February 25, 2013/United States/U.S. Senate Congressional Record (raw)

= Congressional Record (raw) = undefined

Call to order
Page: S793

The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the.

Page: S793

Page: S793

Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

Reading of Washington's Farewell Address
Page: S793

Pursuant to the order of the Senate of January 24, 1901, as amended by the order of February 15, 2013, the Senator from New Hampshire will now read Washington's Farewell Address.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S797

The majority leader is recognized.

Page: S797

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5 o'clock today. At 5 o'clock the Senate will proceed to the nomination of Robert Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit. At 5:30 we will vote on his nomination.

We expect to reconsider the cloture vote on the Hagel nomination to be Secretary of Defense tomorrow.

We also expect to consider the nomination of Jack Lew to be Treasury Secretary and the sequestration legislation before the end of the week.

Senate Agenda
Page: S798

Mr. President, the Senate has a great deal to accomplish, including the long-delayed confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department.

This week the Senate will also consider two plans to avert devastating across-the-board cuts to military spending as well as domestic initiatives that keep our American families and businesses strong. To give our economy a foundation for growth, Congress must replace these cuts--the so-called sequester--with a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Democrats would temporarily replace this harsh austerity with a combination of smart spending reductions and measures that close corporate tax loopholes, end wasteful subsidies, and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more, and it would avoid harmful cuts that will hurt American families, harm military readiness, and hinder our economic recovery. Families and businesses in every State of the Nation--in red States and blue States--are at risk because of these haphazard cuts.

In the Presiding Officer's home State of Virginia, 170 teachers who work with disabled children could lose their jobs. That doesn't count any other teachers. Thousands of children will go without lifesaving vaccines--they will go without lifesaving vaccines--and 90,000 Pentagon employees will be furloughed. It is easy to talk about furloughs unless you are one of those people being furloughed. We don't know how many days a week it will be, how many days a month it will be, but it will be days.

In Nevada 120 teachers could lose their jobs. Local law enforcement agencies will lose essential funding to prosecute crime, and thousands of Defense Department employees will be furloughed, losing wages that support their families and our State's economy.

Residents of the Republican leader's home State would also suffer. Kentucky will lose Federal funding that helps police catch and punish domestic abusers, buys meals for needy seniors and keeps at-risk children in Head Start programs, and more than 11,000 Kentuckians who work for the Defense Department will be furloughed.

Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs. More than 70,000 boys and girls will be kicked out of their Head Start programs. Meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, FBI officers, and Border Patrol agents will be furloughed. Small businesses, which create two-thirds of all new jobs in this country, will lose access to crucial Federal loans. Thousands of researchers working to cure cancer, diabetes, and scores of other life-threatening diseases will lose their jobs.

But Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds. We have the power to turn off the sequester, protect American families and businesses, and ensure our national defense.

In the House and in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted to impose these cuts. It will take Republicans and Democrats working together to avert them. Twenty-eight Republicans in the Senate and 174 Republicans in the House voted to impose these painful cuts. To say this is President Obama's sequester is absolutely wrong: 174 Republicans in the House voted for these cuts--that is more than 70 percent--and in the Senate more than 60 percent of the Republicans voted for the sequester. So it is unfair to say it is the President's sequester. We did this together. This would not have passed but for the overwhelming vote of the Republicans in the House and in the Senate.

If those same Republicans would work with Democrats to find a balanced way to reduce the deficit, Congress could avert the delayed sequester today--now. Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let the deficit cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole. They would rather cut Medicare, education, and medical research than ask a single millionaire to pay a single dollar more in taxes.

The overwhelming majority of Americans wants us to compromise before their neighbors, friends, and family members get pink slips or notices that they can only work a few days this week or this month.

The overwhelming majority of Americans--including 56 percent of Republicans--supports Democrats' balanced approach. It is all over the country. All over the country Americans favor this approach, a balanced approach, by a large margin, including 56 percent of Republicans.

So once again the only Republicans in the entire country rejecting a reasonable, balanced compromise are Republicans in this building--Republicans in Congress.

Page: S798

Has the Chair announced the business of the day?

Under the previous order, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Immigration
[Page: S798]

Mr. President, last week, about the time Congress recessed, the President's immigration plan was leaked to the press and was commented on generally. A group of Senators here have been trying to work on a comprehensive plan and expressed dismay at what it contained and said it was not acceptable.

A brief review of the enforcement section of the President's immigration plan confirms, I think, what my concern has been all along. It is a smoking gun, in truth, that demonstrates this President is not serious about enforcement. That is where we are. Any immigration plan this Nation implements has to be founded on the simple legal principle that people can come to our country in generous numbers, as they always have done, but they should wait their turn. There should be a lawful system. You can't have a lawful system if you are not prepared, not willing, and not committed to ensuring that the laws are enforced.

What we have seen for the last several years is very dramatic. In point after point, I, formerly a Federal prosecutor for almost 15 years, can tell you it effectively neutralized the ability of our current laws to be enforced.

This bill is confirmation the President hasn't had a change of heart. He hasn't had a change of heart. They are continuing to talk as if they expect and plan to establish a lawful system of immigration. When you get down to it and read the language of the legislation, it is not there.

Here are some examples of what the President thinks amounts to enforcement. This is so sad. I will say, with absolute confidence, if the President of the United States had done what he sort of said he was going to do in 2008 when he was running for office, he would make this legal system work. If he had invested time, effort, leadership, moral authority, and maybe a little more money--but it won't take a whole lot of money--and begin to show the kind of progress we need to have, show a commitment he would work to enforce the law in the future, he would be in a much better position to ask for a large reform of law.

Let's look at what his plan reveals. It explicitly, openly, and directly prohibits State and local governments from enforcing immigration laws and from even asking someone for their immigration status.

We have former Governors here in the Senate, former State police superintendents--and I have dealt with this issue for a very long time--that is a stunning development. There are only about maybe 20,000 Federal agents dealing with immigration. There are 600,000 State and local law enforcement officers, in every county, city, hamlet, and town in America who are the ones who come in contact every single day with people in their areas for drunkenness, fighting, burglaries, and drugs. When they find somebody in the course of doing their duties, they discover people who are here illegally.

We want to have a relationship with them and to utilize their capabilities. The Federal Government can then respond, identify the person, and see what the truth is about their background. This eliminates that and steps backward from some of the progress we have slowly made, some at my insistence, over the last several years.

The proposal the President put forth eliminates the congressional requirement that the Department of Homeland Security put in place a biometric exit system for those who enter the country legally but overstay their visas. People come into the country on a visa and don't ever leave. Experts are telling us as many as 40 percent of the people who are here illegally today overstayed their visas. They need to clock in when they come in, but there is no clocking out. We have no real idea who came and overstayed their visas.

The President's plan eliminates a legal requirement that has been in place for approximately 17-plus years, which required a biometric exit system to clock out people when they come in. It is not hard to require them to pay a few dollars to purchase a card, and when you exit, it will be read like your credit card. You exit and you are clocked out. We have some control over that.

The proposal from the President restricts the ability of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to obtain information regarding whether a person is illegally present in the United States. Think about this. It would prohibit Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, particularly law enforcement agencies that need to know something about a person they may have come in contact with in the course of their public safety duties, to know whether they are legally in the country.

This means if a law enforcement agency is holding an illegal immigrant for a criminal offense not deemed serious enough--a criminal offense, but somebody in Washington and Homeland Security said is not serious enough--the law enforcement agency cannot contact Federal authorities.

This also means States with laws that require a determination of immigration status will no longer be able to use Federal databases to determine if a person is eligible for a driver's license, for example. You need to be able to turn somebody down for a driver's license if you can't check to see if they are lawfully in the country.

This is something I have worked hard on over the years, for a decade. It puts the final nail in the coffin of the 287(g) Program. That program states that State and local law enforcement officers are no longer allowed to function as immigration officers.

We had a program the Federal Government did not want, really, the politicians did not want to see happen. The law enforcement officers wanted it, and this was a program which would allow Federal immigration officials to train State and local law officers--some of them at the prisons, some of them in State offices, some of them in regional offices--how to deal with people who are in the country illegally.

The average 19-year-old police officer in Middleburg, VA, or in Monroeville, AL, may arrest a mayor for fraud or assault, but needs to take 2 weeks of training before he can be certified to arrest somebody illegally in the country, not even a citizen. This is the way it is working in the real world. It had some beneficial aspects. It is something I supported and thought we should expand nationwide.

There are highly trained people within State law enforcement, officers who are trying to cooperate with the Federal agents to try to create a system that will actually work. The President's plan would apparently eliminate that.

The President's plan would allow private individuals to hire border patrol agents to protect them and their property, when it is the federal government should be fulfilling its duty to protect them itself.

Is this a capitulation? You have a situation in which you are being basically invaded, the sovereign territory of the United States. It is not just a private individual's farm, ranch, property, it is U.S. territory. It should be protected from those unlawfully able to go there. They shouldn't have to hire their own police officers.

It includes a feel-good measure such as giving illegal immigrants free legal representation and creating border community liaison officers, in part to receive complaints about Border Patrol agents.

It allows the Attorney General to cancel deportation of criminal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies if they do not serve a sentence of 5 or more years. The law says if you are convicted of offenses and you are apprehended here illegally, you should be deported. It states this is only for serious offenses and you received time in jail, Federal felony offenses.

The President's plan goes even farther than that. It says to the Attorney General, if they served less than 5 years, he may waive that and not follow the law and deport people who violated the law. It gives the Attorney General authority to waive other legal requirements as well.

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is directed to provide appropriate training to agents enforcing laws and goes into a great deal of training of civil rights and that sort of thing that is required.

There is no mention of interior enforcement. There are no measures to secure our borders.

As I have stated, I have just begun to review this plan. What I have read causes me great concern and confirms the suspicions I have had all along, which means when this legislation goes from some sort of outline that sounds good in theory, the actual legislation is not going to be what it is promised to be. Why did I say that? Because it happened in 2006 and 2007.

The bill did not fulfill the promises their sponsors made of it when it was carefully examined. When we saw that, the American people spoke out, and it went away.

If you don't have a lawful system that effectively requires enforcement of the law, you are not serious about protecting people in this country from illegal workers who would take their jobs and have the net effect of pulling down their wages.

We already have the problem that the President is suing States that want to help the Federal Government enforce their laws. He has had his own United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents sue him, the Director of ICE, and the Secretary of Homeland Security for blocking them from being able to do their legal duty to enforce the law. That is going forward. They voted unanimously no confidence in Mr. Morton, the head of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And there are a lot of other problems.

I want to say, in sum, we have just begun to review the President's leaked plan and there are massive holes in it. It reveals a continued agenda to simply not allow a lawful system of immigration to be established in America and, therefore, it is unacceptable. I believe and am afraid that same mentality will impact the negotiations. We will end up, no matter how hard people try, with an inability to reach an agreement on a kind of plan that will actually work.

What needs to happen is we need to continue our generous, historic affirmation of immigration where we welcome people to our country in numbers that are very large, but we believe people should come lawfully. People who aren't entitled to come should not be allowed to enter. The people who come here should serve the national interest, not some group's special interests. If we do that, we could be proud of that system. I am so deeply disappointed that the President fails to meet those qualifications.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Bacharach Nomination
Page: S799

Mr. President,

I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Robert Bacharach of Edmond, OK, to be the next judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Bacharach is well-qualified for this position and has received widespread support and accolades from across the State of Oklahoma, including members of academia and members of both the Oklahoma and Federal Bar Associations. In fact, last year, the Oklahoma Bar Association passed a resolution praising Judge Bacharach's legal abilities and supporting his confirmation.

This broad array of support is indicative of his exceptional legal background. Judge Bacharach received his B.A., with high honors, from the University of Oklahoma in 1981 and his J.D. from Washington University School of Law in 1985. Judge Bacharach began his legal career as a law clerk for fellow Oklahoman, Chief Judge William J. Holloway, Jr., on the Tenth Circuit; thus, he is already quite familiar with those chambers. Following his two-year clerkship, he joined the outstanding Oklahoma-based law firm Crowe & Dunlevy, becoming a shareholder in 1994. After 12 years of private practice, he was appointed by the judges of his district court as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma where he currently presides. In addition to serving as a magistrate judge, Judge Bacharach also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma School of Law and received a number of outstanding awards and recognition for his years of scholarship and service.

In addition to his clear legal qualifications, even more important to my decision to support Judge Bacharach's nomination are the strong testimonies to his integrity and commitment to service outside of his judicial role. He is currently the Vice President of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) for the Tenth Circuit and formerly served the Oklahoma City Chapter of the FBA as President, Vice President, and a member of the Board of Directors.

Furthermore, Judge Bacharach serves the Oklahoma legal community beyond his professional capacity. One of his primary areas of service to his colleagues is through his involvement with the Oklahoma Bar Association's Lawyers Helping Lawyers Committee, which helps attorneys who are experiencing personal problems such as depression, alcoholism, and drug dependency. He has served on the committee for three years and also joined the Board of Directors of the Lawyers Helping Lawyers Foundation. Judge Bacharach serves Oklahoma outside of the legal profession as the Director and Executive Committee Member of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Oklahoma City and on the Board of Trustees of the Temple B'nai Israel.

I believe Judge Bacharach will uphold the highest standards and reflect the best in the American judicial tradition by joining the Tenth Circuit as a distinguished and respected member of the Oklahoma legal community. The Judiciary Committee received many letters of support for Judge Bacharach's nomination, including recommendations from judges, deans and professors from Oklahoma law schools, several bar associations, and attorneys from Judge Bacharach's former law firm, Crowe & Dunlevy.

Equally important to Judge Bacharach's qualifications is his judicial philosophy. I believe his record and his hearing testimony demonstrate that he respects the limited role our founders intended judges and the federal government to play in our constitutional democracy.

Based on all of these factors, I believe Judge Bacharach will be an excellent addition to the Tenth Circuit, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I offer my congratulations to Judge Bacharach and his family on this momentous occasion of his confirmation and wish him well in his new endeavor.

Judge Bacharach's nomination got caught up in the political shenanigans the majority leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee carried out at the end of the last Congress. Never before has a circuit court nominee come to the floor without notification of the very members of the Judiciary Committee who sponsored their nomination in the committee. So it was purely a political trick. And for that I think the Senate owes Judge Bacharach an apology for the delay. I have no doubt he will be confirmed, and I doubt there will be anybody who will vote against him.

That leads me to two other comments I wish to make. I have sat on the Judiciary Committee for four Supreme Court nominees, and so what I am about to say may strike some people as hyperbole, but it is not. The four Supreme Court nominees who appeared while I sat on the Judiciary Committee displayed great qualities, and what I am about to say doesn't diminish their characteristics or qualities at all, but I must say that Judge Bacharach has the two qualities that are at such a high level that we should want each and every judge who sits on our Federal bench to have them.

The first is personal integrity. Now, those words are used a lot in our country, but this man has demonstrated it with his life, with his commitments to other people, his commitment to helping other people, with the way he spends his time, with his commitment to his family and to his faith. You cannot find a blemish on this man in terms of his personal integrity, and very rarely can we say that about anybody. He is actually a stellar individual, exactly the type of individual our Founders had in mind, someone who has the kind of personal life that exemplifies the characteristics and qualities that built this country, a love for the law, and an understanding that the rule of law is the glue that holds our society together.

That leads me to the second quality. I have interviewed a lot of candidates for the Supreme Court and for judgeships and circuit court positions, and I have never met anybody who knows the Constitution, its limitations, and its intent better than Judge Bacharach. I think he quite assuredly impressed every member of the Judiciary Committee with his knowledge, his insight, and his background.

So Judge Bacharach brings together the two qualities that are so important and represent the upper end of all the candidates I have seen in my 9 years in the Senate of those whom we would ask to fulfill some of the most important positions in our country and in our society.

I believe Judge Bacharach is the first judge I will have voted for whom I have no doubt of his absolute fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. So I sleep well at night. I wish we had 100 Judge Bacharachs--100--to put on the bench today. I don't believe he can be influenced by anything other than stare decisis, precedence, and the U.S. Constitution and the statutes. His personal life gives reflection and insight into how he is going to be a judge, how he will carry himself, how he will act in this position of power. When you meet him, what you find is one of the humblest of men with one of the greatest intellects I have ever known in my life.

So I will just say that I fully support his nomination. I congratulate him because I know he is going to be approved, and I say, Mr. President, bring us more Robert Bacharachs.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Long-Term Debt Reduction
Page: S800

Mr. President, it has been 1,398 days since the Senate passed a budget. People wonder why we are lurching from one budget crisis to another one in Washington. The fact is this is not the only deadline that has been missed. This year the President failed to submit, by February 4, his proposed budget. But the truth is even last year when he submitted a budget, and it was voted on by the entire Senate, it received zero votes. In other words, it was not viewed as a reasonable and practical solution to the financial crisis that faces our country with $16.5 trillion in debt and 40 cents out of every dollar being spent by the Federal Government being borrowed from our creditors.

Even before we reach the upcoming crisis which is known as the budget sequester--and I suggest most Americans would not consider a 2.4-percent cut in spending to be a crisis, but even before we reach this next stage in the budget negotiations, we know President Obama has proposed the same old solution to every budgetary question; that is, to raise taxes even though on December 31, with the fiscal cliff negotiations, we saw the President get his pound of flesh when it came to spending, and that is $600 billion in additional revenue.

But this does, indeed, seem like the Washington version of Groundhog Day.

We know the President has rejected his own bipartisan fiscal commission's recommendations, the so-called Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendation, and he has rejected budget proposals put forward by the House of Representatives. Even though our gross national debt has gone up by nearly $6 trillion under his watch, and even though it is projected to go up another $9.5 trillion over the next decade, the President seems to be stuck on telling us it is only going to take a little bit more in taxes in order to solve the problem.

The American people understand we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem--spending money we do not have--and the only way to reduce our long-term debt burden is through reining in that spending. And not just the 39 percent of it which represents discretionary spending; we need to reform our entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security, in order to preserve and to protect those programs for future generations. Yet when we try to enact spending cuts or entitlement reforms, the President, unfortunately, has resorted to shameless fear mongering.

He is now warning that it will be the end of western civilization, or something like it, if we cut the Federal budget by 2.4 percent. When we consider that Federal spending has gone up over 19 percent since 2008, and when we consider how much inefficient and duplicative and downright wasteful spending there is in the Federal Government, it is hard to take this argument seriously.

For example, no one should be talking about raising more taxes from the American people on top of the $600 billion that was extracted as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations. No one should be talking about raising more taxes when the Federal Government made more than $220 billion in improper payments over the last 2 years--that's right, $220 billion in improper payments in the last 2 years--and this is just one example of costly government waste.

The President does not appear to believe in the urgency of the moment. He does not appear to believe that our country is headed for a true crisis. We all know interest rates are at historically low levels at this time. If interest rates were to go up just 1 percent or 2 percent more, for each percentage increase it would represent more than $1 trillion in additional interest we would have to pay on our debt. It is easy to see if interest rates were to go back up to historic norms, 4 or 5 percent, that very quickly we would lose control of our financial system, and we would be able to do little more than pay interest on the debt and pay for Medicare and Social Security.

Both Senate Republicans and Democrats have shown that they understand the nature of the crisis we have before us, but we believe it is imperative that we support a budget that reduces our long-term debt.

The only way we can see a significant path forward to debt reduction is if the President joins us in these important negotiations. Unfortunately, so far, the President seems truly allergic to genuine bipartisan compromise.

Until the Obama administration, virtually every landmark domestic policy change in American history was achieved with bipartisan support. We all understand that; it cannot happen any other way. For example, both the 1935 Social Security Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act were signed by a Democratic President and supported by large majorities of Senate Republicans. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act signed by President Clinton was backed by every single Member of the Republican Senate caucus, along with the majority of Senate Democrats.

Likewise, during the Reagan years, most Senate Democrats voted for the 1983 Social Security amendments, and a whopping 94 percent of Senate Democrats voted for the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Under President George W. Bush 84 percent of Senate Democrats voted for No Child Left Behind.

In other words, Presidents have traditionally understood that reform and results take leadership and only then will bipartisan support follow. Yet the President seems to neglect this obvious fact and instead prefers to continue what seems like a perpetual campaign and knock down straw men rather than actually doing something about our skyrocketing debt.

Real debt reduction will require Presidential leadership, the kind of leadership that President Clinton displayed in 1993 when he convinced 47 percent of Senate Democrats and 40 percent of House Democrats to defy organized labor and support the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then, U.S. trade with Canada has nearly tripled, and U.S. trade with Mexico has increased almost sixfold.

My hope is that the President will ultimately show the kind of leadership we have seen throughout this Nation's history when we are confronted with big challenges. He has acknowledged the need for serious reform.

I believe he understands the problem perfectly: We cannot preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare unless we deal with those programs now. Yet he has never acted on his words, instead choosing to engage in the perpetual campaign.

As a result, Washington keeps spending money it doesn't have and saddling our children with more debt. Meanwhile our safety-net programs are spiraling toward a collapse that will leave the poor and elderly even more vulnerable. It is time for a change, and it is time for the President to take his rhetoric about debt reduction and turn it into real meaningful reform.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Black History Month
Page: S801

Mr. President, as I have every year since I came to the Senate, I rise to commemorate Black History Month. This year, we are privileged to recognize Bill Strickland, a man whose approach is unique and whose accomplishments are of great consequence to African-Americans, and in fact, to all Americans. From the age of 19, Bill Strickland has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of those living in poverty, to give them a setting they can thrive in and a future they can take pride in.

Bill grew up in the Manchester neighborhood of Pittsburgh, on the city's north side. Prior to the decline of industry in the city in the mid-1960s, Manchester was a solid, working class community. But by the time Bill was in high school, the area around him had slid into urban decay and instability. Though surrounded by poverty, Bill's mother was determined to provide a safe environment for her family. And though she didn't have a high school diploma herself, Bill's mother held firm to the belief that a good education was the ticket to a better life. At Oliver High School, when he began his senior year Bill had neither plans for after graduation or a clear picture of what his future might look like.

Then one day while walking down the hallway at school, Bill was attracted by the smell of fresh coffee. The coffee, along with the sounds of jazz, led Bill to the art room in Oliver High where he watched a pot being formed from a mound of clay on a turntable. Seated at the potter's wheel was Frank Ross, Oliver High's art teacher who would become Bill's close friend and mentor. Over the next year, in the calm atmosphere of Frank's well-lit art studio, Bill would develop a talent for ceramics. As importantly, it provided a safe and stable sanctuary from the chaos of the streets. At the potter's wheel Bill found his passion, and although he didn't know it yet, he was also forming the beginning of a vision that would become Manchester Bidwell Corporation.

In 1967, Bill graduated from Oliver High School and, at the instance of Frank Ross, applied to the University of Pittsburgh where he was accepted, but only as a probationary student. Although he had begun his studies full-time, Bill never lost the connection with his neighborhood. In the summer of 1968, as Manchester grappled with the racial tensions that swept many inner cities, Bill decided to open an arts center in his neighborhood. He had seen the power a bright, orderly, safe place like Frank Ross' studio and the artistic work done there had had on his own life. He wanted to give the young people of Manchester a place where they too could escape the effects of economic and social devastation and experience something beautiful. A conversation with a young minister working in the area led Bill to his first $25,000 in funding and the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild was born as an after-school art program in a donated row house on Buena Vista Street. It was not an overnight success, but Bill never gave up. When young people in the neighborhood weren't immediately taken with ceramics, Bill redoubled his efforts, hitting the streets to reach out to as many people as possible and bring them to his center. People noticed Bill's efforts and the popularity of the Guild grew. As more people came to the center, the center needed more clay, more wheels, and Bill needed to secure more funding.

Along the way, an interesting phenomenon occurred. Teachers began noticing that their students who regularly went to the Guild were doing better academically and behaving better in school. Without intending to, Bill had stumbled across a simple, yet empowering, philosophy--environment shapes people's lives. By providing a safe space for the Manchester youth, and by introducing them to the beauty of the arts, Bill was simultaneously inspiring a large-scale change in his community.

Despite starting as a probationary student, Bill graduated from Pitt cum laude with a BA in History in 1970. Bill continued to work with the Manchester Craftmen's Guild and a few years after graduation, he became director of the Bidwell Training Center, a school whose mission was to provide education in the building trades disadvantaged and dislocated workers. When Bill assumed his role as head of Bidwell, what he discovered was a dilapidated warehouse in a seedy parking lot and a $300,000 back tax bill from the IRS. But Bill saw its potential and didn't give up. Bill began to transform Bidwell into a forward-thinking school that offered its students a real chance to dramatically improve their lives. He realized that the changing job market required less focus on construction trades and redirected Bidwell's focus to the hightech and medical industries. He also forged important partnerships with corporations like IBM, Heinz) and Bayer to design curriculums that would train the workers that employers needed. While he worked to improve the staff and the quality of the education, the nature of Bidwell's funding meant that Bill could not address what he saw as one of the institutions central flaws: The building. With funding for social projects harder to come by in the 1980s, Bill was forced to lay-off nearly one-third of his staff just to make payroll. But despite the set-back, in his own eyes, Bill's vision was clearer than ever. Bill realized that what he needed to make Bidwell succeed was a center of which students, faculty, and neighbors could be proud.

To achieve his dream, Bill contacted legendary Pittsburgh architect Tasso Kastelas, a student of Frank Lloyd Wright, to design a world class center in one of the worst neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. For $10,000, Bill commissioned the architect to build a model of what would later become the home of the Manchester Bidwell Corporation, as the combined programs of the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild and the Bidwell Training Center would come to be known. Bill had a vision for his building and the conviction that the future of his cause lay in its construction. Just as he had done before, Bill took it upon himself to turn his dream into a reality and spearheaded a $6.5 million capital campaign. Model in hand, he implored the Pittsburgh corporate community to help fund his dream. When the city's corporate donors, who had supported him previously, told him that Manchester didn't need such a spectacular center, he told them in no uncertain terms that it did. When he was told he needed matching funds to obtain his corporate pledges, he turned to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for additional support.

In 1986 the new 62,000 square foot arts and career training center opened. Originally the center consisted of studios as well as classrooms, workshops, gallery spaces, and a 350-seat auditorium. Over the years the building has expanded as Bill's vision expanded. In 1987 the jazz hall, which has seen performances from the likes of Dizzy Gillespie and Nancy Wilson, was added and in 2003 the 40,000 square foot state-of-the-art greenhouse opened. The center currently provides training in fields as varied as gourmet food preparation, chemical, office, and medical technologies, and education arts programming in ceramics, design arts, digital arts, and photography.

Bill's center and his students success stories are a testament to the power of social entrepreneurship. What began as a mission to provide an escape from the ghetto has produced unparalleled results in educational empowerment and community growth. Manchester Craftsmen's Guild ``Youth in Arts'' is a program that strives to educate and inspire urban young people through the arts. Ninety-three of the high school students who participate in the Manchester Craftsmen's Guild ``Youth in Arts'' program graduate from high school, a noticeable improvement over the national graduation rate of 75.5 percent. The Bidwell Training Center has changed lives by providing market-driven career training to disadvantaged adults in transition. Its training programs continue to place skilled technicians in middle-class jobs at companies such as Bayer, Mylan Labs, and Heinz. MCG Jazz, Manchester-Bidwell's record label, has been nominated for seven Grammy awards and has brought four home to Pittsburgh. The orchids grown in the facility's greenhouse have won Best in Show at a Western Pennsylvania orchid fair and are even available for purchase at Whole Foods. And while they are learning medical coding or how to center clay, each student is fed a gourmet lunch prepared by culinary students in the center's top-of-the-line kitchen.

Realizing the opportunity to strengthen other communities and effect change on an even larger scale by using the Manchester Bidwell model of community and educational development as a template, Bill helped found the National Center for Arts and Technology to replicate the Manchester Bidwell education model across the nation. NCAT collaborates with local nonprofits and businesses to assess their community's needs and then works together with the community to design a fitting center for arts and technology. Bill's Pittsburgh model has been replicated in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Cleveland, New Haven, Connecticut and Grand Rapids, MI. He gained some powerful backers including Jeff Skoll, founder of eBay and the Skoll Foundation. The Skoll Foundation was one of Bill's earlier investors; it recognized the potential of his programs to drive large scale positive social change by using entrepreneurial discipline and methods. With the Skoll Foundation's help, Bill clarified his sales pitch--that he could help solve problems faced in communities, had a strategic business plan showing the benefits of working together, and offering people meaning and hope through transforming experiences.

Bill has said that ``environment determines behavior'' and he has created a remarkable environment where men and women living in poverty are treated with dignity and respect. Knowing firsthand that poverty creates self-defeating assumptions and restrictive labels but does not define a person's potential, Bill has dedicated his life to changing the lives of others by offering them hope, meaning, and belief in the power of their own creative possibilities. Bill's methods might be unconventional, but his results are success stories of epic proportions. And so in the Senate today we express our gratitude to Bill for never giving up on the poor kids or his vision. His passion and his belief in the abilities of each and every individual that walks through his doors has touched lives far beyond Manchester and, thanks to his tireless efforts, truly has the potential to reach around the world.

I thank Bill Strickland for his contribution to the City of Pittsburgh, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S803

Morning business is closed.

Page: S803

Nomination of Robert E. Bacharach to Be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit
Page: S803

Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report.

Under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

The Senator from Vermont.

Bacharach Nomination
Page: S803

This week, the country is facing indiscriminate across-the-board cuts from sequestration if Congress does not come to an agreement. The automatic cuts that will otherwise occur are in the tens of billions of dollars at a time when our economy is finally recovering but remains fragile. Among those who will have to endure these cuts are the overburdened Federal courts that are already suffering from longstanding vacancies that number almost 90. Budgetary cuts will mean more difficulty for the American people to get speedy justice from our Federal justice system.

According to the sequestration report released by the Office of Management and Budget, the sequestration would lead to a $555 million reduction for our Federal courts. Despite their higher caseloads and the needs of the American people, the courts' funding will be capped at a level last utilized 6 years ago. This could result in elimination of nearly one third of the courts' staff, as many as 6,300 employees, or month-long furloughs system wide. The sequester will result in cuts that will force courts to hear fewer cases and hear them more slowly. Court proceedings will be delayed. Some 30,000 civil cases have already been pending for more than 3 years and this will only exacerbate the problems of delay. Sequestration cuts could even result in the suspension of civil jury trials in some courts. And consider that if probation and pretrial services offices are affected, that can mean that defendants in pretrial release and those convicted but not in prison may not be properly supervised.

Sequestration is bad for the courts, bad for the economy and bad for the American people.

Today, after an unprecedented filibuster, Senate Republicans will finally allow a vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Bacharach should be a consensus nominee. He received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating of well qualified. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last year and, again, this year. Despite his experience, qualifications and bipartisan support, he was filibustered by Senate Republicans since July last year.

The filibuster of his nomination, which was supported by the Oklahoma Senators who had previously supported the nomination and who will likely reverse themselves again and support confirmation today, was the ne plus ultra of an unprecedented campaign of obstruction Senate Republicans have waged against President Obama's judicial nominees. That obstruction has spread to executive nominees, as well, including the nomination of Chuck Hagel, a recent Republican Senator from Nebraska whose nomination to serve as Secretary of Defense was filibustered earlier this month.

Judge Bacharach is the kind of nominee who every Senator should support. Over his 13-year career as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Oklahoma, he has handled nearly 3,000 civil and criminal matters, presided over 400 judicial settlement conferences, and issued more than 1,600 reports and recommendations. As an attorney in private practice, he tried 10 cases to verdict, argued two cases before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and briefed scores of other cases to the Tenth Circuit and the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Judge Bacharach's judicial colleagues in the Western District of Oklahoma stand strongly behind his nomination. Vicki Miles-LaGrange, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, has said of Judge Bacharach:

He is an outstanding jurist and my colleagues and I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly recommend him for the Tenth Circuit position. . . . We knew that we were lucky to have Bob as a Magistrate Judge, and he's been remarkable in this position for over 12 years. He is an absolutely great Magistrate Judge. His research and writing are excellent, his temperament is superb, his preparation is top-notch, and he is a wonderful colleague to all of the judges and in general to the entire court family. ..... All of the other judges and I--Republicans and Democrats alike--enthusiastically and wholeheartedly recommend Judge Bob Bacharach for the Tenth Circuit position. All of us believe very strongly that Judge Bacharach would be a superb choice for the position.

Throughout the careful and deliberate process in which Judge Bacharach has been thoroughly vetted, considered, and voted on by the Judiciary Committee, I have not heard a single negative word about him. There is no Senator who opposed his nomination on the merits. He was praised extensively by his home State Senators. Senator Inhofe has said of him:

I believe Judge Bacharach would continue the strong service Oklahomans have provided the Tenth Circuit. Throughout his career and education, he's distinguished himself. In 2007, the Oklahoma City Journal Record profiled Judge Bacharach as an example of leadership in law, where he simply stated that as a future goal he intends to improve. Always working to improve has defined Judge Bacharach. . . . [H]is colleagues have characterized his service as remarkable, demonstrating superb judicial temperament, and a real asset to the Western District court family and legal community.

Senator Coburn said:

Unfortunately, along with 42 other Senate Republicans, Senator Inhofe and Senator Coburn filibustered Judge Bacharach since last July. The people of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have been needlessly denied his service as a Tenth Circuit judge for 7 months. Republican Senators in Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming could have prevented the filibuster but went along with the obstruction that served no good purpose and established another damaging precedent: Judge Bacharach is the first circuit court nominee to be filibustered who had received bipartisan support before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Coburn was quoted last year admitting: ``There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' There was none other than the obstruction of Senate Republicans.

Their partisan obstruction was wrong, and it is damaging to our Nation's courts and the American people. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republicans' partisan obstruction.

This obstruction has contributed to the damagingly high level of judicial vacancies that has persisted for over 4 years. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to speedy justice. While Senate Republicans delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. There are today 89 judicial vacancies across the country. By way of contrast, that is more than double the number of vacancies that existed at this point in the Bush administration. The circuit and district judges that we have been able to confirm over the last four years fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term.

Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's most extreme circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators as they unfairly short-circuited the process of consideration over and over again. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home state Senators and their rights have been fully protected in a fair consideration process.

Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order, usually confirmed nominees promptly, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The average district court nominee is stalled 4.3 times longer and the average circuit court nominee is stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. No other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Senate Republicans have also forced the Majority Leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already in 4 years 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's eight years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Fewer than 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's nominees at this point in their Presidencies.

The record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies ..... This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads ..... There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address longstanding judicial vacancies, Senate Republicans have continued their unwarranted obstruction of judicial confirmations. In the case of Judge Bacharach, there was not even a pretense of any substantive concern--Senate Republicans just decided to shut down the confirmation process and contorted the ``Thurmond rule.''

At a time when judicial vacancies have again risen to almost 90, we must do more for our overburdened courts. It is past time for the partisan obstruction to end. We have a long way to go. After 4 years of delay and obstruction, we remain far behind the pace of confirmations we set during President Bush's administration, and there remain far too many judicial vacancies that make it harder for Americans to have their day in court. During President Bush's entire second term, the 4 years from 2004 through 2008, vacancies never exceeded 60. Since President Obama's first full month in office, and as far into the future as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. The Senate must do much more to fill these vacancies and make real progress.

The Senate today will finally vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach. He has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma since 1999. Previously, from 1987 to 1999, he was in private practice at the Oklahoma City law firm of Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. From 1985 to 1987, he served as a law clerk to Judge William J. Holloway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the same court to which he has been nominated. Judge Bacharach was twice reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote--last June and again this month.

The Judiciary Committee has been working to vet, consider, and report nominees, and just before the recess we reported another dozen circuit and district nominees, all of whom had to be renominated from last year. The longest pending of these nominations is that of Caitlin Halligan, who the President first nominated to the D.C. Circuit back in 2010. At that time, there were already two vacancies on that court, a number which has now doubled to four. The purported justification for the partisan Republican filibuster of the Halligan nomination was that the circuit did not need another judge. The circuit is now more than one-third vacant and needs several, including Caitlin Halligan. I urge that the Senate act quickly on long-pending nominations. Further delay does not serve the interests of the American people. Hardworking Americans deserve better.

Bacharach Nomination
Page: S803

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Robert E. Bacharach, nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Bacharach's nomination was pending before the Senate last year. In accordance with Senate custom and practice, the nomination was placed on hold, along with other circuit judge nominations, pending the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. Unfortunately, the nomination was subjected to some unnecessary political theater when a cloture motion was filed and defeated last July.

It is well-known that the practice and tradition of the Senate is to stop confirming circuit judge nominees in the closing months of a Presidential election year. One has to go back 20 years to find a Presidential election year when the Senate approved a circuit court judge in the latter part of the year. Of course, the rationale has been that whoever wins that election should be the one to pick these lifetime nominees who will run our judiciary system.

A Congressional Research Service report on this subject stated:

The CRS report noted that on March 7, 2008, the chairman recalled:

Again, this was in March of that Presidential election year, not June or July. So that rule was very carefully laid out March 7, 2008--that they didn't intend to approve any more nominees after that point.

CRS went on to note the strong support the majority leader has expressed for the so-called Thurmond rule. According to CRS:

Five days later, the Majority Leader said:

These quotes indicate not only the expectation, but in fact a support for slowing down and cutting off the confirmation of judges in a Presidential election year.

Even setting aside the so-called Leahy-Thurmond rule, by any objective measure, President Obama has been treated fairly.

For example, with regard to the total number of confirmations, we confirmed 171 district and circuit nominations during President Obama's first term. We also confirmed two Supreme Court nominations during President Obama's first term. When Supreme Court nominations are pending in the committee, all other work on nominations is put on hold.

The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second term, and during that term the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees.

Let me put it another way. Under similar circumstances when Supreme Court nominees were considered--the Senate confirmed 52 more district and circuit nominees for President Obama than for President Bush.

During the 2008 Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. During the 2012 Presidential election year the Senate greatly exceeded those numbers, having confirmed a total of 49 judges--44 district and 5 circuit. In fact, President Obama's confirmations during the 2012 election year exceed the previous five Presidential election years.

Furthermore, President Obama has the highest percentage of circuit confirmations over the past four Presidential terms. With regard to district confirmations, President Obama had more during the 112th Congress that in any of the previous eight Congresses, going back to 1994.

So those who say that this President is being treated differently either fail to recognize history or want to ignore the facts, or both.

With regard to today's nomination, I would like to say a few words about the nominee. I expect he will be approved and congratulate him on his confirmation.

Judge Bacharach graduated from University of Oklahoma with a B.A. in 1981 and earned his J.D. from the Washington University School of Law in 1985. Upon graduation, Judge Bacharach served as a law clerk from 1985 to 1987 to the Honorable William J. Holloway, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. After completion of his clerkship, he was hired as an associate at Crowe & Dunlevy, where he became a shareholder in 1994.

He remained at the firm until becoming a U.S. magistrate judge in 1999. At Crowe & Dunlevy, he primarily practiced in commercial litigation, focusing on antitrust and franchise litigation. He also handled a considerable number of cases involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, from 1996 to 1998.

From 1997 to 1999, Judge Bacharach served as an adjunct professor of law at the University Of Oklahoma School Of Law. During this period, he was a coinstructor for a class titled ``Civil Pretrial Litigation.''

In 1999, the U.S. district judges for the Western District of Oklahoma appointed Judge Bacharach to be a U.S. magistrate judge. As a magistrate judge, he manages all aspects of the pretrial process in civil and criminal cases: conducting evidentiary hearings, ruling on nondispositive motions, making reports and recommendations regarding dispositive motions, and issuing criminal complaints, search warrants, and arrest warrants.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. If there is time remaining, I ask the time be equally divided.

Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

The Senator from California.

Vote on the Bacharach Nomination
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, we yield back the remaining time on the nomination.

All debate time has expired.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

There is a sufficient second.

The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit?

The clerk will call the roll.

I announce that the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from New Jersey , and the Senator from Colorado are necessarily absent.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Idaho , the Senator from Wisconsin , and the Senator from Kentucky.

Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Rollcall Vote No. 22 Ex.
Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Page: S805

Under the previous order, the Senate will resume legislative session.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Bacharach Confirmation
Page: S805

Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have just confirmed Judge Bacharach. He is going to make a great Federal judge. I have just been real pleased, I have to admit; I was literally running from the airport to get here because they had plane troubles, and I saw Senator Pryor was in the same situation. So let me, first of all, thank the leadership for holding that vote open so I would not find myself in the embarrassing position of not voting to confirm my best friend from Oklahoma. So we are in that situation.

Let me just say that I am very proud of him. He actually started on the Tenth Circuit as a clerk. So he really knows this stuff. He has been there for a long time. As part of his profile, as a future goal, he intended to improve. He has actually made that statement. I believe ``always working to improve'' has been a defining characteristic of Judge Bacharach's career.

He graduated in the top 4 percent of his class in law school. He received all kinds of academic awards and maintained memberships in the highest orders of law school students. He began his legal scholarship on Law Review and has continued writing in a number of law journals.

As I said, he actually started in the Tenth Circuit working as a law clerk for the chief judge. So he knows that circuit. I do not think there is anyone out there who would know it better.

Judge Bacharach has multiple years of litigation experience working for the firm Crowe and Dunlevy in Oklahoma City and in public service as a Federal magistrate for the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Oklahoma. As evidence of his career of distinction, when Judge Bacharach was chosen to be a magistrate judge from a pool of many well-qualified candidates, the chief judge characterized the decision as ``an easy one.''

Since that time his colleagues have characterized his service as remarkable, demonstrating superb judicial temperament, and being a real asset to the Western District family and the legal community. As with any position in the judicial branch that comes with a lifetime appointment, the Senate must deliberate carefully; and we did and gave all the thought to this nominee, as was shown, clearly demonstrated by a unanimous vote for confirmation. You do not see this very often, but you saw it with Judge Bacharach.

So I appreciate the opportunity to support him today and to have been able to call and be the first to congratulate him in this new part of his career, of which we are going to be very proud. I can assure the Presiding Officer and all the rest of us this is a guy of whom we will always be proud.

So I say congratulations to Judge Bacharach. You are going to do a great job. We will depend on that, and we will be watching to make sure that happens.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

[thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r113:S25FE3-0017: Page: S806]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Voting Rights Act
Page: S806

Less than 7 years ago, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives joined together to reauthorize key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We explained and documented our findings that this landmark civil rights law was still needed because of continuing discrimination and to preserve the progress that had been made. Because of this extensive record and the acceptance of the Voting Rights Act's importance in our country, our 2006 reauthorization of this crucial law was marked by Members of Congress from both parties and from every corner of the Nation coming together to renew one of the cornerstones of American Democracy.

It is a sad irony that on the same day we will be honoring Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks by unveiling her statue in the U.S. Capitol, the first full statue of an African American to stand in the halls of Congress, across the street the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments from those challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization named in part for her. In the pending case, the challengers seek to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even though that critical section has protected constitutional guarantees against discrimination in voting where 100 years of prior civil rights laws failed. The Supreme Court got it right four years ago when it upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5 against a similar challenge. Neither the words of the Constitution nor the importance of these critical provisions for protecting the right to vote has changed in the last four years. Under the specific words of the 14th and 15th Amendments, Congress has the power to remedy discrimination and enforce the Amendments by enacting laws that address racial discrimination in connection with voting. That is what we did nearly unanimously less than 7 years ago. And over the past year lower courts have repeatedly upheld both its constitutionality and its protections. In light of the lengthy court findings from just the last year, there can be no doubt that the operation of the Voting Rights Act is continuing to protect American voters from discrimination.

In his historic ``I Have a Dream speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed: ``When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. The Voting Rights Act is one of our most important means for enforcing this promise and upholding the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights and equal protection of the law. Reauthorizing and restoring the Voting Rights Act was the right thing to do, not only for those who fought and bled for its passage but also for those who come after us--our children and our grandchildren. We owe it to them to continue our commitment to this vital Act. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed or denied in the United States of America.

As we celebrate Black History Month and the significant progress we have made as a Nation, let us not forget the promissory note to future generations and the continuing need for civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act.

Our Nation has grown stronger since its Founding as more Americans have been able to exercise their right to vote. The actions taken by previous generations--through a Civil War, through Constitutional amendments, and through the long struggles of the civil rights movement--have worked to break down barriers that stood in the way of all Americans participating in our Democracy.

It has not been an easy road. The pervasive discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. As a nation, this effort to ensure equal protection dates back more than 140 years to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. Yet, it took 95 years from the passage of the 15th Amendment and a historic struggle for civil rights for people of all races to begin the effective exercise of the rights guaranteed by that Amendment. The struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, when state troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were trying to exercise their civil rights. The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were a catalyst to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which finally ensured a century after the enactment of the Civil War amendments that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the political process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices.

Prior to the Voting Rights Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. Section 5 provides a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination in voting by requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to ``pre-clear'' all voting changes with either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This remedy combats the practice of covered jurisdictions shifting from one invalidated discriminatory voting tactic to another, which had undermined efforts to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment for nearly a century.

In 2006, congressional leadership stood together on the steps of the Capitol to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act--an historic announcement in an era of intense partisanship. We came together in recognition that there are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. In sharp contrast to the tremendous resistance and bitter politics which met the initial enactment of the Voting Rights Act, our efforts in 2006 overcame objections through discussions, the hearing process and by developing an overwhelming record of justification for extension of the expiring provisions. The legislation contained specific findings about the need for reauthorization and concluded that without reauthorization the gains we have made would be undermined. Our efforts reached completion when President Bush signed the bill into law after a unanimous vote in the Senate and nearly unanimous vote in the House.

At that time, I was the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the lead Democratic Senate sponsor of the reauthorization. Over the course of 19 hearings, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees developed a comprehensive record supporting the continuing need for a reauthorized and reinvigorated Voting Rights Act. In the

Senate Judiciary Committee alone we received testimony from 46 witnesses, including a range of constitutional scholars, voting rights advocates, and Supreme Court practitioners, regarding the need for reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In addition, the Committee gathered and considered thousands of pages of testimony, articles, letters, and other evidence from these witnesses and other sources discussing these issues. This evidence, along with voluminous evidence gathered in the House--under the leadership of then-Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Mel Watt, John Conyers and John Lewis--provided an overwhelming demonstration that Section 5 continues to be an effective and necessary tool for protecting minority voting rights.

At the time the Senate voted, we had before us the House Committee Report, the full debate from the floor of the House of Representatives, including debate surrounding four substantive amendments to H.R. 9 that were all rejected, leading up to final passage of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization. Before we voted, I also provided the Senate with some of the extensive evidence received over several months of hearings in the Judiciary Committee about the persistence of discriminatory practices in Section 5 covered jurisdictions.

The record gathered by the Judiciary Committee included three categories of evidence supporting the continuation of Section 5. First, we found evidence that even with Section 5 in place, covered jurisdictions continued to engage in recurring discriminatory tactics, often in subtle forms that play on racially polarized voting to deny the effectiveness of the votes cast by members of a particular race. Second, we found evidence that Section 5 provides an effective deterrent against bad practices in covered jurisdictions. Finally, we found evidence that Section 5 plays a vital role in securing the gains minority voters have achieved against the risk of backsliding.

Most importantly, of course, at the time we voted, all Senators had before them the detailed findings in Section 2 of the legislation based on the record and all Senators endorsed those findings with their votes. For example, those findings explicitly include:

By passing the legislation, Congress adopted and reaffirmed these detailed findings, including Congress' determination that:

Now some suggest that Section 5 should be a victim of its success. In my view abandoning a successful deterrent just because it works defies logic and common sense. When Congress finds an effective and constitutional way to prevent violations of the law, the courts must uphold it. In fact, since 1966, whenever the Supreme Court has reviewed or even cited to the Voting Rights Act, it has affirmed the Act as a valid exercise of congressional authority. That is what the Court rightly did again in 2009.

Nothing we have seen in the time since Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 or since the Supreme Court again upheld Section 5 in 2009 has invalidated Congress' determination to reauthorize that critical remedy for racial discrimination in voting. In fact, the events of last year's election only serve to remind us anew of the continuing need for Section 5. Last year, panels of judges appointed by presidents of both parties found that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters in redistricting, and that Texas failed to demonstrate that its voter ID law does not impose greater burdens on minority voters. A separate panel of three Federal judges approved South Carolina's voter identification law under Section 5 starting this year, with judges appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents noting that South Carolina legislators passed a less restrictive law than they desired specifically in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Without Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, worse laws would be in place and the fundamental rights of many Americans would be diminished.

The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important laws ever passed by Congress, transforming America by ushering the nation out of a history of discrimination into an era of greater inclusion. The Act has been a tremendous source of protection for the voting rights of those long discriminated against and a great deterrent against discriminatory efforts cropping up anew. As we celebrate Black History Month, we should reflect not only on how far we have come, but how far we still must travel to truly secure the guarantees of the Constitution for all Americans.

Ensuring that all Americans are able to vote and have their vote counted should be an issue of concern to Democrats and Republicans, and a matter of conscience for all of us regardless of political party. That is how it was in 2006, when members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, stood together on the Capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment to full democratic participation by reauthorizing the key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I am confident that this week when the Justices review the substantial record relied upon by America's elected representatives in Congress, they will again do the right thing. Congress is at the height of its power when giving enforceable meaning to the 14th and the 15th amendments. That is what Congress did when passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and what we did when we voted nearly unanimously to extend the vital remedies of Section 5 in 2006. Now the Supreme Court is called upon to respect the role of Congress by upholding this vital civil rights legislation as it rightly did in 2009.

There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for the protection of the Voting Rights Act. Now is no time for backsliding. Now is the time to renew our commitment to the right to vote for all Americans.

Violence Against Women Act
Page: S807

I have often said, Mr. President, that the Senate is supposed to be, it can be, and often is the conscience of the Nation. Well, we became the conscience of the Nation 2 weeks ago when Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. We made protection of these victims our top priority. After compromise and extensive negotiations, we set partisanship aside and came together.

The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act will provide immeasurable help to all victims of domestic violence and of rape throughout our country and to victims of human trafficking in the United States and around the world. The Senate passed it with an appropriate show of bipartisan unity. A majority of Republican Senators voted for our bill, as did every woman elected to this body and every single Democratic Senator and the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. My amendment adding significant human trafficking legislation passed with the support of 93 Senators.

Senators from across the political spectrum have shown that stopping domestic and sexual violence in the most effective way possible is an issue above politics. I mention this not to pat ourselves on the back but to say that, in contrast to this action where Republicans and Democrats came together to protect women in this country, the House leadership is poised to once again take a different route. Tomorrow they are scheduled to substitute our bipartisan bill with a partisan alternative that leaves vulnerable victims without protection and mires our efforts in partisan politics, which delays getting help to victims. I hope they reconsider this ill-conceived approach. The overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate for the VAWA reauthorization Senator Crapo and I introduced sent a powerful message to survivors of violence. But this bill is about so much more than sending a message. It includes real, meaningful additions to the law to fill gaps and address needs that law enforcement, victims, and the service providers who work with victims every day have identified for us. None of these provisions are about politics. They are about preventing terrible crimes and helping the survivors of violence.

The Senate-passed bill takes new steps to prevent domestic violence homicides. It will increase the focus of law enforcement and victim service providers on rape and sexual assault crimes that too often slip through the cracks. It will take needed steps to address the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities and to increase protections for vulnerable immigrant victims. It ensures access to services for LGBT victims who experience domestic and sexual violence at rates at least as high as the rest of the population but often have no place to go for help.

Our bill strengthens protections on campuses, where too many students experience devastating violence instead of the wonderful experience of learning and growth that we all wish for our children. It includes new bipartisan measures to ensure that rape kits are promptly tested so that victims no longer live for years in fear when the perpetrators could be identified and taken off the streets. Our bill would give law enforcement and service providers new tools to crack down on sex trafficking and labor trafficking and help the victims of these appalling crimes. These common sense provisions will make a real difference in so many lives.

The poor substitute the Republican House leadership is putting forward once again takes a tragically different approach. Instead of taking up legislation developed over years of work with victims and those who help them, they have presented a version put together by a few here in Washington. For reasons I cannot understand, they have jettisoned the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act altogether and stripped provisions developed by Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, and me to take meaningful steps to reduce the backlog of untested DNA evidence in rape kits. Those provisions could help victims and could help law enforcement keep our communities safe.

The House substitute drastically weakens protections for vulnerable victims. It eliminates key protections intended to keep college students safer. It fails to include meaningful language to ensure that LGBT victims can get the same help as any other victims. For immigrant victims, the House substitute actually adds new hurdles that would make it harder for victims to help law enforcement and receive assistance. It adds new burdens and loopholes to protections for Native women who experience domestic violence at horrific rates. The House substitute would continue to allow the most aggressive abusers of native women to escape justice since the most that could be charged in tribal courts would be a misdemeanor. That is not justice for the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence.

I have been working on this legislation for years. During the last year we have amended and tweaked its language many times to accommodate the requests of various Republicans who support the effort. I stand ready to work with House leadership and have reached out to Speaker Boehner several times. I have not heard from House leadership once this year. I appreciate the efforts of such conservative House Republicans as Congressmen Tom Cole and Darrell Issa, who have tried to find common ground with reasonable compromise approaches to the tribal provisions. I know there are many others in the House of Representatives who believe that we must reauthorize and reinvigorate the Violence Against Women Act so that it protects all victims. It is not too late for others in the House to follow their lead and come together to pass a meaningful reform that protects all victims.

The poor substitute the Republican House leadership is proposing will disappoint the community of violence survivors and those of us who are trying to prevent further violence by passing needed protections. If the House leadership were serious about getting the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized and protecting our most vulnerable victims against rape, sexual violence, stalking, and human trafficking, they would simply take up the Senate bill. So many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents here support it and passed that bill.

I don't understand this picking and choosing about who is going to be considered a victim. I have said this so many times on this floor, I almost wonder if anybody hears it, but, as many other Senators have, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor before I came here. I went to a lot of very violent crime scenes at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, and some of them I remember almost as graphically as if it were yesterday, with a victim of severe violence, often dead, there on the floor. The police never said: Well, we have to find out if this victim is gay or straight, if this victim is Native American or an immigrant. No, they knew that a victim was a victim was a victim. If somebody has been treated that way, a crime has been committed, and the police want to find out who committed the crime and stop them before they do it again.

Back then, we didn't have anything like the Violence Against Women Act--an act which has protected so many people before they could become a victim, and which provides the tools to prevent this sort of victimization. I think of some of the victims I saw, sometimes in the morgue, and I know if we had something like our Violence Against Women Act at that time, they would be alive today.

So let's put aside gamesmanship and let's worry about the real victims in this country. None of us here will face the horrendous things these women go through, but we can help stop these horrendous things from happening to them, and we should do that.

Tribute to Michael J. Mulligan
Page: S808

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the important work of Michael J. Mulligan, who retired February 1, 2013. Mr. Mulligan demonstrated great dedication to enhancing the safety and security of the United States Senate, staff, and visitors.

Beginning his career as a combat engineer officer in the U.S. Army, Mr. Mulligan served a 15-year tour at Fort Ritchie, MD, as the Chief of Engineering and Plans. During this time, he directed the largest expansion of facilities, infrastructure, and community planning in the installation's history. While on temporary assignment to the Army Corps of Engineers in Kuwait, Mr. Mulligan led technical advisors to provide engineering assistance to restore two war damaged air bases.

Mr. Mulligan went on to serve as Director of Facilities at the Alternate Joint Communications Center-Site R. He directed operations to sustain facility excellence in engineering, contingency planning, life support, and logistics in support of Continuity of Operations for the senior DOD leadership--a mission which he ably executed on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Mulligan was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in 2011. As a senior leader in the National Security Agency, Mr. Mulligan provided invaluable stewardship of an important classified program that supported the National Security Emergency Preparedness program.

Furthermore, Mr. Mulligan has authored several writings on public administration and leadership and received numerous service medals and commendations for exceptional public service.

I, along with my colleagues in the Senate, congratulate Mr. Mulligan on his well-earned retirement and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Remembering Justice Mary Ann McMorrow
Page: S809

Mr. President today I wish to pay tribute to Justice Mary Ann McMorrow, a devoted public servant and a pioneer of the Illinois legal community who passed away last weekend at the age of 83.

Justice McMorrow was a native Chicagoan, attending Immaculata High School and Rosary College which is now Dominican University. She went on to attend the Loyola University School of Law, where she was elected class president and served as associate editor of the Law Review. She graduated in 1953 as the only woman in her class. Yet as Justice McMorrow set off on her legal career, she refused to let glass ceilings stop her from reaching the greatest heights.

Justice McMorrow embarked on a public service career that would span decades and culminate in her service as the first woman on the Illinois Supreme Court and its first female chief justice. Her public sector career began with a post as an assistant State's attorney in Cook County, where she became the first woman in Cook County to prosecute major felonies. On one occasion she was told by a supervisor in the State's attorney's office that she would not be presenting an oral argument before the Illinois Supreme Court because women had not done that before. Well, before long Justice McMorrow would preside over the very same arguments from which she was once excluded.

In 1976, Justice McMorrow was elected as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, and she joined the Illinois Appellate Court in 1985. She was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in 1992 and became the chief justice of that court in 2002. The importance of this achievement cannot be overstated. As Justice McMorrow said upon becoming chief justice, ``When I went to law school, women couldn't even dream of such a thing. I hope this would forever indicate that there's nothing that limits women in any job or any profession.'' Justice McMorrow served as chief justice until her retirement in 2006, and overall she wrote 225 majority opinions during her Supreme Court tenure.

Justice McMorrow was an active member of her church, St. Mary of the Woods, and along with her late husband Emmett she was committed to her community and to various charities. Among the many accolades Justice McMorrow received during her career were the Medal of Excellence award from the Loyola University School of Law Alumni Association, the Chicago Bar Association's Justice John Paul Stevens Award, the American Bar Association's Margaret A. Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, and the Myra Bradwell Woman of Achievement Award, the highest award given by the Women's Bar Association of Illinois. In addition to these honors, she also received four honorary degrees and numerous other awards. When asked about her illustrious career, Justice McMorrow responded, ``I just simply tried to do my best in every task that was presented to me.''

Justice McMorrow was truly a model of what hard work and humility can accomplish. During a time when women were not accepted as equals in the legal profession she proved herself superior. When young women in classrooms across Illinois are asked what they want to be when they grow up, they can confidently respond that they will be judges and have Justice McMorrow as a beacon to strive towards. Today as we mourn her passing we also celebrate her achievements and the legacy of opportunity she has created for countless young women in our State.

Loretta and I send our condolences to Justice McMorrow's daughter Mary Ann, her sister Frances, and her other family and friends across Illinois and the Nation.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Page: S809

Rules of Procedure
Mr. President, the today adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules adopted by the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be printed in the Record.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Page: S810

Rules of Procedure
Mr. President, the has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be printed in the Record.

Tribute to John D. Bennett
Page: S811

Mr. President, I also wish to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. John D. Bennett, the Director of the National Clandestine Service, NCS, of the Central Intelligence Agency, who will retire from the CIA, for the second time, on February 28, 2013. Mr. Bennett's career spans over 30 years in the CIA during which he distinguished himself as a patriot, leader, and friend of the U.S. Senate. John Bennett also served as an infantry officer in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1975 to 1980.

It is a rare opportunity to pay tribute publicly to one of the men and women who serve beyond the front lines, working in secret to protect and serve the Nation. Having ``come in from the cold,'' I am pleased to be able to say a few words about John.

A Massachusetts native, Mr. Bennett received a B.A. degree in government from Harvard University in 1975 and an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University in 1991.

Since joining the CIA in 1981, John served more than 17 years abroad in multiple assignments, including as chief of station in multiple countries, in Southeast Asia and Africa, where he was able to use his language fluency of French. In addition to returning from retirement to take the helm of the NCS in July 2010, he has held Senior Executive Service level Headquarters assignments as Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Community Human Intelligence from 2005-2006; Chief, Special Activities Division from 2003-2005; and Deputy Chief, Africa Division and Chief of Africa Operations from 1995-1999. Mr. Bennett served also as the Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from May 1990 to May 1991.

When Director Panetta asked John to return to service he stated:

He has helped guide the agency through some of the most complex and challenging operations imaginable, including the historic takedown of Osama bin Laden.

John Bennett served with distinction as the Director of the NCS for the past 3 years. In this capacity, John had frequent interaction with Senators and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. His professionalism, mature judgment, expertise, and frank advice earned him the respect and confidence of the committee. His sound judgment, courage, and candor also directly contributed to his successful representation of the CIA's interests before the committee and Congress.

Throughout his career, John Bennett demonstrated a profound commitment to our Nation, selfless service to the CIA, deep concern for agency officers and their families, and a commitment to excellence. John is the consummate intelligence professional whose performance, in over 30 years of service, has personified those traits of courage, competency, and integrity that our Nation expects from its professional intelligence officers.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. John Bennett for his honorable service to the Central Intelligence Agency and the people of the United States, and also to thank John's wife Kit for her support and understanding, as well as her sacrifices in allowing John to selflessly commit himself to protecting our Nation.

We wish John and Kit Bennett all the best in the future.

Tribute to L. Christine Healey
Page: S812

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the dedicated career and service to the Congress and the Nation of Louise Christine ``Chris'' Healey, who is retiring at the end of this week after nearly 30 years of work for the legislative branch. I am pleased to have the opportunity to publicly thank her and to note my appreciation for her dedicated and dignified efforts.

Chris is leaving the Senate as the general counsel on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, serving as the top legal advisor to the committee.

As committee counsel and general counsel over the past 8 years, Chris has been instrumental in the debating and drafting of every significant piece of intelligence legislation passed, and in some cases not passed, over the past decade. She was the principal drafter of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which is among the most complex pieces of legislation recently enacted, and certainly one of the most important to the security of our Nation. She has been as responsible as anyone for the passage of a string of four annual intelligence authorization bills, including the fiscal year 2013 act that was completed in December.

In her time at the SSCI, Chris has exemplified the professional and bipartisan spirit of the committee, working closely with Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. She has invested herself in conducting oversight, drafting bills, carrying out investigations, and reviewing and shepherding the President's nominees to Senate-confirmed positions, among many other things.

Her approach has always been dignified and calm. I am proud to be able to say that the rancor and divisiveness of the Senate over the past years has not infiltrated the work of the committee. Among the reasons we have been able to work together, review and debate serious issues, and come to bipartisan solutions is that we have people like Chris Healey who are more interested in getting the right results the right way rather than succeeding at the expense of someone else.

Prior to working for the committee, Ms. Healey worked for the Government Affairs Committee on the landmark legislation that reformed the intelligence community and created the position of the Director of National Intelligence. She was a senior counsel and team leader on the 9/11 Commission. And prior to that, she spent a decade on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including as staff director. Chris has been the institutional memory of intelligence in the Congress, and her expertise and experience will be sorely missed.

But while a leading voice within these congressional committees and commissions and in interactions with the nonprofit community and executive branch, Chris has managed the rare feat of having a life as well.

She married musician Ryan Brown in 1989 and had her first son, Nathaniel, in 1990. Nathaniel has begun following Chris' footsteps, exploring his own work in government and politics. Chris and Ryan had their second son, Gabriel, in 1994, and he, too, has now grown up and is nearing his graduation from Oberlin College. Chris has walked to work every day from her Capitol Hill home, while supporting in many ways Ryan Brown's Opera Lafayette. He notes that in addition to her dedication to public service, Chris is an avid reader and an enthusiastic theater and concert goer, and looks forward to exploring the wider world in the years to come. I wish her the very best as she now has the time to pursue those interests, rather than being stuck in a windowless office in front of multiple computers for long hours.

Mr. President, I am one of many Members of Congress to have benefited from the advice and hard work of Chris Healey, starting with Barbara Kennelly, including Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman, and ending with Jay Rockefeller and myself. On behalf of them, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, I thank Chris Healey and wish her the very best in what I know will be a long and productive retirement from the Congress.

Brillo Pad Centennial
Page: S812

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Armaly Brands on the 100th anniversary of its iconic Brillo pad product. The Brillo pad was introduced on January 13, 1913. In 1921, the manufacturing of the product was moved to a factory in London, OH, where it has been produced ever since. Brillo was a revolutionary product, as Americans transitioned from heavy cast iron cookware to aluminum pots and pans in the early 20th century.

The Brillo pad has been featured in motion pictures, songs, and households nationwide. In 1964, the Brillo pad reached the height of its cultural popularity when Andy Warhol created a series of shipping cartons highlighting the iconic logo.

Besides being a staple of the modern kitchen, the Brillo pad has also brought jobs and manufacturing to Ohio. Brillo's London factory employs over 50 Ohioans whose products are shipped around the world.

Since 2010, Brillo has been owned by Armaly Brands of Walled Lake, MI. I would like to congratulate Armaly Brands and the Brillo pad on this 100th anniversary milestone.

Page: S812

Recognizing Alaska's Outstanding Students
Page: S812

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and honor two young Alaska students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Shaylee Rizzo of Kenai and Samuel Allred of Wasilla have just been named State Honorees in the 2013 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards Program, an annual honor conferred on only one high school student and one middle-level student in each State and the District of Columbia.

Ms. Rizzo earned recognition for starting a public service campaign called ``Missy the Moose Program'' to raise youth awareness of the dangers of cars hitting moose on Alaska's highways--a common occurrence in her area during the hazardous winter months. Her idea was inspired by a photograph of a local motel owner posing with an orphaned moose he had saved after its mother was killed by a car. To launch her program, Shaylee wrote and illustrated a children's book that told the story of a collision from a moose calf's perspective. Wearing a moose costume, she then visited elementary school classrooms as Missy the Moose, sharing her book with the kids and offering ideas on how to encourage their parents to watch out for Missy and her friends. With her father's help, she wrote a theme song, recorded radio announcements urging children to get their parents to slow down, and solicited local businesses to buy more air time for her announcements. Currently, she is trying to gain State of Alaska's approval to post Missy the Moose signs in high moose-traffic areas to remind motorists to drive with care.

Mr. Allred earned recognition for making travel-size pillows and distributing them to children's hospitals across the country to provide comfort to sick kids. As a toddler, he was diagnosed with a rare kidney disease that resulted in hospitalizations and the need to take medications that altered his appearance. In 2008, a video of Samuel singing went viral on YouTube and garnered millions of views--along with comments that were mostly good--but judged his appearance. He decided to start a nonprofit organization with the goal of changing lives through compassion. In 2009, Samuel, along with friends and family members, made 300 pillows out of bright, cheerful fabric and donated them to a local children's hospital. But Samuel knew he could do even more if he got the community involved, so he began visiting local schools to talk about kindness and compassion. It wasn't long before others were helping to craft pillows for Samuel's ``Project Comfort.'' Elementary school students stuffed pillows, senior citizens stitched them closed, and middle-school students made more than 1,700 pillows. Today, many groups in Alaska are creating pillows. Samuel sends the pillows to children's hospitals throughout the United States.

Given the challenges we face today, it is important that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions that these young Alaskans have made. Youth volunteers like Ms. Rizzo and Mr. Allred are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

I thank Ms. Rizzo and Mr. Allred for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. I also would like to salute Allison Ostrander and Reese Qualls, young people in my State who were named distinguished finalists by The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their outstanding volunteer service.

All of these young people demonstrate a level of commitment and accomplishment that is rarely seen today, and they deserve our sincere admiration and respect. Their actions show that young Americans can, and do, play important roles in their communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Thank you for allowing me to take a moment to recognize these great young volunteers in Alaska.

Page: S813

Under the order of the Senate of January 3, 2013, the Secretary of the Senate, on February 15, 2013, during the adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

Concurrent resolution providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

Page: S813

At 2:03 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that pursuant to, and the order of the House of January 3, 2013, the Speaker appoints the following Members of the House of Representatives to the Joint Economic Committee: Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin, Mr. Amash of Michigan, Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota, Mr. Hanna of New York, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Cummings of Maryland, and Mr. Delaney of Maryland.

At 2:12 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

An act to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees.

Page: S813

The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

An act to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees; to the.

Page: S813

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

By :

A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale; to the.

By (for himself,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and ):

A bill to require Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in electronic form; to the.

By (for himself,, , , and ):

A bill to reauthorize the National Integrated Drought Information System, and for other purposes; to the.

By (for herself and ):

A bill to add the 9/11 Health and Compensation Programs to the list of exempt programs under PAYGO; to the.

By (for himself,, and ):

A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to provide travel and transportation allowances for members of the reserve components for long distance and certain other travel to inactive duty training; to the.

Page: S813

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By :

An original resolution authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

By :

An original resolution authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship for March 1, 2013, through September 30, 2013; from the Committee on Rules and Administration; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

By :

An original resolution authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Foreign Relations; from the Committee on Foreign Relations; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

By (for himself,, , and ):

A resolution supporting the designation of March 2013, as National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month; considered and agreed to.

Page: S813

At the request of, the name of the Senator from New York was added as a cosponsor of S. 6, a bill to reauthorize the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, to provide assistance to small businesses owned by veterans, to improve enforcement of employment and reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Rhode Island  were added as cosponsors of S. 119, a bill to prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Hawaii was added as a cosponsor of S. 162, a bill to reauthorize and improve the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Missouri was added as a cosponsor of S. 169, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize additional visas for well-educated aliens to live and work in the United States, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Wyoming  were added as cosponsors of S. 170, a bill to recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting on Federal public land and ensure continued opportunities for those activities.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Alabama was added as a cosponsor of S. 175, a bill to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to improve the use of certain registered pesticides.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Ohio was added as a cosponsor of S. 183, a bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fairness in hospital payments under the Medicare program.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Utah was added as a cosponsor of S. 190, a bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain activities of the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Oregon was added as a cosponsor of S. 195, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend projects relating to children and violence to provide access to school-based comprehensive mental health programs.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Alabama was added as a cosponsor of S. 209, a bill to require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Maryland was added as a cosponsor of S. 217, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to collect information from coeducational elementary schools and secondary schools on such schools' athletic programs, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from South Dakota was added as a cosponsor of S. 230, a bill to authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from New Jersey , the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Montana  were added as cosponsors of S. 234, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit certain retired members of the uniformed services who have a service-connected disability to receive both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability and either retired pay by reason of their years of military service or Combat-Related Special Compensation, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from New York and the Senator from Montana  were added as cosponsors of S. 252, a bill to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Hawaii was added as a cosponsor of S. 278, a bill to replace the Budget Control Act sequester for fiscal year 2013 by eliminating tax loopholes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Minnesota  were added as cosponsors of S. 294, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the disability compensation evaluation procedure of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for veterans with mental health conditions related to military sexual trauma, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Iowa , the Senator from California , the Senator from Hawaii , the Senator from Massachusetts , the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Minnesota  were added as cosponsors of S. 296, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.

At the request of, the names of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Michigan  were added as cosponsors of S. 298, a bill to prevent nuclear proliferation in North Korea, and for other purposes.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from New York was added as a cosponsor of S. 315, a bill to reauthorize and extend the Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2008.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Maryland was added as a cosponsor of S. 346, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit veterans who have a service-connected, permanent disability rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces entitled to such travel.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Alabama was added as a cosponsor of S. 369, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

At the request of, the name of the Senator from Kentucky was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 4, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship.

Page: S814

Senate Resolution 38—Authorizing Expenditures by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Page: S814

submitted the following resolution; from the ; which was referred to the :

Senate Resolution 39—Authorizing Expenditures by the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship for March 1, 2013, through September 30, 2013
Page: S815

submitted the following resolution; from the ; which was referred to the :

Senate Resolution 40—Authorizing Expenditures by the Committee on Foreign Relations
Page: S815

submitted the following resolution; which was referred from the ; to the :

Senate Resolution 41—Supporting the Designation of March 2013, as National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month
Page: S815

(for himself,, , and ) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Page: S816

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the will meet in open session on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``State Leadership and Innovation in Disability Employment.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Alyssa Mowitz of the committee staff on (202) 228-3453.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the will meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 3:00 p.m. to conduct a business meeting to organize for the 113th Congress by electing the Chairwoman and Vice Chairman of the Committee and to adopt the rules of the Committee and any other organizational business the Committee needs to consider.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the will meet in open session on Wednesday, February 27, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Animal Drug User Fee Agreements: Advancing Animal Health for the Public Health.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Kathleen Laird of the committee staff on (202) 224-6840.

. Mr. President, I would like to advise that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate. The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 7, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Sally Jewell to be the Secretary of the Interior.

For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571 or Abigail Campbell at (202) 224-4905.

Page: S816

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the be authorized to meet February 25, 2013.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2013.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2013, from 5 to 7 p.m. in The President's Room off the Senate floor.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S816

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator, I ask unanimous consent that Margaret Taylor be granted the privilege of the floor during the executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 7, the nomination of Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous Consent Agreement—Executive Calendar
Page: S816

I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, the Senate proceed to executive session and that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on Executive Calendar No. 10 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, the time until 12:00 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on the nomination, upon reconsideration.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

North Korea Nonproliferation and Accountability Act of 2013
Page: S816

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 16,.

The clerk will report the bill by title.

Mr. President, I further ask that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month
Page: S817

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of, submitted earlier today.

The clerk will report the resolution by title.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Orders for Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Page: S817

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, under the previous order; further, that following the cloture vote on the Hagel nomination, upon reconsideration, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus meetings; and finally, that if cloture is invoked, the time during recess, morning business, and adjournment count postcloture on the Hagel nomination.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Page: S818

Mr. President, there will be a reconsideration of the cloture vote on the Hagel nomination at noon tomorrow.

Adjournment until 10 a.m. Tomorrow
Page: S818

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Page: S818

Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate, February 25, 2013:

The Judiciary
Robert E. Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit.

= Resources =