A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. President, back on May 12, the President requested that Congress pass legislation to enable Robert Mueller to continue serving as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, for up to 2 additional years, in light of the continuing threat to our Nation, the leadership transition at other key national security agencies, and the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves as the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches. In response to the President's request, a bipartisan group of Senators drafted and introduced S. 1103, a bill that would create a one-time exception to the statute limiting the term of the FBI Director by allowing the term of the incumbent FBI Director to continue for 2 additional years. Given the continuing threats to our Nation and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that this critical legislation be enacted without delay.

Director Mueller's term expires on August 3, 2011. With the House out of session this week and the Senate out of session the next, there is relatively little time left to act. Of the 10 weeks between the President's request and the expiration of Director Mueller's term, six are gone already. More than half the time that we had in which to act has elapsed. If we do not complete action on this matter this week, the Senate will then be in recess until July 11. That leaves Congress only 3 weeks for all necessary action to be completed by the Senate and the House of Representatives.

We should be acting responsibly and expeditiously. I have worked diligently with Senator Grassley in order to prevent a lapse in the term of the Director of the FBI. We must act on this bill without further, unnecessary delays. The Senate should take it up, consider it and pass it, and then the House will need to consider and pass the bill before the President has the opportunity to sign it. Each of these steps must be completed prior to the expiration of the Director's current 10-year term on August 3, 2011. There is no time to waste.

I understand from the Senate cloakroom that all Senate Democrats are prepared to take up and pass S. 1103 and send it to the House of Representatives for it to take final action before August 3. We should do that now, before the Fourth of July recess. There is no good reason for delay.

The bill responds directly to the President's request to extend Bob Mueller's term as FBI Director, and was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee on June 16 by a bipartisan majority of the committee and with the support of the ranking Republican member. I urge any Senators who have questions about the bill to read the accompanying committee report, Report No. 112-23, which was filed on June 21, 2011, and is now printed and available online.

While I would gladly have included others' views in the final committee report, none were submitted in a timely manner, nor was there a request for an extension of time to do so. The draft committee report on the bill was circulated on June 17, 2011, to all committee members. Pursuant to longstanding Judiciary Committee practice, Senators had 3 calendar days to submit their views. This practice is modeled after, but more generous than, Senate rule XXVI. The committee report was filed 4 days after majority views were circulated, but no additional, supplemental, or minority views had been submitted. It was filed promptly and made publicly available in the hope that the Senate might consider this time-sensitive bill this week.

Unlike my Republican predecessors, as chairman I have protected the minority on the committee and the rights of all Senators. I have done so even while some have chosen to abuse committee rules and practices and Senate rules and practices.

Senator Coburn inserted his views, also subscribed to by Senators Hatch, Sessions, Graham and Lee, in the Congressional Record on June 23. I had offered to include them in the Record on June 22, when they were belatedly submitted to the committee after the committee report had been filed. There is nothing in those views that should prevent the Senate from considering the committee-reported bill expeditiously.

I do not believe that the views Senator Coburn inserted into the Congressional Record contain any new or compelling legal analysis supporting the notion that S. 1103 is somehow unconstitutional. They merely assert without a sound basis that the matter may present a constitutional concern and the risk of ``dangerous litigation.'' As set forth in the committee report on S. 1103, and as reaffirmed in a June 20, 2011, memorandum opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, however, these assertions are incorrect. The bill before the Senate, S. 1103, is constitutionally sound and a proper response by Congress to the President's request.

At the heart of this issue are two key points that remain undisputed. First, the Director of the FBI serves ``at will'' and can be removed by the President for any reason. Director Mueller himself testified that he serves ``at the pleasure of the President.''

Second, this bill was introduced as a response to the President's request that Congress provide a one-time exception to the 10-year statutory limit to the term of the FBI Director so that he could extend Director Mueller's service for up to two more years. Indeed, the text of the bill plainly states that Director Mueller may continue his term of service only ``at the request of the President.''

These two points are important because they form core elements for any constitutional analysis in connection with the appointments clause. This bill does not seek to impose a legislative appointment on the President, nor undermine his authority. The committee report describes the constitutional and legal principle that is central to any assessment of the constitutionality of this bill: ``Legislation extending the term of an officer who serves at will does not violate the Appointments Clause,'' quoting 18 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 166, 171, 1994. Through four separate legal opinions dating back to 1951, and reaffirmed as recently as June 20, 2011, the Department of Justice has recognized this guiding principle. The Constitution's appointments clause is not offended ``as long as the President remains free to remove the officer at will and make another appointment.'' U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 2-3, June 20, 2011. The bill reported by the committee ensures that the President retains that authority. Furthermore, the bill does nothing to diminish the authority of the President.

Senator Coburn's views lack discussion of either the ``at will'' status of the FBI Director or the President's plenary removal authority. Instead, his views summarily dismiss the extensive legal analysis of the Department of Justice dating back 60 years by arguing that the opinions are ``inconsistent.'' The only inconsistency was an anomalous opinion from 1987 that was withdrawn by the Justice Department in 1994, after the 1987 opinion was determined to be ``irredeemably unpersuasive.'' Ironically, it is that withdrawn opinion, one that has no authority, in which critics of the bill seek to find comfort.

Beginning with an opinion in 1951, and then again in three more recent legal memoranda, in 1994, in 1996, and most recently on June 20, 2011, the Department of Justice has endorsed the constitutionality of term extensions like the one provided in the bill for ``at will'' executive officers.

Senator Coburn argues that the value of these Office of Legal Counsel opinions should be discounted because very few cases have been litigated concerning these types of term extensions. He fails to acknowledge, however, that the lack of litigation on this point could be due to the fact that the constitutional concern on which he relies simply lacks merit. The fact remains that there is no case and no persuasive legal authority supporting Senator Coburn's contention that the bill is unconstitutional.

Also virtually ignored by Senator Coburn's views is the fact that the bill effectively retains the President's appointment authority. The President could nominate and then appoint a different FBI Director at any time before, during, or at the end of the 2-year term extension. The President is not required by the bill to request that Director Mueller continue to serve for the full 2 years of the extension. That is up to the President. These facts are dismissed by Senator Coburn as ``irrelevant'' or ``immaterial'' to the discussion. In fact, they are just the opposite. The fact that this legislation is being considered at the behest of the President demonstrates that there is no legislative branch incursion into executive authority. Because S. 1103 is in direct response to the President's specific request for legislation creating a one-time exemption to the 10-year term limit of the FBI Director, the bill serves to protect the authority of the President to choose who he wants to lead this executive agency. That is wholly consistent with the purpose of the appointments clause.

Senator Coburn's attempts to distinguish the limited, relevant case law are also unavailing. As noted in the committee report, Judge Norris's concurring opinion in the case In re Benny, 812 F. 2d 1133, 9th Cir. 1987, is not on point, as that case involved officials who were only removable for cause. Senator Coburn's reliance on Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 1988, is similarly misplaced. The lengthy quote of Justice Scalia's in the minority views is drawn, for example, from a discussion of the separation of powers doctrine, not from Justice Scalia's discussion of the appointments clause. The Morrison decision was about the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, not a simple extension of a statutory term limit. The Morrison decision held that the statute at issue was constitutional because it did not ``impermissibly undermine the powers of the Executive Branch'' or ``prevent[] the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.'' That is all the more true for S. 1103, which was requested by the President and does nothing to impinge upon the President's appointment or removal power.

In his concluding remarks, Senator Coburn concedes that he is not asserting that S. 1103 is unconstitutional. Instead, Senator Coburn retreats to a concern with what he characterizes as the ``small chance'' of possible litigation. The supposed litigation risk is not a good reason for Senator Coburn's multistage approach when a simple, one-time term extension will accomplish the goal. This is particularly true when the committee reported bill is constitutional.

The FBI is not troubled by the supposed exposure ``of Director Mueller's authority to dangerous litigation risk.'' Senator Coburn does not cite any operational concern raised by the FBI or anyone else in law enforcement

concerning this supposed litigation risk. The FBI Director and the Department of Justice do not seem concerned about this supposed litigation risk. I am confident that we would have heard from the FBI and other law enforcement groups if there was any concern that this bill would somehow undermine the law enforcement or intelligence operations of the FBI. To the contrary, S. 1103 enjoys the strong support of the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Police Organizations.

The Justice Department does not share Senator Coburn's concerns. The Office of Legal Counsel recently reaffirmed the constitutionality of the bill in a new memorandum dated June 20, which is included in the appendix to the Senate committee report and rests upon 60 years of constitutional interpretation. The White House is not concerned. Neither am I. The bill that the committee reported and I support is constitutional and does not raise any real risk.

Senator Coburn has known since he raised his alternative approach that there are two major problems with it. The first problem I have already discussed. It is wrongly predicated on a constitutional problem that does not exist. The bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee is a term extension of a limit that Congress imposed on the term of service of the Director of the FBI. Indeed, as the witnesses at our June 8 hearing pointed out, the logic of Senator Coburn's concern could mean that the 10-year limit Congress imposed on the term of service of the FBI Director would itself be constitutionally suspect. The supposed justification for Senator Coburn's cumbersome legislative plan is just wrong. The reported bill, S. 1103, which was initially drafted by Senator Grassley and made more explicit by the committee, is constitutional.

The second major problem with Senator Coburn's approach is that it would necessitate the renomination of Director Mueller, and then his reconsideration and reconfirmation by the Senate after enactment of Senator Coburn's alternative bill and before August 3. That is an additional, unnecessary and, I might suggest, dangerous complication. I do not want Americans to be approaching the tenth anniversary of 9/11 without an FBI Director in office. The distractions to Director Mueller created by the extended proceedings on this legislation are damaging enough.

The extension of Director Mueller's service leading the FBI should not fall victim to the same objections that have obstructed Senate action on other important presidential nominations and appointments. I have spoken often about the unnecessary and inexcusable delays on judicial nominations. Even consensus nominees have faced long delays before Senate Republicans would allow a vote.

Since President Obama was elected, we have had to overcome two filibusters on two Circuit Court nominees who were reported unanimously by the committee. These judges--Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit and Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit--were then confirmed unanimously once the filibusters were brought to an end. These are currently 16 judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and yet are stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar because Senate Republicans will not consent to vote on them. These are consensus nominations that should not have been delayed while the Federal courts are experiencing a judicial vacancies crisis.

This pattern of delay and obstruction has not been confined to judges. President Obama's executive nominations have been subjected to the same unfair treatment. The first five U.S. attorneys appointed by President Obama were delayed more than 2 months for no good reason in the summer of 2009. These are the top Federal law enforcement officers in those districts and yet it took from June 4 to August 7 before Senate Republicans would consent to their confirmations. They were then confirmed unanimously. The Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission was similarly delayed unnecessarily for almost 6 months from May 7 until October 21, 2009. He, too, was ultimately confirmed without opposition, but after needless delay.

Among a slew of other troublesome examples are these: One Republican Senator objected to a nominee to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because, according to that Senator, the nominee lacked the necessary qualifications. The nominee was a Nobel Prize winner and MIT economics professor. Another Republican Senator is blocking the confirmation of two SEC Commissioners until he extracts action from the SEC related to a case against the Stanford Financial Group. A group of Senate Republicans have sent a letter to President Obama vowing to oppose any nominee to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republican Senators are vowing to block President Obama's nominee to serve as the Secretary of Commerce.

In a particularly illustrative case, one Republican Senator lifted his hold on the nomination of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after the administration acceded to his demands and issued 15 offshore oil drilling permits. Shortly thereafter, another Republican Senator placed a hold on the very same nomination to force the Interior Department to release documents on the Department's ``wild lands'' policy. It did not end there. When that dispute was resolved, a third Republican Senator reportedly placed a hold on the nominee, demanding a review of the protected status of wolves. That nominee has still not been confirmed.

Regrettably, Senate Republicans have ratcheted up the partisanship, limiting the cooperation that used to allow nominations to move forward more quickly. We cannot and should not take risks with this critical term extension for the head of the FBI. I do not want to see another important nomination subjected to holds and delays. I do not want to see another well-qualified national security nominee used as leverage by the Republican Senate minority to extract other unrelated concessions. That is what Senator Coburn's alternative plan invites.

I recently outlined the obstruction of key national security-related nominations, the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General for National Security. I do not want to see that happen, again, with the nomination of an FBI Director, but we have no guarantee that the President's nomination of an FBI Director would be treated any differently.

Republicans played ``chicken'' with a government shutdown earlier this year. We can see the same dynamic developing on the debt ceiling and the budget. Likewise, many Republicans, including their House leaders, who contended that the War Powers Act was unconstitutional when the President was a Republican, are now seeking to use it as a partisan cudgel to diminish this President, with little regard for the damage that does to America, NATO and the effort to end the brutal repression of the Libyan people by Moammar Qadhafi.

The Senate is finally this week seeking to complete action on a bipartisan, leadership-supported legislative approach to reforming Senate consideration of presidential nominations. It has taken weeks and months to get this far. Senate Republicans undermined their leadership and failed to support Senator Alexander and Senator McConnell, who were instrumental in developing the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, S. 679. The Senate has been stuck trying to complete this bill since June 16, when the majority leader could not even get consent to proceed to the bill. Bills that used to take 2 hours of floor time now consume 2 weeks. Republican Senators who could not be bothered with conducting oversight when a Republican was in the White House are now adamant that the Senate should not streamline any presidential nominations, arguing that doing so would undercut Senate opportunities to conduct what they call oversight. This is just another example of how virtually everything is viewed through a partisan lens since the American people elected President Obama.

Senator Coburn has known since we began to consider the President's request to extend the FBI Director's term that his plan could not be considered a viable alternative unless there was an agreement from Senate Republicans to ensure that the Senate would

complete its work and have the FBI Director in place at the end of the summer. That agreement would take the form of a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate, entered into by all Senators, and locked in on the Record so that it could not be changed without unanimous consent. That has not occurred. That is the only way to ensure Senate action on a nomination before August 3. The House would also have to agree to such an approach.

Senator Coburn has been unable to convince his leadership and the Republican caucus to agree. It may be because some do not want to agree. It may be because some do not want to give up the ``leverage'' such a nomination might provide to them on other matters. Maybe they just do not want to make anything too ``easy'' on this President. Whatever the reasons, no such agreement has been forthcoming in the weeks it has been under consideration.

In fact, at the Judiciary Committee business meeting on the bill, when Senator Coburn could not offer the assurances required to lock in prompt and timely consideration of a subsequent nomination of the FBI Director after enactment of legislation and before August 3, he did suggest that his side of the aisle would forego several steps of the standard process for considering nominees. He offered to waive the questionnaire, the background check, and the confirmation hearing on Director Mueller. But this commitment was illusory, because not even all of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee agreed. Senator Cornyn, having questioned Director Mueller's ``management capacity,'' indicated that he wanted confirmation hearings and the opportunity to ask questions. Of course, the Senator from Texas was within his rights to say so. But that shows the practical difficulties of following Senator Coburn's complicated, two-part scenario with no guarantee of it being completed by August 3.

Republican Senators lectured us on the ease with which the majority leader should be able to obtain cloture on a new nomination of Director Mueller. That again makes my point. Without a binding agreement, it could take days to consider the nomination, perhaps a full week.

We have just witnessed Senate Republicans filibustering for the first time in American history the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. They did that just last month. While Senator Cornyn opined that the renomination of Director Mueller should be able to get 60 votes for cloture, and we should be able to end a filibuster of the nomination on the Senate floor, he also said that he could not control other Republican Senators.

To complete action in accordance with Senator Coburn's alternative plan would mean not only passing legislation but the Senate receiving, considering and confirming the renomination of Director Mueller. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 2001 when the Senate considered and confirmed Director Mueller's initial nomination within two weeks. I worked hard to make that happen. Regrettably, given the current practices of Senate Republicans, and their unwillingness to agree on expedited treatment for President Obama's nominations, it is foolhardy in my judgment to think that all Senate Republicans will cooperate without the binding force of a unanimous consent entered in the Record.

Let me mention just one more recent example. Consider the time line of the nomination of the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. The nominee was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee and unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and approved unanimously by the Senate just yesterday. That nomination took 15 weeks for the Senate to consider--and she was approved unanimously. It took more than a month just to schedule the Senate vote after the nomination was reported unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and that was 2\1/2\ weeks after it was unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was a nominee with whom many of us were familiar and who faced no opposition.

Of course, in the case of the FBI Director, there is no necessity to require a new nomination. The simple one-time extension contained in S. 1103 does the job. It provides all the authority needed for the President to ask Director Mueller to stay on and for him to do so without additional action by the Senate. The separate renomination of Director Mueller is not required.

As I have said, all Senate Democrats are prepared to take up and pass S. 1103, and send it to the House of Representatives for it to take final action before August 3. That is what we should be doing. We should do that now, before the Fourth of July recess. There is no good reason for delay. All that is lacking is Senate Republicans' consent.

So, as they stall in moving legislation to respond to President Obama's request to extend Director Mueller's term, Senate Republicans will not commit to the unanimous consent request necessary to allow Senator Coburn's alternative to become a possibility. Seven of the eight Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against the bill to extend Director Mueller's term. Senator Coburn had said that if his alternative was not adopted by the committee, he would vote for the bill, but then he changed his mind and voted against. He then said that he will vote for the bill, S. 1103, when it is considered by the Senate, but Senate Republicans--perhaps including Senator Coburn himself--are now objecting to considering it. We have lost another two weeks since the bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Finally, I observe that this is not the only matter the Senate needs to consider before August 3. There is the matter of the United States' default unless the debt ceiling is raised by that time. There is the need to pass the America Invents Act, as passed by the House, to spur innovation and jobs. There are currently 10 executive nominations ready for Senate action reported by the Judiciary Committee and 18 judicial nominations ready for final consideration to address the judicial vacancies crisis. There is much to do, little time, and even less cooperation.

This important legislation, S. 1103, would fulfill the President's request that Congress create a one-time exception to the statutory 10- year term of the FBI Director in order to extend the term of the incumbent FBI Director for 2 additional years. Given the continuing threat to our Nation, especially with the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that we respond to the President's request and enact this necessary legislation swiftly. The incumbent FBI Director's term otherwise expires on August 3, 2011. I urge the Senate to take up this critical legislation and pass it without further delay.

Mr. President, when Congress passed the Trade Act of 2002, we made a promise to American workers that the potential loss of jobs due to trade policy will not equal the loss of health care coverage. The health coverage tax credit, HCTC, was designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage when their jobs are displaced by outsourcing--and it has been a lifeline for these middle- class families who simply cannot afford coverage on their own. In 2010, an Internal Revenue Service survey found that 90 percent of HCTC participants are very satisfied with the program.

However, despite the high satisfaction rate among participants, far too many trade-displaced workers are not able to take advantage of this important program. Historically, fewer than 30,000 of the hundreds of thousands of potentially eligible individuals each year have participated in the HCTC. These hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers and retirees have been left uninsured because the program still has several barriers to enrollment, and despite the 65 percent subsidy provided by the program, the premiums are prohibitively high for some workers.

I have heard from steel retirees and widows in my state about how unaffordable the TAA health care tax credit is. I have been very frustrated, just as I was when this bill passed, that we have not been able to make the credit as affordable and accessible as possible for people who need it the most--laid-off workers and retirees who have very limited income.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and several consumer advocacy groups and research organizations have cited affordability as the primary reason for low participation in the HCTC program. The bottom line is that a 65 percent subsidy is simply not enough for many to afford the high cost of health insurance premiums. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, made several temporary changes to expand eligibility for and benefits of the HCTC program. These changes included an increase in the tax credit's subsidy rate from 65 percent to 80 percent of the health insurance premium, and expanded TAA eligibility to additional workers. The GAO released a report

last year on the credit and found that HCTC participation increased after these key Recovery Act changes took effect. As a result of the Recovery Act, many more people eligible for the program felt they could afford a qualified health plan and afford to pay their share of monthly premiums. However, 33 percent still could not afford their share of monthly premiums, even with the credit and these expanded provisions expired on February 13, 2011.

As our economy continues its recovery, it is critical to build on this program to help more Americans secure health coverage. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act would extend the Recovery Act's temporary provisions, and it would also address the issues of affordability by increasing the subsidy amount from 65 percent to 95 percent, retroactive to the date the Recovery Act expired.

This legislation also addresses the issue of affordability by placing limits on the use of the individual market, as Congress intended under the original law. The Trade Act of 2002 specified that the health insurance credit could not be used for the purchase of health insurance coverage in the individual market except for HCTC-eligible workers who previously had a private, non-group coverage policy 30 days prior to separation from employment. However, states have been allowed by prior Administrations to create state-based coverage options in the individual market for any HCTC beneficiaries, including those who did not have individual market coverage one month prior to separation from employment. As a result, there are people who had employer-based coverage prior to separation from employment who are now being covered in the individual market. This was not the intent of the law. To make matters worse, this interpretation undermines the consumer protections set forth in the law because individual market plans are allowed to vary premiums based on age and medical status. In one state GAO reviewed for its report, because of medical underwriting, HCTC recipients in less-than-perfect health were charged almost six times the premiums charged to recipients rated in the healthiest category. The legislation I am introducing today addresses this problem by clarifying that states can only designate individual market coverage within guidelines of 30-day restriction and by requiring individual market plans to be community-rated.

Second, this legislation guarantees that eligible workers will have access to comprehensive group health coverage. Group coverage is what people know. The vast majority of laid-off workers and PBGC retirees had employer-sponsored group coverage prior to losing their jobs or pension benefits. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act designates the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, FEHBP, as a qualified group option in every State, so that displaced workers nationwide will have access to the same type of affordable, comprehensive coverage they were used to when they were employed.

Third, the TAA Health Coverage Act clarifies the three month continuous coverage requirement. Under the original TAA statute, displaced workers are required to maintain three months of continuous health insurance coverage in order to qualify for certain consumer protections. Those protections are guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition exclusion, comparable premiums, and comparable benefits. Congress intended this three month period to be counted as the three months prior to separation from employment. However, the Administration has interpreted the three month requirement as three months of health insurance coverage prior to enrollment in the new health plan, which usually is after separation from employment and after certification of TAA eligibility. Many laid-off workers and PBGC recipients cannot afford to maintain health coverage in the months between losing their jobs and TAA certification and, therefore, lose eligibility for the statutorily-provided consumer protections. This legislation corrects this problem by clarifying that three months of continuous coverage means three months prior to separation from employment.

Fourth, this bill allows spouses and dependents to maintain eligibility for the health coverage tax credit if the worker or retiree becomes eligible for Medicare. Younger spouses and dependents of Medicare-eligible individuals have not been able to receive the subsidy because eligibility runs through the worker or retiree. This technicality is unfair to individuals who rely on health coverage through their spouses or parents.

Finally, this legislation streamlines the HCTC enrollment process and makes it easier for trade-displaced workers to access health insurance coverage. According to GAO, two of the factors contributing to low participation include a complicated and fragmented enrollment process and the inability of workers to pay 100 percent of the premium during the 3 to 6 months they are waiting to enroll in advance payment. This legislation includes a presumptive eligibility provision that allows displaced workers to enroll in a qualified health plan and receive the HCTC immediately upon application to the Department of Labor for certification. There is also a provision which directs the Treasury Secretary to pay 100 percent of the cost of premiums directly to the health plans during the months TAA-eligible workers are waiting for advance payment to begin. This legislation allows workers to be eligible for the HCTC even if they are not receiving training, an important provision that was included in the Recovery Act. The current training requirement subjects families to a loss of health coverage when transportation, relocation, or childcare issues interfere with an individual's ability to participate in training.

As a former Governor, I know how important Trade Adjustment Assistance is to individuals who have lost their jobs due to trade. In West Virginia, thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of trade policy. While adjusting to the loss of employment, these individuals still have to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and care for their families. Finding affordable health care adds a significant burden to their worries. The TAA health coverage tax credit is designed to help American workers retain health insurance coverage during this very difficult transition.

Since 2002, the HCTC program has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of participants. But for many others who face barriers to participation, the HCTC program is not living up to its potential. The GAO has given us a very specific diagnosis of the problems, and the Recovery Act has shown us that the situation can improve for trade- displaced workers. The TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act builds upon the Trade Act of 2002 and the lessons we have learned since in order to make the health coverage tax credit workable for eligible individuals and their families. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act, legislation that will protect American businesses and workers by ensuring that they can compete on a level playing field with foreign companies.

The legislation I am introducing today should be viewed as a placeholder for a more comprehensive updated bill that I plan on introducing after the recess. Given the potential for legislative action at any time on Trade Adjustment Assistance, the three pending Free Trade Agreements, and the continuing harm caused by illegally dumped foreign goods, I thought it was imperative that I introduce this bill today and move the discussion of our country's trade policy forward.

The Strengthening America's Trade Laws Act allows the government to live up to its commitment to protect American businesses by allowing the businesses being harmed by unfairly subsidized imports to have a seat at the table in trade dispute proceedings. It also strengthens countervailing duty laws that are used to impose tariffs on goods from countries like China that are being unfairly subsidized.

Importantly, my bill would prevent the World Trade Organization, WTO, from dictating American policy by mandating that Congress must approve of any regulatory change to American law that is meant to conform with an adverse WTO decision.

This bill goes after countries that use currency manipulation to keep their prices artificially low by allowing the American government to treat this manipulation as an unfair subsidy that can be responded to with countervailing duties.

My bill also allows a panel of judicial experts to review recent adverse WTO decisions to ensure that they were made correctly and that obligations are not being imposed on the United States that our government has not previously agreed to.

These steps are important because businesses like those in my home state of West Virginia face a constant threat from foreign made goods that are being sold at prices well below cost in an effort to drive American businesses out of the marketplace altogether. In West Virginia, we know all too well the impact these unfair practices can have, as numerous manufacturing businesses have closed in recent years in response to these challenges.

I have worked through the system to try to protect our employers, testifying numerous times before the International Trade Commission on behalf of West Virginia businesses, including our steel industry, in an effort to get the government to counter unfair subsidies and give American manufacturers a fighting chance in the global marketplace. It has become clear to me through the years though that the current protections are not strong enough and that more must be done to allow our businesses to compete. That is what I hope to accomplish with this bill. I am not asking for any unfair advantages for American businesses. I just want to allow them the opportunity to succeed on the merits of their ideas and their hard work.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and thank the chair for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation previously sponsored by a Member of the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee in the 111th Congress that would direct funds from the administrative, civil, and criminal penalties stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to fund coastal and marine restoration, research and education, as well as promote tourism and economic development in the coastal Gulf states. The bill that I introduce today, the Gulf Coast Restoration Act, is identical to the bill by the same name introduced in the 111th Congress and referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

To remind my colleagues, under Senate Rule XXV(f), the Commerce Committee possesses broad jurisdiction, including over ``Coast Guard . . . coastal zone management . . . interstate commerce . . . marine and ocean navigation, safety and transportation, including navigational aspects of deepwater ports . . . marine fisheries . . . merchant marine and navigation . . . oceans . . . regulation of consumer products and services including testing related to toxic substances . . . science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy . . . transportation, and the transportation and commerce aspects of Outer Continental Shelf Lands.'' As Chairman of the Committee I am well aware that individual Members of my Committee have strong views on all of these issues.

In the coming weeks, the Commerce Committee will be reviewing and considering a legislative package in a renewed effort to respond the Gulf oil spill. My introduction of the bill today is intended to clearly establish that the Commerce Committee continues to hold strong views about how to direct funding from the assessed penalties back to restoring the Gulf economy and environment. It is also intended to assert the Commerce Committee will conduct its oversight over the promotion of commerce, as well as over ocean and coastal programs, and reserve its rights to review and consider the authorization of programs needed to support the economic recovery of the Gulf, and the long term restoration of Gulf ecosystems. Finally, introduction of this bill is intended to provide Commerce Committee Members with the opportunity to ensure that needed baseline science is put in place, along with emergency response technology and programs, to support improved offshore energy decisions in the future. I look forward to revising this bill following introduction to reflect the views of the Committee.

Mr. President, back on May 12, the President requested that Congress pass legislation to enable Robert Mueller to continue serving as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for up to 2 additional years in light of the leadership transition at other key national security agencies--the Secretary of Defense was leaving, there was a change in the directorship of the CIA, and so forth--and, of course, the unique circumstances in

which we find ourselves as the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches in less than 2 months.

In response to the request of the President, a bipartisan group of Senators drafted and introduced S. 1103, a bill that would create a one-time exception to the statute that limits the term of the FBI Director to 10 years. This bill would allow the term of the incumbent FBI Director to continue for 2 additional years.

Given the continuing threats to our Nation and the need to provide continuity and stability in the President's national security team, it is important that this critical legislation be enacted without delay.

Director Mueller's term expires on August 2, 2011. Of the 12 weeks between the President's request and the expiration of Director Mueller's term, 10 have passed. The time for responsible congressional action has all but elapsed. We are almost in the final hour.

Congressional leaders, including Republican leaders, reacted to the President's request saying that they supported it. On May 26, bipartisan legislation providing the one-time statutory exception, which was drafted by Senator Grassley, was introduced. It was cosponsored by me, Senator Grassley, and the chair and vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Feinstein and Senator Chambliss.

The Judiciary Committee moved quickly to consider this legislation and report it to the full Senate. We proceeded at Senator Grassley's request to a prompt hearing on June 8. I listed the legislation on the committee's agenda for action on June 9. It was held over for another week. Finally on June 16, the committee met, debated the matter, and reported the bill with an amendment to clarify its constitutionality. On June 21, Senate Report 112-23 was filed regarding the bill. We have been trying to reach an agreement to consider the bill for more than a month, but Republican objections have stalled this effort.

On June 29, my statement to the Senate warned that we would have only a few short weeks left this month to complete action and for the House to act. We should be acting responsibly and expeditiously. I have worked diligently in a bipartisan way with Senator Grassley in order to prevent a lapse in the term of the Director of the FBI. The bill enjoys the strong support of law enforcement groups, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Native American Law Enforcement Association, and the FBI National Academy Associates. They have all supported it.

We must act on this bill without further, unnecessary delays. The Senate must take it up, consider it and pass it, and then the House will need to consider and pass the bill before the President has the opportunity to sign it. Each of these steps must be completed prior to the expiration of the Director's current 10-year term on August 2, 2011. There is no time to waste.

All Senate Democrats have been prepared to take up and pass this extension bill for weeks. There is no good reason for delay. At first it was reportedly Senator Coburn who was holding up consideration of the bill, then Senator DeMint, and now apparently it is an objection by Senator Paul of Kentucky that is preventing the Senate from proceeding. I find it hard to understand why we would hold up a piece of legislation like this. This sort of delay is inexplicable and inexcusable.

In order to accomplish our goal, I have even been willing to proceed along the lines of an alternative approach demanded by Senator Coburn. That approach is based on a constitutional problem that does not exist. The bill reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee is an extension of a term limit that Congress imposed on the service of the Director of the FBI. As set forth in the committee report on the extension bill, and as reaffirmed in a June 20, 2011, memorandum opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, the bill reported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate is constitutionally sound and a proper response by Congress to the President's request. Nonetheless, I was prepared to proceed using Senator Coburn's language instead of Senator Grassley's and mine, so long as one further problem was removed. Specifically, the major problem with Senator Coburn's approach is that it would necessitate the renomination of Director Mueller, and then his reconsideration and reconfirmation by the Senate after enactment of Senator Coburn's alternative bill--and all before August 2.

On June 29, I warned that this was an additional, unnecessary and possibly dangerous complication. I do not want Americans to approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11 without an FBI Director in office. At the markup of this bill in our Judiciary Committee, I was assured by the Senator from Oklahoma that he would get unanimous consent to do all the short time agreements to get the bill passed, get his amendment passed, get it through the House and back, and get Director Mueller confirmed with a 2-hour time agreement. If we did all of that, it would not be the best of solutions, but it would be better than what we have now.

Now we have the distractions from Director Mueller that have been created by these extended proceedings, which have been damaging enough. To require his renomination and then allow it to be held hostage or used as leverage, as so many of President Obama's nominations have been, seemed to me a risk that was better avoided. I did not want the extension of Director Mueller's service leading the FBI to fall victim to the same objections that have obstructed Senate action on other important Presidential nominations and appointments. Unfortunately, as I had warned, that is precisely what has happened in this case.

I have spoken often about the unnecessary and inexcusable delays on judicial nominations. Even consensus nominees have faced long delays before Senate Republicans would allow a vote. Since President Obama was elected, we have had to overcome two filibusters on two circuit court nominees who were reported unanimously by the committee. These judges-- Judge Barbara Keenan of the Fourth Circuit and Judge Denny Chin of the Second Circuit--were then confirmed unanimously once the filibusters were brought to an end. There are currently 17 judicial nominees who were reported unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and yet are stuck on the Senate Executive Calendar because Senate Republicans will not consent to vote on them. These are consensus nominations that should not have been delayed while the Federal courts are experiencing a judicial vacancies crisis.

This pattern of delay and obstruction has not been confined to judges. President Obama's executive nominations have been subjected to the same unfair treatment. The first five U.S. attorneys appointed by President Obama were delayed more than 2 months for no good reason in the summer of 2009. These are the top Federal law enforcement officers in those districts and yet it took from June 4 to August 7 before Senate Republicans would consent to their confirmations. They were then confirmed unanimously. The Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission was similarly delayed unnecessarily for almost 6 months, from May 7 until October 21, 2009. He, too, was ultimately confirmed without opposition, but after needless delay.

Among a slew of other troublesome examples are these: One Republican Senator objected to a nominee to serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because, according to that Senator, the nominee lacked the necessary qualifications. The nominee was a Nobel Prize winner and MIT economics professor. Another Republican Senator is blocking the confirmation of two SEC Commissioners until he extracts action from the SEC related to a case against the Stanford Financial Group. A group of Senate Republicans have sent a letter to President Obama vowing to oppose any nominee to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republican Senators are vowing to block President Obama's nominee to serve as the Secretary of Commerce.

In a particularly illustrative case, one Republican Senator lifted his hold on the nomination of the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service only after the administration acceded to his demands and issued 15

offshore oil drilling permits. Shortly thereafter, another Republican Senator placed a hold on the very same nomination to force the Interior Department to release documents on the Department's ``wild lands'' policy. It did not end there. When that dispute was resolved, a third Republican Senator reportedly placed a hold on the nominee, demanding a review of the protected status of wolves. That nominee has still not been confirmed.

Regrettably, Senate Republicans have ratcheted up the partisanship, limiting the cooperation that used to allow nominations to move forward more quickly. That hostage-taking should not affect this critical term extension for the head of the FBI, but it has. Another important nomination is being subjected to holds and delays. Another well- qualified national security nominee is being used as leverage by the Republican Senate minority to extract other unrelated concessions. That is what Senator Coburn's alternative plan invited and that is what is happening with Senator Paul's objection to proceeding.

Just recently, we finally broke through months of obstruction of the Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, key national security related nominations. In May, Senate Republicans filibustered for the first time in American history the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. The nomination of the Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice was subjected to similar, inexcusable delay. That nominee was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee and unanimously by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and ultimately approved unanimously by the Senate. But that nomination, approved unanimously all along the way, took 15 weeks. It took more than a month just to schedule the Senate vote after the nomination was reported unanimously by two Senate committees. I warned on June 29 that we have no guarantee that the President's nomination of an FBI Director would be treated any differently. Regrettably, that has become true. I wish I had been wrong, but unfortunately the same kinds of delays and obstructions for the sake of delays and obstructions have occurred.

Senate Republicans have known since we began consideration of the President's request to extend the FBI Director's term that his plan could not be considered a viable alternative unless there was an agreement from Senate Republicans to ensure that the Senate would complete its work and have the FBI Director in place at the end of the summer. That agreement would take the form of a unanimous consent agreement in the Senate, entered into by all Senators, and locked in, on the Record, so that it could not be changed without unanimous consent. That has not occurred. Senator Coburn was unable to convince his leadership and the Republican caucus to agree. That was the only way to ensure Senate action on a nomination before August 2.

To complete action in accordance with Senator Coburn's alternative plan would mean not only passing legislation through both the Senate and House, but the Senate also receiving, considering and confirming the renomination of Director Mueller. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in 2001 when the Senate considered and confirmed Director Mueller's initial nomination within 2 weeks. I worked hard to make that happen. I predicted in June that given the current practices of Senate Republicans, and their unwillingness to agree on expedited treatment for President Obama's nominations, it was foolhardy to think that all Senate Republicans would cooperate. They have not. There has already been a shifting series of Republican holds over the last month.

The bill was reported over 1 month ago and action has been stymied by Republican objections every since. Senate Republicans have simply refused to agree to proceed and now there is no time for a complicated two phase procedure. We need to pass the necessary statutory authority to allow Director Mueller to continue without further delay.

As I have said, all Senate Democrats are prepared to take up and pass this extension bill, and send it to the House of Representatives for it to take final action before August 2. That is what we should be doing. We should do that now. There is no good reason for delay. All that is lacking is Senate Republicans' consent.

Virtually everybody that I have heard from in the Senate says that Director Mueller is the right person to lead the FBI at this critical time. Now is not a time--2 months before the anniversary of 9/11--to have somebody new on the job. I hope we will take up the bill soon. I wish we had done it at the time I urged Senators to.

I do applaud the Democratic side of the aisle for saying there would be no objections on our side to moving forward to this legislation so that we can extend for 2 years the term of Robert Mueller. I also congratulate and thank Director Mueller and his wife for being willing to put on hold their plans for retirement for those 2 years for the good of the country.

Given the continuing threat to our Nation, especially with the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and the need to provide continuity and stability on the President's national security team, it is important that we respond to the President's request and enact this necessary legislation swiftly. The incumbent FBI Director's term otherwise expires on August 2, 2011. I hope cooler heads will prevail, and I urge the Senate to take up this critical legislation and pass it without further delay.

(Mr. MANCHIN assumed the Chair.)

Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the nomination?

I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

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

Madam President, I assume that we are now on the Cole nomination?

Madam President, earlier this year the Senate expressed its opposition to proceeding to Mr. Cole's nomination when it failed to invoke cloture. I was a strong advocate against the Senate invoking cloture on Mr. Cole's nomination because the Justice Department had failed to respond to a legitimate oversight request that both Senator Chambliss and I made relating to two separate topics.

The Justice Department was withholding vital documents related to my inquiry of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm's Operation Fast and Furious and to an inquiry by Senator Chambliss in his capacity as vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been seeking and still seek documents, information, and access to witness interviews to determine who approved Operation Fast and Furious. This was an operation that you have heard me talk about often where ATF agents were ordered to knowingly allow straw buyers to obtain weapons on behalf of criminals and traffickers intent on smuggling those weapons into Mexico.

The courageous agents who blew the whistle and testified about their efforts to warn supervisors about the dangers referred to this practice as ``walking guns.'' Of the more than 1,800 weapons allowed to ``walk,'' hundreds have been recovered in connection with crimes in the United States and Mexico, including two such weapons in connection with the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

After seeking information from the Justice Department, I was repeatedly told that the ATF did not knowingly allow these sales. Working with Congressman Issa, who is chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, we released information that showed that the initial denials were false. This risky policy was, in fact, implemented at ATF and the Justice Department.

Despite the seriousness of the whistleblowers' allegations and my repeated inquiries, the Justice Department continued to deny me access to the documents. As a result, I urged my colleagues to oppose cloture on James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General. Well, that cloture opposition worked. We have since reached an agreement with the Justice Department and Senator Leahy that will guarantee my access to vital document information and witnesses regarding this ATF operation.

I also understand that Senator Chambliss has reached an agreement on obtaining the information he has sought on behalf of the Intelligence Committee. Accordingly, I now lift my opposition to the Senate holding a vote on Mr. Cole's nomination. However, I want to explain that I am going to vote against his nomination for many reasons.

I oppose the nomination of James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice because I have serious concerns regarding Mr. Cole's qualifications. In addition, I am troubled by President Obama's recess appointment of Mr. Cole to this position. I have been consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years on committees where I have been chairman or ranking member. Whenever the President bypasses the Senate; in other words, bypasses our confirmation of a person, by making a recess appointment, such nominees will not receive my support where I have been lead on my side responsible for reviewing such nominees.

We have a process in place for nominations, and if the President is not willing to work with Senators to clear nominations, the nominee should not get a second bite at the apple. The Deputy Attorney General is second in command at the Justice Department and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Department.

Managing this vast bureaucracy is a difficult task that requires a serious commitment to protecting our national security, enforcing our criminal laws, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars. We need a qualified leader who has the smarts, the capability, and the willingness to manage Department programs and root out inefficiencies and abuse in those programs.

After reviewing all of his responses and his hearing testimony, I concluded that I could not support Mr. Cole's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. In particular, I am seriously concerned about Mr. Cole's views on national security and on terrorism. Back in 2002, Mr. Cole was author of an opinion piece in the Legal Times. In that piece he stated:

For all the rhetoric about war, the September 11 attacks

were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian

population, much like terrorist acts of Timothy McVeigh in

blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or of Omar

Abdel-Rahman in the first effort to blow up the World Trade

Center. The criminals responsible for those horrible acts

were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal

justice system without the need for procedures that altered

traditional due process rights.

But I want to quote further.

The acts of September 11th were horrible, but so are . . .

other things.

The other things he referred to were the drug trade, organized crime, rape, child abuse and murder. Mr. Cole's opinion piece argued that notwithstanding the involvement of foreign organizations such as al- Qaida, we have never treated criminal acts influenced by foreign nationals or governments as a basis for ``ignoring the core constitutional protections engrained in our criminal justice system.''

Mr. Cole concluded his opinion piece by arguing that in addition to stopping future terrorist attacks, the Attorney General is a criminal prosecutor and that he has a special duty to apply constitutional protections ingrained in our criminal justice system to even including terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.

Mr. Cole wrote this opinion piece 2 days short of the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Given the close proximity in time to the September 11 attacks, we must accept this opinion piece as Mr. Cole's true beliefs about the application of the civilian criminal justice system to terrorism cases, including those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

From the opinion piece and his responses to our inquiry, it appears that if given a choice of prosecuting high-ranking terrorists in civilian courts or military commissions, Mr. Cole would likely favor civilian courts based upon his longstanding belief in the role that the Attorney General plays in protecting the principles of the criminal justice system.

Absent a clear statement from Mr. Cole about what factors would warrant selecting a civilian or a military forum, it is hard to look at his entire record of past opinion, his testimony and responses to our questions, and reach any different conclusion.

In fact, my concerns about the individuals at the Justice Department supporting prosecution of terrorists in civilian criminal court have been validated by recent events surrounding the arrest of two Iraqi nationals at Bowling Green, KY. These Iraqi nationals have admitted targeting American troops in Iraq, plotting to equip foreign fighters in Iraq with weapons such as grenades and missile launchers. They made their way to our country and somehow got past the Department of Homeland Security.

After they were identified, the Justice Department is seeking to try them in civilian court even though their activities regarded terrorist activities and took a very military approach.

Attorney General Holder has been steadfast in supporting their prosecution in civilian court. It appears to me

that no one in the Justice Department, including Mr. Cole, has objected to prosecuting these individuals in civilian court. This is despite the clear nexus to the battlefield in Iraq. So it now appears the Justice Department, where Mr. Cole currently serves as a recess-appointed Deputy Attorney General, rewards terrorists who are smart enough to evade Homeland Security's determination on whether they can come to this country, and at the same time make their way from the battlefield with the same rights and privileges as American citizens. All of this occurred on Mr. Cole's watch as Deputy Attorney General.

Military tribunals have many advantages to civilian criminal courts and are better equipped to deal with dangerous terrorists and classified evidence while preserving due process. I am troubled that Mr. Cole does not appear to share this belief. Because of his responses and testimony, I have serious concerns about his support for civilian trials for terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield. This is of particular concern, given that the Deputy Attorney General oversees the National Security Division at the Justice Department.

Now for a second reason. I have concerns about Mr. Cole's abilities relative to oversight of government programs. We asked about oversight of the Department of Justice's grant programs. When he was asked, Mr. Cole failed to commit to a top-to-bottom review of the programs, nor has he undertaken such a review since he was recess appointed. Given the enormous Federal deficits and enough examples of the tremendous inefficiencies, duplications, and waste in these programs, one would assume the Deputy Attorney General would be looking for cost savings in the Department. I am disappointed Mr. Cole has failed to recognize that there is a need for a comprehensive review of Justice's grant programs--not only for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars at a time when we face skyrocketing fiscal deficits but also to ensure that grant objectives are being met in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

A third reason. I have concerns about Mr. Cole's abilities based on his performance as an independent consultant tasked with overseeing the insurance firm AIG. By way of background, the Justice Department provided copies of the reports Mr. Cole issued when he was overseeing AIG, but they were labeled ``Committee Confidential.'' As a result of their being labeled ``Committee Confidential,'' I cannot discuss with specificity the contents of those documents publicly. Nevertheless, when taken into context with the public responses provided by Mr. Cole to my questions, a troubling picture develops about Mr. Cole's performance in his role as independent consultant. The responses and reports do not dispel the serious questions raised about Mr. Cole's independence or his completeness. Further, they reveal what appears to be a level of deference to AIG management one would not expect to see from someone tasked with the responsibility of being an ``independent'' monitor.

In order to clarify a number of questions on this matter, Senator Coburn and I sent a followup letter seeking additional answers from Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole's reply clarified that the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York Attorney General's Office were aware of his practice of seeking input from AIG and making modifications to the reports. He indicated that the changes AIG made were often factual changes, such as AIG employee names, dates of materials, and events. He also indicated that some of the changes requested by AIG were included in a section of the report entitled ``AIG Response.'' However, he added that ``on a few occasions'' AIG would ``suggest a stylistic change of phrasing in the analytical section of the report.'' He stated that while he included the edits made by AIG, he ``did not believe that a detailed presentation of this factual review process was necessary to an understanding of each party's position.''

As a result, the reports did not necessarily show which edits AIG made that were incorporated. Instead, he said those changes were available in working papers that were ``available to the SEC, the DOJ, and the New York Attorney General's Office.'' Unfortunately, he added, ``the agencies--which were aware of this practice--did not request such documents.''

While I appreciate Mr. Cole's responses to these clarifying questions, they raise concerns about how independent his monitoring was, what changes were ultimately requested by AIG, what changes were included, and how much the SEC and the Department of Justice knew about edits AIG was making to the ``independent'' reports.

In addition, I have serious concerns about Mr. Cole's decision to suspend compliance review at AIG's financial products division following the government bailout of AIG. In his testimony, Mr. Cole acknowledged that subsequent to the government bailout of AIG, he scaled back his efforts until the future of AIG as a corporation was determined. After Mr. Cole suspended his monitoring, AIG restructured its compliance office and terminated a number of staff overseeing the company's compliance with SEC regulations. Mr. Cole said after it was determined that AIG's financial products division would not be dissolved, the compliance and monitoring were ``revived and are being reviewed and implemented where applicable.''

Under Mr. Cole's watch, AIG not only got $182 billion of taxpayer dollars for a bailout, but was able to talk the independent consultant--Mr. Cole--out of monitoring what the company was doing.

I am concerned about Mr. Cole's ability to perform the duties required of a Deputy Attorney General. In that role, he would be in a position to potentially influence future compliance monitors appointed under settlements with the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other corporations that have violated the law. Independent monitors need to be truly independent and, of course, completely transparent. They are selected and appointed to ensure the interests of the American people are protected.

For these reasons, I cannot support the nomination of Mr. Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

After extensive and unnecessary delays, the Senate will finally vote today on three important nominations to fill high-level posts at the Department of Justice. Two of these positions have national security responsibilities. I have been here since the Ford administration, and I cannot recall a time when the Justice Department and the country were deprived of such critical appointees. Whether we had a Republican or Democratic President, we always quickly filled these kinds of national security positions. So it is hard to understand why we have not been able to vote on nominees for positions with significant national security responsibilities such as the Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the National

Security Division--especially when we are 2\1/2\ months away from the 10th anniversary of September 11.

The nominations of Jim Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, Lisa Monaco to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and Virginia Seitz to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel have been blocked for months by Republican obstruction over matters not related to the qualifications of the nominees and in abject disregard of the needs of the Justice Department and the country. So I am glad that today we are finally going to vote and, I trust, confirm these superbly qualified nominees.

The unprecedented filibuster of the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General has been especially egregious. The Deputy Attorney General is the No. 2 position at the Justice Department, and it is a position with key national security responsibilities. Despite significant bipartisan support and unquestionable qualifications, Jim Cole's nomination has been blocked for nearly a year. He was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee in July of last year--11 months ago--but the Republicans prevented a vote. He was renominated and reported favorably a second time in the middle of March, but Republicans stalled and filibustered consideration of the nomination last month. During my time in the Senate, I have seen the nominations of many Deputy Attorneys General. Every time they have been voted on favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee--whether under Republican or Democratic control-- their nomination has been voted on within a matter of days on the Senate floor. This is the first time in the Nation's history that a President's nominee to serve as Deputy Attorney General was filibustered, and it was wrong.

Jim Cole's nomination should not have been controversial. It is a nomination supported by former Republican Senator Jack Danforth, who was nominated by President Bush to be our Ambassador to the United Nations. Senator Danforth worked with Jim Cole for more than 15 years. When he introduced him at his confirmation hearing, Senator Danforth described Mr. Cole as someone without an ideological or political agenda. He also wrote to the committee:

Jim is a ``lawyer's lawyer.'' He is exceedingly

knowledgeable, especially on matters relating to legal and

business ethics, public integrity and compliance with

government regulations. He is highly regarded . . . as a

skillful litigator. As his resume demonstrates, he has long

and deep experience in the Department of Justice.

I agree. Jim Cole served as a career prosecutor at the Justice Department for a dozen years and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and toughness. He has demonstrated that he understands the issues of crime and national security that are at the center of the Deputy Attorney General's job. Nothing suggests that he is anything other than a steadfast defender of American safety.

We have received numerous letters of support for Mr. Cole's nomination, including letters from many former Republican public officials. I put several of those letters in the Record last month. The Senate should have heeded those recommendations as well as the advice of former Deputy Attorneys General of the United States who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. They wrote to us last December to urge the Senate to consider Mr. Cole's nomination without delay--last December--pointing out that the Deputy Attorney General is ``the chief operating officer of the Department of Justice, supervising its day-to-day operations'' and that ``the Deputy is also a key member of the president's national security team, a function that has grown in importance and complexity in the years since the terror attacks of September 11.'' They were right. The Senate was wrong to filibuster this nomination. The Senate has the opportunity today to finally confirm this good man and public servant. I trust this institution will take that opportunity.

Incredibly, the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General was subjected to a partisan filibuster for over three more months while the country faces concerns about terrorism in the aftermath of the President's successful operation against al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. It is hard for me to understand how, at a time when experts are concerned that al-Qaida will seek reprisals, some in the Senate have delayed action to ensure that President Obama has his full national security team in place. No matter who is President, we should want that President to have their national security team in place for the good of all Americans.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Senate Democrats expedited law enforcement and national security nominations, confirming an additional 58 officials to posts at the Justice Department before the end of 2001. The Senate should have done the same with the nomination of Jim Cole. Senate Republicans should have treated Mr. Cole's nomination with the same urgency and seriousness with which Senate Democrats treated all four of the Deputy Attorneys General who served under President Bush. All four were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote an average of 21 days after they were reported by the Judiciary Committee. No Deputy Attorney General nomination had ever been subjected to a filibuster before. That is what Senator Republicans did this year. It was wrong.

In addition, Senate Republicans have blocked votes on the nomination of Lisa Monaco to head the National Security Division at the Justice Department, another key national security position. Her nomination has been blocked even though it was considered at hearings and reported unanimously, not only by the Judiciary Committee but also by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. She was reported unanimously by all Democrats and all Republicans in two key committees. Senator Grassley, Senator Chambliss and all the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted for her. To have an almost 2-month delay has been incredible--she should have been confirmed right after her nomination was reported by the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

Lisa Monaco's nomination has long been supported by former Justice Department officials, including former Attorney General Mukasey, who served during President George W. Bush's administration. He wrote:

Based on my meetings and conversations with Ms. Monaco, I

believe that she has both sound judgment and a keen

understanding of national security law. Which is to say, she

understands both the stakes and the rules.

The Monaco nomination to head the National Security Division at the Justice Department should have been confirmed before the Memorial Day recess. I have little doubt that she will be confirmed overwhelmingly. But the almost two-month delay is not excused by voting for her confirmation now. The National Security Division has been without her leadership. The national security team has been without another key member.

Virginia Seitz is another superbly qualified nominee with bipartisan support who should have been confirmed before the Memorial Day recess, but whose nomination has been blocked from consideration by Senate Republicans. A Rhodes Scholar and former Supreme Court clerk, Ms. Seitz has received support for her nomination from some of the most preeminent lawyers in the country, including many who have served in Republican administrations. This nomination was also reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. All Republican members and all Democratic members voted for her. Then Senate Republicans turned around and blocked her confirmation.

I have seen the crocodile tears of some over the last few days as they lament the lack of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion on how the War Powers Act applied to the NATO-led operation in Libya. It is Senate Republicans who are responsible for having delayed and blocked the Office of Legal Counsel from having its Assistant Attorney General in place. Today, after 7 weeks of obstruction, the Senate will finally consider the nomination of Virginia Seitz.

The treatment of these nominees is now carrying over to other nominations and important legislative initiatives, as well. Just last week we witnessed for the first time since the infamous partisan vote on the nomination of Ronnie White of Missouri, the spectacle of Republican Senators who had voted in favor of a nomination in committee switching to vote against the

nomination when considered by the Senate. We have seen Republican Senators, who in consultation with the White House and Judiciary Committee approved a judicial nominee, flipping to oppose the nominee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered two national security bills during the last 2 weeks. Both times Republican Senators professed to support the legislation as they voted against it. The most critical and time sensitive is the bill before the Senate to authorize a limited extension of the term of service of FBI Director Robert Mueller, as the President has requested. The President made his request more than 6 weeks ago in light of ``the ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies.'' He asked us ``to join together in extending [Director Mueller's] leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and security.''

Rather than join together as Senate Democrats did with the President following 9/11, 7 of the 8 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee opposed the bill. We have to consider and pass that bill without delay. Both the House and Senate have to pass it before the August recess. With the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks approaching, and in the face of continuing threats in the wake of the President's recent, successful operation against Osama bin Laden, we need the continuity and stability of having FBI Director Mueller in place. Without enactment of this legislation, he will not be. He will be forced from that critical post on August 3.

I urge all Senators, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, to join together for the good of the country to take quick action to pass the FBI extension, S. 1103. We cannot afford a repeat of the unnecessary delays that have held up these nominations finally considered today.

I thank today's nominees for their dedication and look forward to working with them as they faithfully execute their important responsibilities at the Justice Department. I also thank their families for their patience and for the support they give these outstanding public servants. In my 37 years in the Senate I have never seen a time when so many good nominees are held up, even though eventually so many then go through unanimously. I wish Senators would stop and think for a moment: This is awfully hard on their spouses and their children. It is awfully hard among their friends who wonder, Is there something we don't know about? Why were they held up so long?

We can all take our political positions--and should. We all vote--and should. But let's not take it out on the good Americans who want to serve their country, oftentimes at great sacrifice. Remember, we also take it out on their families.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not object. But insofar as many had planned to be here for the 12 o'clock scheduled votes, could the Senator from Florida tell me how long he wishes to take?

I will not object, Madam President.