[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16556-16560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATIONS OF MARK E. WALKER TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
  THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA AND TERRENCE G. BERG TO BE UNITED 
       STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of Mark E. 
Walker, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Northern 
District of Florida, and Terrence G. Berg, of Michigan, to be United 
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 15 
minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will finally be allowed to 
vote on the nominations of Judge Mark Walker to fill a vacancy on the 
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and of 
Terrence Berg to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It has taken far too long 
for this day to come but I congratulate these nominees and their 
families on their confirmations.
  After this vote, the Senate remains backlogged with 20 judicial 
nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee, including 15 
nominations from before the August recess. They should be confirmed 
before the Senate adjourns for the year. If the Senate were allowed to 
act in the best interests of the American people, it would vote to 
confirm these nominees and reduce the judicial vacancies that are 
plaguing our Federal courts.
  Senate Republicans are establishing a new and harmful precedent of 
stalling judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar who are 
ready for final action by insisting that they be delayed into the 
succeeding year. They held up judicial nominees three years ago, they 
did it two years ago, they did it last year, and they are doing it 
again. They have found a new way to employ their old trick of a pocket 
filibuster. They stall nominees into the next year and force the Senate 
to continue work on nominees from the past year for the first several 
months of the new year. They delay and delay and push other 
confirmations back in time and then cut off Senate consideration of any 
nominees.
  By way of example, last December, Senate Republicans refused to 
confirm a single nominee before the end of the year. It then took us 
until May of the following year to confirm the 19 nominees they stalled 
from the previous year's Calendar, and we achieved that only after the 
Majority Leader was forced to file cloture on 17 nominees. The fact is 
that the Senate has been allowed to confirm only 19 nominees who were 
reported this year by the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is by far 
the lowest total for a presidential election year since 1996, when 
Senate Republicans, who were then in the Majority, would only allow 17 
of President Clinton's nominees to be confirmed.
  These delays in filling judicial vacancies are harmful to our 
Nation's courts and to the American people they serve. The Senate 
should be taking action on all the pending nominees so that we can make 
real progress for the American people and reduce the damagingly high 
number of judicial vacancies. Federal judicial vacancies remain near 
80. By this point in President Bush's first term we had reduced 
judicial vacancies to 28. There were more than 80 vacancies when the 
year began. There were more than 80 vacancies this past March when the 
Majority Leader was forced to take the extraordinary step of filing 
cloture petitions on 17 district court nominations. And there are still 
currently near 80 vacancies today.
  Those who argue that it would be ``unprecedented'' to confirm long-
stalled nominations because they have delayed them into this lameduck 
session are wrong. They say that because there were no lameduck 
confirmations in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2008, we should 
therefore not confirm these nominees, and we should allow nearly a 
dozen judicial emergency vacancies to remain unfilled. They have 
omitted some important facts. What they fail to acknowledge is that 
they have delayed action on 17 of these nominees since before the 
August recess. In 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996--the first four of their 
purported examples--there were no lameduck sessions. Those are not 
precedents supporting their contentions seeking to justify their 
current obstruction.
  In 2000 and 2008, in keeping with Senate tradition, the Senate had 
done its job and had confirmed all pending nominations and cleared the 
Calendar. There were no pending judicial nominees to be given a final 
confirmation vote by the Senate in those years. Those are not precedent 
for the current Republican obstruction. Following the example from 
those years would have meant confirming all the nominations reported 
before the August recess long before this post-election lame duck 
session.
  The fact is that 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. That is the precedent that Senate Republicans are now 
breaking. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 
no consensus nominee reported prior to the August recess has ever been 
denied a vote--before now. That is something Senate Democrats have not 
done in any lameduck session, whether after a presidential or midterm 
election.
  Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's 
judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees, in the 
lameduck session after the elections in 2002. I remember, I was the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved forward

[[Page 16557]]

with those votes, including one on a very controversial circuit court 
nominee. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck 
sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. In 2006 that included 
confirming another circuit court nominee. We proceeded to confirm 19 
judicial nominees in the lame duck session after the elections in 2010, 
including five circuit court nominees.
  That is our history and recent precedent. Those who contend that 
judicial confirmation votes during lame duck sessions do not take place 
are wrong. I urge them to reexamine the false premises for their 
contentions and I urge the Senate Republican leadership to reassess its 
damaging tactics. The new precedent they are creating is bad for the 
Senate, the Federal courts and, most importantly, for the American 
people.
  Moreover, arguments about past Senate practices do not help fill 
longstanding vacancies on our Federal courts, which are in dire need of 
additional assistance. Arguments about past Senate practice do not help 
the American people obtain justice. There are no good reasons to hold 
up the judicial nominations being stalled on the Senate Executive 
Calendar. A wrongheaded desire for partisan payback for some imagined 
offense from years ago is no good reason. A continuing effort to gum up 
the workings of the Senate and to delay Senate action on additional 
judicial nominees next year is no good reason.
  It is past time for votes on the four circuit nominees and the other 
15 district court nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
When we have consensus nominees before us who can fill judicial 
vacancies, especially judicial emergency vacancies, it is our duty to 
the American people to take action on those nominations. Doing so is 
consistent with Senate precedent, and it is right. Let us do our jobs 
so that all Americans can have access to justice.
  Today, we will vote on two consensus nominees who were stalled for 
months for no good reason, and are finally receiving a vote. Judge 
Walker is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of Florida. He has served as a state 
court judge since 2009, and previously spent 10 years in private 
practice. After law school he clerked for Judge Emmett Ripley Cox on 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and Judge Robert L. 
Hinkle on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. 
The nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
unanimously rated him well qualified--its highest rating. Judge 
Walker's nomination has the bipartisan support of his home state 
Senators, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson and Republican Senator Marco 
Rubio.
  Terrence Berg is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on 
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Since 
2011, he has served on detail in the Professional Misconduct Review 
Unit, in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. 
Department of Justice. He previously served as interim U.S. Attorney 
and First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan 
and has received many awards for his service as a Federal prosecutor. 
After graduating from law school he clerked for the Honorable Anthony 
A. Alaimo in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
Georgia, and has spent most of his career as a Federal prosecutor. His 
nomination has the support of his home state senators, Senator Levin 
and Senator Stabenow.
  The Judiciary Committee reported both nominations by voice vote--
Judge Walker was reported six months ago, and Mr. Berg was reported 
five months ago. After the Senate is finally allowed to confirm them, 
we need to move on to consider and confirm the rest of the nominees who 
have been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar so that all 
Americans will have better access to justice.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak on my time, without delaying the 
vote, as in morning business on another critical matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Violence Against Women Act

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken on this subject many times on 
the floor. The people who are affected by violence against women have 
wondered why the Congress has delayed so long on the Violence Against 
Women Reauthorization Act, the bill we passed here in the Senate. If 
someone is a victim of violence, that person can't understand such 
delays. So I think it is time for the Senate and the House to come 
together to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act. The other body needs to do what we did overwhelmingly in this 
Senate.
  Earlier this week, I read in the Burlington, VT, Free Press the story 
of Carmen Tarleton. She is a woman from Thetford, VT. Thetford, VT, is 
a small, quiet, beautiful little town in our State.
  Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, he 
beat her with a baseball bat, and he poured industrial strength lye on 
her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. 
Her doctors said she had suffered the most horrific injury a human 
being could suffer. Today she is still disfigured and continues to 
experience pain from these injuries of 5 years ago. She is currently 
awaiting approval for a procedure that could help her get a face 
transplant. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story in a 
book that she has written called Overcome: Burned, Blinded, and 
Blessed.
  Stories such as Carmen's remind me that every day we do not pass VAWA 
more people are suffering.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
article to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the Burlington Free Press, 
                             Dec, 3, 2012]

                Lye Attack Victim Writes of Forgiveness

                            (By Lisa Rathke)

       Montpelier, VT.--While Carmen Tarleton lay in a hospital 
     bed, burned, beaten and disfigured by her estranged husband 
     with injuries that doctors called ``the most horrific injury 
     a human being could suffer,'' she had vivid dreams.
       In one of the most memorable, dozens of doors stretched 
     around her. ``Life is a choice,'' a voice said. And then the 
     words appeared one at a time in white across a dark movie 
     screen: LIFE IS A CHOICE.
       Tarleton carried that lesson with her through her ongoing, 
     daunting and remarkable recovery after her ex broke into her 
     Theftord home five years ago, beat her with a baseball bat 
     and poured industrial- strength lye on her, burning most of 
     her body.
       Tarleton, who at age 44 continues to undergo surgeries and 
     awaits a possible face transplant, has written a book that 
     will be published in March called ``Overcome: Burned, Blinded 
     and Blessed.'' She hopes it will speak to abuse victims and 
     others.
       ``I think I can help a whole bunch of people, not just 
     domestic violence people,'' she said in a recent interview 
     with The Associated Press. ``I think I can help a whole bunch 
     of people wherever you are in your life.''
       Despite her suffering, she says she's in a better place 
     than she was before the attack.
       ``I'm so much more blessed than I was then,'' she said.
       The book starts with Tarleton's decision at 28 to move 
     across the country from her native Vermont to Los Angeles, 
     with her two children in tow, to work as a nurse at a UCLA 
     hospital. There she met Herb Rodgers, whom she eventually 
     married. The family moved back to Thetford, where her 
     marriage started to unravel--in part over Rodgers' 
     dishonesty, Tarleton said.
       Tarleton recalls what she now says was a premonition. One 
     evening when she was about to leave for her night shift at 
     the hospital, her 12-year-old daughter was sobbing in 
     bedroom. When she asked what was wrong, her daughter said, 
     ``Something really, really bad is going to happen to you.''
       Eight months later, it did. Rodgers is serving a minimum of 
     30 years in prison for the June 2007 attack.
       When she set out to write the book three years later with 
     only limited vision in one eye, she stalled when it came time 
     to explain what Rodgers had done to her that night. She had 
     to coach herself through it.
       ``Alone at my magnifying machine, I felt physically ill 
     with what I was doing,'' she wrote. ``The experience of 
     reliving that night, trying to capture every detail as 
     vividly as I remembered it, was sickening. Halfway through, I 
     let my pen drop and rushed to my bedroom, the edges of my 
     limited vision blackening.''
       It took her two days to write it. It was scary, but it was 
     what she wanted to do, she said.

[[Page 16558]]

       She talked out the rest of the book and recorded it. She 
     hired Writers of the Round Table Press to write it all down, 
     including dialogue she had recalled.
       ``I was paying attention, because some of it I couldn't 
     forget if I wanted to,'' she said.
       She writes about facing Rodgers in court, how she dealt 
     with being blind and disfigured, her pain, the help she has 
     received from her community, family and friends, and how she 
     came to forgive the man who maimed her so she could get on 
     with her own life.
       ``That's where I feel people get stuck because we don't 
     have a segment of our society that says just because this 
     terrible thing happened to you it doesn't have to ruin the 
     rest of your life,'' she said. ``And I want to be the example 
     of that because it doesn't.''
       Publishing the book was a no-brainer for Writers of the 
     Round Table Press, which helped Tarleton write it, said vice 
     president David Cohen.
       ``Taking that kind of experience and turning that energy 
     into something positive and wanting to go out there and 
     effect change with as much as she had to overcome, to me was 
     just striking,'' Cohen said.
       As she awaits approval for a procedure that could help her 
     get a face transplant, she looks forward to feeling well 
     enough to speak publicly again about her ordeal to help 
     others. She has had several recent surgeries to install a 
     catheter in her chest and was sick last winter with 
     hyperthyroidism.
       ``When life gives you a big negative situation like I'd 
     been through, if you can get through that, you can really 
     find all of the blessings and all of the positive things that 
     can come out of that,'' she said. ``And I found so much that 
     I would not go back.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Presiding Officer was a 
strong supporter of this bill--the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act, as many of our colleagues were on both sides of 
the aisle. We tried to keep this a nonpartisan bill--even beyond 
bipartisan, a nonpartisan bill--because certainly my experience has 
been that violence occurs not because a woman is a Republican or a 
Democrat or an Independent. Violence against women occurs in all 
stratum, in all categories.
  Senator Crapo and I put together our bill after listening to victims 
and the professionals who work with them every day. We did not want 
provisions in our bill included to score political points. They were 
there to address the urgent needs of vulnerable victims. That was the 
one thing we wanted. This wasn't a Democratic or Republican bill, this 
was to address vulnerable victims.
  One key provision in our bipartisan bill would allow tribal courts 
limited jurisdiction to consider domestic violence offenses committed 
by non-Indians against Indian women on tribal lands. On this, I relied 
on the experiences of Senator Crapo and others who come from States 
where there are tribal lands. As we went into this and talked to the 
leaders of various tribes from around this country, I heard that 
violence against Native women is not only appalling, as we knew, but it 
has become an epidemic. It has been reported that almost three in five 
Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. 
Much of the violence is committed by non-Native Americans--non-Indians.
  Federal and State law enforcement may be hours away and lack the 
resources to respond to these cases, while tribal courts lack 
jurisdiction to consider these cases. So what happens? The perpetrators 
are, in effect, immune from the law. The worst part about it is they 
know they are immune from the law. So the jurisdiction provision in the 
Senate Leahy-Crapo bill would be a significant step toward addressing 
this horrific problem, but it would also ensure that no abuser is above 
the law. As the President said yesterday in a speech to the Tribal 
Nations Conference: ``With domestic violence so prevalent on 
reservations, we're pushing Congress to restore your power to bring to 
justice anyone--Indian or non-Indian--who hurts a woman.''
  Even though our tribal provision is limited and guarantees 
comprehensive rights, House Republicans have objected to it. So I come 
to the Senate floor to report to my colleagues what I hope is a 
breakthrough on this issue in this important bill. Two conservative 
House Republicans, with leadership positions in the Republican House 
majority, have introduced a reasonable, middle-ground position 
regarding tribal jurisdiction.
  Representative Issa of California and Representative Cole of Oklahoma 
have introduced the Violence Against Indian Women Act, H.R. 6625. Their 
cosponsors include Republicans from North Carolina, Minnesota and 
Idaho. They all have tribes within their states and are concerned about 
the violence our Senate bill is trying to combat. The Issa-Cole bill 
includes a provision that allows defendants to remove a case to Federal 
court if any defendants' rights are violated. This modification should 
ensure that only those tribes that are following the requirements of 
the law and providing full rights can exercise jurisdiction, and that 
defendants can raise challenges at the beginning of a case.
  Some in the House Republican leadership have expressed a ``just say 
no'' approach to any grant of tribal jurisdiction, but the House 
Republican leadership should give serious consideration to this 
Republican proposal so we can move forward and protect thousands of 
victims, non-Native Americans and Native Americans.
  The National Congress of American Indians has sent a letter and urged 
Senator Crapo and me to take a serious look at the Issa-Cole 
provisions. We are. I have consulted with Senators on both sides of the 
aisle regarding this proposal so we can find a way forward. I urge the 
House Republican leadership to do so as well.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the 
NCAI letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 National Congress


                                          of American Indians,

                                Washington, DC, November 30, 2012.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Michael D. Crapo,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo: The National 
     Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is pleased to hear that 
     serious efforts may be under way to resolve the impasse 
     between the Senate and the House on the Violence Against 
     Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA). Enhancing the safety of 
     Native women is one of NCAI's highest priorities, and we 
     support immediate passage of a strong, inclusive VAWA bill 
     that contains key protections for Native women, including 
     those contained in Section 904 of the bipartisan Senate VAWA 
     bill that passed earlier this year (S. 1925).
       Section 904 takes small but historic steps to overcome the 
     systemic barriers that prevent equal access to justice for 
     Native women by giving tribes limited authority to prosecute 
     domestic violence and dating violence at the local level. 
     NCAI commends the two of you for your leadership on this 
     provision. We strongly support Section 904 as it stands in S. 
     1925, but we understand the legislative process. A reasonably 
     modified version of Section 904 would be vastly preferable to 
     the current situation on tribal lands.
       Tribes understand and support protecting the rights of 
     criminal defendants. That is why we support reasonable 
     improvements to Section 904 that would further achieve those 
     ends. For example, tribes are currently urging consideration 
     of a removal provision like that in the bill recently 
     introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives 
     Darrell Issa and Tom Cole. The provision in the Issa/Cole 
     bill would give criminal defendants in tribal court the right 
     to remove prosecutions to federal court for consideration of 
     any constitutional infirmities. It is a concept based loosely 
     on the recently enacted 28 U.S.C. 1455--a federal procedure 
     currently on the books (and sponsored by House Judiciary 
     Committee Chairman Lamar Smith) that permits federal removal 
     of state court criminal cases. We urge you to take a serious 
     look at the Issa/Cole proposal in the coming days.
       It is the strong hope of tribal leaders that Section 904 
     will rarely need to be used, but there are several reasons 
     why this provision is so critical. First, it would create a 
     very important and much needed deterrent that is currently 
     lacking, given the absence of tribal jurisdiction over non-
     Indian domestic violence offenders. Second, serious offenses 
     will most likely continue to be referred for federal 
     prosecution because tribes are far from eager to incur the 
     costs of additional prosecutions and incarcerations. And 
     third, given the long history of the inadequate federal 
     response to crime in Indian country--particularly in 
     misdemeanor-level domestic violence cases--it is imperative 
     that tribal governments have the tools to intervene early and 
     often to protect Native women and prevent the escalation of 
     violence.
       Under the current scheme, non-Indian perpetrators in Indian 
     country are often shielded from accountability at the expense 
     of the

[[Page 16559]]

     safety of Indian women. Section 904 would help reverse this 
     trend. This provision is essential to the safety of Native 
     women, and NCAI cannot support any VAWA bill that does not 
     contain some form of it (see attached NCAI Resolution #SAC-
     12-038). Should you have any questions or need additional 
     information please contact myself, John Dossett, or Katy 
     Tyndell at 202-466-7767 or [email protected], 
     [email protected].

           Sincerely,
                                                   Jefferson Keel,
                                                        President.

     
                                  ____
                 National Congress of American Indians

    The National Congress of American Indians Resolution #SAC-12-038

 Title: Support for Immediate Passage of the VAWA Reauthorization with 
             Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Provision Intact

       Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of 
     American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine 
     blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in 
     order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the 
     inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights 
     secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United 
     States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are 
     entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United 
     States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding 
     of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and 
     otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the 
     Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following 
     resolution; and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 
     was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest 
     national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     tribal governments; and
       Whereas, violence directed at American Indian and Alaska 
     Native women continues at epidemic levels on many Indian 
     reservations and communities, and is culturally, legally and 
     morally an impermissible state of affairs; and
       Whereas, Alaska Native women are especially vulnerable to 
     this type of violence and the current system of justice in 
     Alaska fails to adequately protect Alaska Native victims of 
     sexual and domestic violence; and
       Whereas, the NCAI has consistently supported key changes to 
     the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), last authorized by 
     Congress in 2005 for a six year period, the reauthorization 
     of which Congress has been considering since 2010; and
       Whereas, one of the key provisions of the reauthorization 
     has been the restoration of Tribal jurisdiction over non-
     Indian perpetrators of violence directed at Native American 
     women that occurs within the boundaries of an Indian 
     reservation; and
       Whereas, this VAWA tribal criminal jurisdiction provision 
     has bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress; and
       Whereas, recent actions in Congress failed to reauthorize 
     VAWA, with the House citing, among other things, the 
     restoration of Tribal jurisdiction as a stumbling block to 
     reauthorization; and
       Whereas, the longer the stalemate regarding reauthorization 
     of VAWA continues, the larger the number of Native American 
     and other women who will lose their lives and their health 
     because of acts of violence directed at them by men who do 
     not believe they will be prosecuted for their criminal acts: 
     Now therefore be it
       Resolved, That the NCAI will not support a VAWA 
     reauthorization bill that does not contain some form of the 
     tribal criminal jurisdiction provision that would give tribes 
     authority to prosecute all persons who commit domestic 
     violence on tribal lands; and be it further
       Resolved, That the NCAI calls on Congress to immediately 
     pass a final Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that 
     includes some form of the Tribal criminal jurisdiction; and 
     be it further
       Resolved, That the NCAI urges Congress to include specific 
     protections for Alaska Native victims of sexual assault, 
     domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking in any final 
     VAWA reauthorization bill; and be it finally
       Resolved, That this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 
     until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.


                             CERTIFICATION

       The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General 
     Assembly at the 2012 Annual Session of the National Congress 
     of American Indians, held at the Sacramento Convention Center 
     from October 21-26, 2012 in Sacramento, California, with a 
     quorum present.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, already, eight House Republicans have 
endorsed this approach in a letter to Speaker Boehner urging passage of 
our VAWA legislation with this compromise. I am reaching out to them 
and to members of both parties in both houses of Congress asking them 
to consider how we can bridge differences and get VAWA reauthorization 
legislation enacted to meaningfully address the brutal violence on 
tribal lands.
  I remain committed to finding solutions to all the areas of 
contention between the House and the Senate on VAWA. We ought to be 
able to pass legislation that includes provisions addressing the 
violence on tribal lands and the need to protect immigrant women and 
those who have not had access to services because of their sexual 
orientation or gender identity. I believe we can find acceptable 
versions of the Senate bill's new protections for students and other 
key provisions. I am reaching out to the House Republican leadership. I 
look forward to their seizing this opportunity provided by these senior 
House Republicans to work with me and Senator Crapo and the 68 Senators 
from both parties who voted for the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill last April. 
If we can complete our work and send this bill to the President before 
we adjourn this year, he will sign it. Because with every day, every 
week, every month that goes by there are more horrific accounts of 
domestic and sexual violence. Whether it is a victim in Thetford, VT, 
or Kansas City, we owe it to them to come together to find a 
compromise.
  I have said this before several times: I still have nightmares from 
the domestic violence crime scenes I saw as a prosecutor in Vermont. I 
became a prosecutor at a time when many of the laws were changing--
search and seizure laws, Miranda laws, and so forth--and I would go 
with the police to crime scenes to give them advice on what the new 
laws might mean. A lot of times those scenes were at 2 or 3 o'clock in 
the morning. Many times we would see battered women, sometimes women no 
longer alive. I had nightmares from those. But I remember the police 
never asked: Is this an immigrant? Is this woman gay or straight? Is 
this woman Native American? They just wanted to stop the crime from 
happening again, and this legislation would give them a lot of tools so 
they can do that. The thought that our inaction could lead to more 
scenes such as those I saw would be tragic.
  Congress must act now to protect victims of rape and domestic 
violence. I am optimistic we can move together now that several House 
Republicans support a compromise position on tribal jurisdiction. I 
look forward to hearing from the House Republican leadership.
  Mr. President, I know we are going to vote at 12, so I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Leahy and 
members of the Judiciary Committee for the hearing they held on Terry 
Berg's nomination for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Michigan. I know how hard Senator Leahy works to get these judges 
and their judicial nominations to the floor, and we are deeply 
appreciative for all the efforts over all the years--indeed, may I say 
decades--of my good friend Senator Leahy.
  I think every member of the Judiciary Committee who had the chance to 
read the record or to be there during the hearing will agree Mr. Berg 
is an outstanding nominee for our district court bench. I will not go 
through all his background. Mr. Berg's qualifications are 
extraordinarily impressive. He will make an excellent addition to the 
Eastern District Court. He is going to serve with great distinction, 
and all of us--and I know I speak for Senator Stabenow as well in terms 
of strongly supporting this nomination--thank our colleagues for 
bringing this nomination to the floor and for the strong support it got 
in the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr LEVIN. Mr. President, Terrence, or ``Terry'' Berg, whom the 
President has nominated to the federal bench in the District Court for 
the Eastern District of Michigan, received a ``Well Qualified'' rating 
from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary. He graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center, and 
then went on to clerk for U.S. District judge. His career has been 
dedicated to public service. Since 2003, he has worked at the United 
States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan where he 
has worked on various cybercrime issues, has supervised criminal, 
civil, and administrative divisions, and has handled a full

[[Page 16560]]

fraud case docket, including theft of trade secrets, mortgage fraud, 
health care fraud, corporate fraud and other white collar crime cases. 
During this time, he received the Assistant Attorney General's Award 
for Distinguished Service and the Director's Award for Superior 
Performance in a Managerial or Supervisory Role.
  Prior to that service, Mr. Berg worked for the Michigan Attorney 
General where he established and supervised the State's first computer 
crime prosecution unit. He also served at the U.S. Department of 
Justice here in Washington as a Computer Crime Fellow. He has also 
served as an adjunct professor at the University of Detroit Mercy 
School of Law and the Wayne State University Law School.
  Mr. Berg has served on the Catholic Lawyers' Society Board of 
Directors, American Constitution Society and the State Bar of Michigan 
Committee on Judicial and Professional Ethics and has published 
numerous articles on cybercrime.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Judge 
Walker on his confirmation vote today. He has been waiting patiently 
since he was voted out of committee in June, and the Northern District 
of Florida will be well served by his confirmation.
  A Florida native, Judge Walker was born in Winter Garden.
  He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Florida 
where he graduated first in his class.
  He earned his law degree at the University of Florida as well.
  He has clerked for Justice Stephen Grimes of the Florida Supreme 
Court and Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida.
  He served as an assistant public defender of Florida's Second 
Judicial Circuit from 1997 to 1999, before then spending a decade in 
private practice where he specialized in civil litigation and criminal 
defense.
  And since 2009, he has had an outstanding record as a circuit judge, 
living in Tallahassee.
  We have another district judge nomination pending on the Senate 
calendar as well.
  Judge Brian Davis would fill a judicial emergency for the Middle 
District of Florida, and I urge my colleagues to take up this vote as 
soon as possible.
  I hope the Senate can work to eliminate the backlog of nominees 
pending on the floor.
  Even nominees with the support of both home State Senators are being 
held up.
  The high level of judicial vacancies across the country puts at risk 
the ability of all Americans to have a fair hearing in court.
  I yield the floor.
  With that, 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________