Members take excessive advantage of our rules.
  Eight of us got together. Senator McCain and I pulled together three 
Democrats and three Republicans. For many weeks we worked together, 
without staff, and came up with an alternative which the leaders used 
to work through this complicated situation we found ourselves in 
relative to the rules.
  On the Democratic side, we had Senator Schumer, Senator Cardin, and 
Senator Pryor, and on the Republican side we had Senator Alexander, 
Senator Kyl, and Senator Barrasso join Senator McCain and me. I believe 
it was one of the most important things we have done in recent years 
here, which was to change the procedures. They were not working. They 
were being used to frustrate efforts to get legislation to the floor.
  We had to do that. We had to do something to change the rules which 
were being misused in terms of postcloture hours. There were judges who 
were going to be approved by votes of 95 to 1 or 2, and those 
postcloture hours were being used to stall the Senate. We took care of 
that situation. We acted on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully that 
spirit of bipartisanship, which is so essential to making this place 
work, will continue and be given a boost not just by what the leaders 
essentially did in accepting our recommendations on these procedural 
changes but will now apply and work with other efforts that will be 
underway in this Congress.
  I want to mention that because eight of us, on a bipartisan basis, 
did something which we believe very deeply about as a way of avoiding 
what was called the nuclear option. If that were used, it would have 
led to a change in a way which was not provided for in the rules. Under 
the rules, this is a continuing body. If that were used, it could have 
gone around the rules and essentially put the Presiding Officer in the 
position of ignoring the advice of our Parliamentarian and saying that 
we could, by majority vote, do something which our rules say could only 
be done by two-thirds of us. That would have done severe, long-lasting 
damage to this institution. We were able to avoid that, Democrats and 
Republicans--well beyond the eight of us--including the Presiding 
Officer, who was so helpful to me in working through this idea and 
giving me suggestions. I am very grateful to him for the kind of 
suggestions and conversations we had. We were able to work through an 
issue on a bipartisan basis and then the body came together and about 
80 or more voted for these procedural changes. I thought it was a great 
day, personally. I know that. I know the eight of us feel very strongly 
about the important contribution we made to this body, working 
together. So we feel very good about it. I hope over time some of the 
people who were critical of it will see it as being a significant 
advance in making this body work better, allowing us to work our will. 
I wanted to mention that because it was mentioned by one of our 
leaders--Senator McConnell--and I know Senator Reid worked so closely 
with him and his staff, and they helped us through a very difficult 
situation which would have, if not resolved on a bipartisan basis, 
created some real problems for the ongoing operations of this body.

  So I thank our leaders. I thank Senator Reid, of course, who is such 
a dear friend, and I thank him for not just mentioning my beloved wife 
Barbara but also my brother Sandy.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Keystone XL Pipeline

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Keystone XL 
Pipeline project.
  Gas prices are now about $3.50--actually, $3.53--a gallon, which is 
up over 90 percent since President Obama took office. Economic activity 
for the fourth quarter of 2012 declined by one-tenth of 1 percent. It 
was projected to go up by about 1 to 1.2 percent, and actually it 
declined by one-tenth of 1 percent.

[[Page S513]]

Still, the President refuses to approve a multibillion-dollar project--
the Keystone XL Pipeline--that will provide energy, create jobs, 
generate tax revenue, and help reduce our dependence on oil from the 
Middle East. He is still delaying even though every State on the 
pipeline route has consented to the project. So every single State on 
the route has approved the project and will have better environmental 
stewardship with the project than without it. Let me repeat that. Every 
State on the route has approved the project and will have better 
environmental stewardship with the project than without it, and yet the 
President continues to delay.
  Let me elaborate. Recently, a group of 53 Senators, both Republicans 
and Democrats, signed a letter that I helped organize to President 
Obama asking him to approve without delay the Keystone XL Pipeline 
project. The letter was signed by a majority of the Senate within just 
1 day--1 day--of Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman's approval of a new 
route through his State of Nebraska. The new path addressed Nebraska's 
concerns about the route, as well as the President's, by circumventing 
the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region, effectively removing 
the last obstacle to approval.
  Prior to sending this letter, in November Senator Max Baucus and 
myself organized a similar letter--that was in November--signed by nine 
Republican Senators and nine Democratic Senators asking to meet with 
the President to discuss the many benefits that accrue to our Nation by 
building the Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, let me read that letter. It is 
very short.

       With the elections of 2012 behind us, we write to remind 
     you of the continuing importance of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
     We want to work together to keep creating jobs, and Keystone 
     XL is one vital piece of the puzzle. We would like to meet 
     with you in the near future to discuss this important 
     project.
       Setting politics aside, nothing has changed about the 
     thousands of jobs that Keystone XL will create. Nothing has 
     changed about the energy security to be gained through an 
     important addition to the existing pipeline network built 
     with sound environmental stewardship and the best modern 
     technology. Nothing has changed about the security to be 
     gained from using more fuel produced at home and by a close 
     and stable ally. And nothing has changed about the need for 
     America to remain a place where businesses still build 
     things.
       We hope that you will follow through on your directive of 
     March 22, 2012, to Federal agencies to move forward vital 
     energy infrastructure like Keystone XL. The state of Nebraska 
     is nearing completion of the new pipeline route within 
     Nebraska. With that process near completion, we look forward 
     to an affirmative determination of national interest soon.

  We sent that letter to the President in November--a bipartisan 
letter, nine Republican Senators, nine Democratic Senators. To date, we 
have received no direct response from the White House despite the fact 
that there is clearly strong bipartisan support for the project.
  The only response we received was not from the White House but, 
rather, from the State Department. Let me read that letter. It is very 
short too. It is from David S. Adams, Assistant Secretary of 
Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Basically, it 
says:

       Thank you for your November 16 letter to President Obama 
     concerning the status of the administration's review of 
     TransCanada's new application for a Presidential Permit for 
     the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. We have been asked 
     to respond on behalf of the President.

  The letter then kind of goes: Yes, we recognize it is an important 
project. We are looking at it. We are doing some more draft 
supplemental reviews, and we hope this information is helpful to you. 
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further 
assistance.
  That is the extent of the response.
  So it has now been more than 4\1/2\ years since the permit 
applications were submitted to the State Department for this vital 
energy project. Yet, even with an exhaustive review process, the 
consent now of every State along the route, the backing of a majority 
of Congress, and the support of the American people, the Keystone XL 
Pipeline project is still languishing at the hands of the President of 
the United States--after 4\1/2\ years.
  Let me expand on the point about all of the States on the route 
approving the project. After Governor Heineman, on behalf of the State 
of Nebraska, sent a letter to the President approving the project, 
which happened just several weeks ago, after I worked with Senator 
Baucus and others to get 53 Senators in 1 day on a letter saying to the 
President, let's get this approved, the Governors along the route also 
sent a letter to the President saying, hey, let's approve the project.
  So now you have every single State saying--every single State on the 
route saying: Hey, fine, let's do the project--every single one.
  Here is the letter. It also includes the Honorable Brad Wall, the 
Premier of Saskatchewan. The pipeline passes through Saskatchewan as 
well. I am not going to read the whole letter but just a few excerpts.

       Dear Mr. President:
       As you begin your second term, we are writing to 
     respectfully urge you to move forward on the Keystone XL 
     Pipeline project.
       The energy relationship between the United States and 
     Canada is vital to the future of both our countries. It is an 
     interest we share, transcending political lines and 
     geographic boundaries.

  The letter goes on and talks about how the project is crucial to U.S. 
energy security, working with Canada for our energy rather than getting 
it from the Middle East.
  The letter talks about ``thousands of jobs'' the project creates not 
only building this $7 billion pipeline but then all the jobs that go to 
the refineries and the other activities that go with it. And it talks 
about safety, efficiency, and reliability.
  The letter concludes:

       Mr. President, we consider the Keystone XL Pipeline 
     fundamentally important to the future economic prosperity of 
     both the United States and Canada.
       We strongly urge you to issue a Presidential Permit and act 
     swiftly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

  It is signed by Governors--now, remember, Senator Baucus and I have 
been working on this on behalf of Montana. You have Nebraska here. 
Governor Heineman just sent in a letter. Here are some of the other 
Governors on this letter: Gov. Sam Brownback from Kansas, Gov. Jack 
Dalrymple from North Dakota, Gov. Dennis Daugaard from South Dakota, 
Gov. Mary Fallin from Oklahoma, Gov. Rick Perry from Texas, in addition 
to other Governors who are not on the route, such as Gov. Butch Otter 
of Idaho, Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Gov. Matt Mead of Wyoming, 
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona--Republicans and Democrats.
  But the point is that on the whole route, all the Governors have 
written and said: Hey, let's do this. Let's do it.
  So what is going on here? Why does the President continue to delay 
the project?
  The long wait for approval is dismaying enough, but it represents a 
larger issue for our Nation and begs a bigger question for 
policyholders: How will America ever build an ``all of the above'' 
energy policy if the President takes nearly 5 years to approve one 
piece of an inclusive plan, particularly, as I say, after everybody on 
the route has said: Hey, can we do this after 5 years, please. Can we 
move forward, Mr. President?
  To account briefly, this $7 billion, 1,700-mile, high-tech pipeline 
will carry oil not only from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Oklahoma 
and the Texas gulf coast, but it will also carry growing quantities of 
U.S. sweet crude from the Bakken oilfields in North Dakota and Montana. 
Even by modest estimates, it will create tens of thousands of jobs, 
boost the American economy, and raise much needed revenues for State 
and Federal governments. We have a deficit. Here is a project to get 
substantial tax revenue without raising taxes, through economic 
activity, through job creation.
  Further, and perhaps most importantly, it will help put our country 
within striking range of a long-sought goal: true energy security. For 
the first time in generations, the United States, with its friend and 
ally Canada, will have the capacity to produce more energy than we use, 
reducing or eliminating our reliance on the Middle East and other 
volatile parts of the world.
  The argument has been advanced that the oil sands will increase 
carbon emissions and that failing to build the Keystone XL will somehow 
reduce emissions. But let's look at that claim. That is the other 
piece. Let's look at the environmental aspects of this project.
  Today, more than 80 percent of all new recovery in the oil sands is 
being accomplished ``in situ,'' a technology

[[Page S514]]

that makes the oil sands' carbon footprint comparable to conventional 
drilling. In fact, the oil sands industry has reduced greenhouse gas 
emissions per barrel of oil produced by an average of 26 percent since 
1990, with some facilities achieving reductions as high as 50 percent. 
Today, heavy crude oil from the Middle East and even from California 
produces more carbon emissions over its life cycle than the Canadian 
oil sands. Let me repeat that. Today, heavy crude that we import from 
the Middle East and even some of the California heavy crude produce 
more carbon emissions over their life cycle than Canadian oil sands.
  We also need to factor in that if the pipeline is not built from 
Alberta to the United States, a similar pipeline will be built to 
Canada's Pacific coast. That is what I show right here on this chart. 
From there, the oil will be shipped across the Pacific Ocean, a much 
larger, sensitive ecosystem than the Sandhills--which we are not even 
going through now--to be refined at facilities in China with weaker 
environmental standards and more emissions than facilities in the 
United States. The United States, moreover, will continue to import oil 
from the Middle East, again, on tankers. Factor in the cost of trucking 
and railing the product to market overland, and the result, contrary to 
the claims of opponents, will be more emissions and a less secure 
distribution system without the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
  Think about it. So we say: OK, we are not going to have this 
pipeline, even though we have built other pipelines already. We are not 
going to get oil from Canada. What happens? That oil goes to China, 
with higher emissions. You are going to take it across the ocean, which 
is a greater risk than putting it in a pipeline. You are going to have 
it refined in refineries in China, which have much worse emissions 
standards than our own. And guess what we get to do. Let's see, we do 
not get the jobs. We do not get the tax revenues. Do you know what we 
do get to do? We get to continue to import our oil from the Middle 
East. How does that sound? Is that a good idea with what is going on in 
Iran and with what is going on in Egypt and with what is going on in 
Syria--the risk that the Strait of Hormuz could be blockaded or that 
you could have further conflict over there that could cut off oil 
supplies? Is that what the American people want? They want to continue 
to get oil from the Middle East rather than our closest friend and 
ally, Canada? The American people would rather that oil go to China? Of 
course not. And that is what we are talking about with this project.

  Well, that raises another important point. The administration's own 
State Department completed its 3-year National Environmental Protection 
Act--NEPA--review of the Keystone XL project back in 2011 and 
determined that ``there would be no significant impacts'' on the 
environment. That is what the administration determined in their own 
NEPA process.
  And that raises another point. The White House says: Well, we do not 
want to get ahead of the process. But the President effectively 
abandoned the process more than a year ago when he halted the project 
by Executive action. Had he not, the State Department, in keeping with 
the usual process, would have issued a decision on the permit--after 4 
years--by December 2011, according to a letter Secretary Clinton sent 
to me in August 2011.
  I have worked toward approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline--first as 
the Governor of North Dakota and now as a Senator--because I believe it 
is just the kind of project that will grow our economy and create the 
jobs our country so desperately needs, and it will do so with good 
environmental stewardship. At the same time, it will reduce our 
dependence on the Middle East for oil, which is what the American 
people have desired for decades. The Keystone XL Pipeline project is 
long overdue. For the benefit of our economy, our environment, and our 
long-term energy security, President Obama needs to approve it now, 
without further delay.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for several minutes on another 
topic in regard to a recipient of the Medal of Honor from my State of 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Tribute to Army Staff Sergeant Clinton Romesha

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's 
true heroes--Army SSG Clinton Romesha.
  On Monday the President will present Sergeant Romesha with our 
country's highest military award--the Medal of Honor--for ``acts of 
gallantry . . . above and beyond the call of duty.''
  Clint comes from a long line of military heroes. His father is a 
veteran of the Vietnam war. His grandfather fought in the U.S. Army 
during World War II. Romesha often cites his grandfather as his 
greatest hero, so it was not surprising that Clint followed his example 
and joined the Army in 1999.
  Staff Sergeant Romesha showed courage every day that he donned his 
Army uniform but especially on October 3, 2009, one of the deadliest 
days of the war in Afghanistan. On that day hundreds of Taliban 
fighters ambushed American Combat Outpost Keating from all sides with 
grenades, machine guns, mortars, and rifles. Heavily outnumbered, Clint 
Romesha and his fellow soldiers quickly fought back in what would turn 
out to be a deadly daylong battle.
  Sergeant Romesha fought valiantly. He darted into danger to draw out 
the enemy many times. He himself took out a machine gun team. Staff 
Sergeant Romesha was working to take out a second when he was wounded 
by shrapnel from an exploding grenade.
  His Medal of Honor citation reads:

       Undeterred by his injuries, Staff Sergeant Romesha 
     continued to fight and upon the arrival of another soldier to 
     aid him and the assistant gunner, he again rushed through the 
     exposed avenue to assemble additional soldiers.
       With complete disregard for his own safety, he continually 
     exposed himself to heavy enemy fire as he moved confidently 
     about the battlefield engaging and destroying multiple enemy 
     targets.

  Staff Sergeant Romesha exemplified the valor that President Theodore 
Roosevelt--also a Medal of Honor recipient--spoke of when he said: 
``Courage is not having the strength to go on; it is going on when you 
don't have the strength.''
  Despite his wounds, Sergeant Romesha never stopped fighting. He 
stayed in the battle--leading his team, directing air support, 
protecting wounded soldiers, and helping to recover the bodies of his 
fallen friends.
  The battle lasted for 12 hours. Eight soldiers lost their lives, and 
22 were wounded--a fact that Romesha humbly reminds us of whenever his 
bravery is touted.
  In fact, Sergeant Romesha said:

       What I got injured with was nothing. I have buddies who 
     lost their eyesight, who lost limbs. For that, I would rather 
     give them all the credit they deserve for the sacrifices they 
     made. For me, it was nothing.

  To Sergeant Romesha, it was just doing his job. To the rest of us, he 
is a true example of courage and selfless sacrifice. He went above and 
beyond the call of duty, repeatedly risking his life to defend his post 
and, more importantly, to help his fellow soldiers. We are grateful for 
his service and for his example to us all.
  Today, Clint resides in Minot, ND, where he and his wife Tamara are 
raising their three children. I am certain he is every much the hero 
and inspiration to them that his own grandfather was to him.
  My wife Mikey and I join our fellow North Dakotans and Americans in 
honoring Sergeant Romesha for his heroic and selfless service. We thank 
him for his exemplary actions on that dangerous day in Afghanistan and 
every day he served our great country.
  With that, Mr. President, 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________