[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15883-15885]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this fall also marks the 10th anniversary 
of the passing of another great Senator, Paul Wellstone, and his wife 
Sheila. They were dear friends. Among the many

[[Page 15884]]

things for which they are fondly remembered is the important work they 
did to combat domestic violence and help victims. We have made much 
progress on this issue, in large part thanks to the Violence Against 
Women Act, which has long demonstrated the bipartisan commitment to 
work together against domestic violence and rape.
  Sadly, so much remains to be done. Recent reports find that almost 
one in four women have experienced severe domestic violence, and nearly 
one in five women have been raped. In some communities, the picture is 
much worse. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
one in five female college students will be a victim of sexual assault 
during college. A recent study found that three out of five Native 
American women have been assaulted by a spouse or intimate partner.
  The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act 
includes vital provisions to help these and other particularly 
vulnerable victims. As the New York Times observed this weekend:

       The act's reauthorization is must-do business for the lame-
     duck session. Mr. Boehner should relent and allow the House 
     to vote on the Senate bill.

  I ask that the full Times editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 24, 2012]

                 The G.O.P. and Violence Against Women

       If Republicans are serious about repairing their party's 
     standing among women, gay and Hispanic voters, they need to 
     adjust some policies and stop sending hostile messages. A 
     good place to start would be for Republicans in the House to 
     stop blocking reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
     Act over provisions deemed too protective of gay and 
     immigrant victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
       The 1994 law remains crucial to the nation's efforts to 
     combat domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. 
     Previous reauthorizations sailed through Congress.
       A thoughtful renewal measure introduced by Senator Patrick 
     Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman, 
     and Senator Michael Crapo, an Idaho Republican, cleared the 
     Senate in April with strong bipartisan support. But it has 
     hit a wall in the Republican-led House. Instead, House 
     Republicans pushed through a regressive version of the 
     measure that omits new protections for gay, bisexual or 
     transgender victims of abuse.
       The House bill also left out a needed increase in the 
     number of visas, known as U visas, available for undocumented 
     immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and sexual 
     assaults. And it would reduce the incentive for frightened 
     victims to come forward by ending the current ability of U 
     visa holders to apply for permanent residency after three 
     years.
       Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues blame 
     Democrats for the impasse, suggesting the Democrats inserted 
     changes to invite opposition and score political points. But 
     the provisions at issue respond to real humanitarian and law 
     enforcement needs identified by experts working in the field.
       By refusing to accept the principle of protecting all 
     victims of domestic violence, House Republican leaders are 
     conveying a belief that rapes of gay people and immigrant 
     women are not ``legitimate'' rapes, as Representative Todd 
     Akin, the failed Republican candidate for the Senate from 
     Missouri, put it so appallingly. Is that really what 
     Republicans want to stand for?
       The act's reauthorization is must-do business for the lame-
     duck session. Failure to agree on a bill would mean having to 
     start the legislative process all over again next year. Mr. 
     Boehner should relent and allow the House to vote on the 
     Senate bill. There is a chance it would not muster sufficient 
     Republican votes to pass. But at least it would give 
     Republican representatives who value moderation a chance to 
     dissociate themselves from the narrow-minded prejudices and 
     politics hurting their party.

  Mr. LEAHY. Friday will mark a year since Senator Crapo and I 
introduced this bill. We have kept victims waiting too long. We should 
come together to act now.


                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has now been more than 3 weeks since 
President Obama was reelected by the American people, and Senate 
Republicans are still blocking votes on 19 judicial nominations who 
should have received confirmation votes before the Senate recessed for 
the election. Some of these nominees have been waiting close to 9 
months for a vote. It is time for us to come together to do what is 
right and to act in the interests of the American people.
  We should begin by having an up or down vote on the longest-pending 
nomination. The nomination of Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court 
of Appeals has been ready for a final vote since last March 8. Judge 
Shwartz received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the nonpartisan 
ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, its highest possible 
rating, and it is well past time for the Senate to vote on her 
nomination.
  Regrettably, the Senate has not been allowed to make real progress 
for the American people by reducing the number of judicial vacancies. 
There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more 
than 80 vacancies when in March the Majority Leader was forced to take 
the extraordinary step of filing cloture petitions on 17 district court 
nominations. There are now more than 80 vacancies once again. In stark 
contrast, there were only 29 vacancies at this point in President 
George W. Bush's first term.
  There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on the 
19 judicial nominations that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and are pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. President 
Obama has consistently reached across the aisle, consulted with home 
state Senators from both parties and appointed moderate, well-qualified 
judicial nominees. It is time for the obstruction to end and for the 
Senate to complete action on these nominees so that they may serve the 
American people without further delay. Delay for delay's sake is wrong 
and should end.
  Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstruction and a 
contorted rewriting of the ``Thurmond Rule'' in their refusal to 
proceed on consensus nominees. Whatever justification Senate 
Republicans contended they had by resort to their misapplication of the 
Thurmond Rule to stall judicial nominations before the election is 
gone. The American people have voted and chosen to reelect President 
Obama. It is time for the Senate to vote.
  From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a 
presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with 
bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to 
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee 
reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote. That 
is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lame duck session, 
whether after a presidential or midterm election.
  Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's 
judicial nominees, including one very controversial circuit court 
nominee, in the lame duck session after the elections in 2002. I 
remember, I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved 
forward with those votes. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial 
nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006, 
and proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lame duck session 
after the elections in 2010, as well. The reason that I am not listing 
confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because 
that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees 
approved by the Judiciary Committee before the election recess in 
September.
  Republicans can no longer claim the ``Thurmond Rule'' is the reason 
they are holding up nominations since the American people reelected 
President Obama. Having said in September that they objected to 
proceeding because of the impending election, Senate Republicans cannot 
now say that their insistence on delay has made it too late in the year 
to proceed with confirmations. That is wrong and it results in denying 
Americans the judges they need to administer justice around the 
country.
  I implore Senators to put their partisanship aside and work with the 
President on behalf of the American people. That is what the American 
people voted for in the last election. Delaying confirmation votes on 
nominees

[[Page 15885]]

for the sole purpose of delay is precisely what the American people 
repudiated when they cast their ballots. Further delays on the 19 
nominees before us do not benefit the American people.
  I am encouraged that several Republican Senators have recognized 
this, and have said that they want votes on their home State nominees. 
The Republican Senators from Oklahoma and Maine, and Senator Toomey 
from Pennsylvania have all advocated for up or down votes on nominees 
during this lame duck session, and they are right to do so. They know 
that filling those judicial vacancies in their States is important.
  A judge in Florida has written that persistent vacancies ``jeopardize 
our Court's ability to deliver the quality of justice that the citizens 
of Florida deserve and will inhibit our citizens' access to justice.'' 
Sadly, Senate Republicans' tactics of delay and obstruction has 
perpetuated the high level of judicial vacancies around the country. 
Continuing these tactics hurt the Federal courts and the American 
people they are intended to serve. This is a problem that has a 
commonsense solution: Let the Senate vote on consensus nominees that 
have been stalled.
  With the number of judicial vacancies now at 83, and with all pending 
nominees having waited at least 4 months for a vote, it is past time 
for Senate Republicans to abandon these tactics. This obstruction is 
not good for the country. How does preventing a vote on Patty Shwartz 
benefit the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware? How does 
preventing a vote on Richard Taranto benefit Americans who seek to have 
their claims resolved by the Federal Circuit? How does preventing a 
vote on William Kayatta benefit the people of Maine, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico? How does preventing a vote on 
Robert Bacharach benefit the people of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New 
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming? How does preventing a vote on Michael Shea 
benefit the people of Connecticut? How does preventing a vote on John 
Dowdell benefit the people of Oklahoma? How does preventing a vote on 
Paul Grimm benefit the people of Maryland? How does preventing votes on 
Mark Walker and Brian Davis benefit the people of Florida? How does 
preventing a vote on Terrence Berg benefit the people of Michigan? How 
does preventing votes on Jesus Bernal, Fernando Olguin, William Orrick, 
and Jon Tigar benefit the people of California? How does preventing 
votes on Lorna Schofield and Frank Geraci benefit the people of New 
York? How does preventing votes on Matthew Brann and Malachy Mannion 
benefit the people of Pennsylvania? How does preventing a vote on 
Thomas Durkin benefit the people of Illinois? How does preventing votes 
on these nominees help the American people receive speedy justice?
  If we can just have up or down votes on these 19 nominees, we can 
fill almost one-quarter of our Nation's judicial vacancies, and almost 
one-third of all judicial emergency vacancies. Most importantly, we can 
make it easier for hardworking Americans to have access to justice.
  President Obama has worked with home State Senators and all of these 
nominees have the support of their home State Senators. Seven of them 
are supported by Republican home State Senators. Seventeen of these 
nominees received bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee.
  When Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were 
President, Senate Democrats cleared the calendar of all but the most 
controversial and extreme ideological judicial nominations. The Senate 
needs to be allowed to vote on President Obama's judicial nominees now 
so that our Federal courts are better able to function and fulfill the 
fundamental guarantee of providing access to justice. Americans are 
rightfully proud of our legal system and its promise of access to 
justice and speedy trials. This promise is embedded in our 
Constitution. When overburdened courts make it hard to keep this 
promise, the Senate should work in a bipartisan manner to help.
  I have asked, now that the American people have reelected President 
Obama, for Senate Republicans to work with us to fill these 
longstanding judicial vacancies. The American people deserve no less.

                          ____________________