Floor Statements

Mr. President, Marylanders take pride in their Hall of Famers, from Cal Ripkin, our ``Iron Man,'' to Brooks Robinson with the Golden Gloves, to Johnny Unitas with the Golden Arm, to Frank Robinson, who was an All-Star in both the American and National Leagues. Now we add to that list our own Senator Barbara Mikulski, the longest serving woman Senator in Senate history.

Marylanders are proud of Senator Barb not because of her length of service but for what she has done as a Senator and throughout her entire career. If you ask any Marylander what they think about Senator Mikulski, they will start off by saying: She is a fighter. Then they will say: We are glad she is on our side.

She is an effective fighter for the people. From protecting neighborhoods from an unwanted highway to keeping jobs in Maryland from being shipped overseas, there is no more effective fighter than Senator Barbara Mikulski.

She has protected our national security from her position on the Intelligence Committee, she has strengthened the U.S. Space Program in her position on the Appropriations Committee, she provided equity in health care from the HELP Committee, and she stands up for our Federal workers, advancing gender equity issues, and the list goes on and on and on.

She has taken her social worker background, her political training from ward politics in east Baltimore, and her hard work ethic from her parents and her own common sense to be the voice for working families in the Halls of the Senate.

On a personal note, I thank my friend for always being there for me, working together as a team for the people of Maryland. On behalf of my two granddaughters, my daughter, my wife, and all Americans, thank you, Senator Mikulski, for living the American dream and making that dream a reality for so many Americans.

Mr. President, today the Congress stands ready to approve S. 3481, a bill to clarify Federal responsibility to pay for stormwater pollution. This legislation, which will soon become law, requires the Federal government to pay localities for reasonable costs associated with the control and abatement of pollution that is originating on its properties. At stake is a fundamental issue of equity: polluters should be financially responsible for the pollution that they cause. That includes the Federal Government.

Annually hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollutants wash off the hardened surfaces in urban areas and into local rivers and streams, threatening the health of our citizens and causing significant environmental degradation.

A one-acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of runoff that comes from a one-acre meadow. These pollutants include heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorous, oil and grease, pesticides, bacteria (including deadly e. coli), sediment, toxic chemicals, and debris. Indeed, stormwater runoff is the largest source sector for many imperiled bodies of water across the country. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, stormwater pollution affects all types of water bodies including in order of severity; ocean shoreline, estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes shorelines, lakes and rivers. Degraded aquatic habitats are found everywhere that stormwater enters local waterways.

We added a provision to the bill in order to rectify a specific problem in the District of Columbia, where the Department of Treasury has been paying some stormwater fees. The provision simply says that agencies and departments should use their annual appropriated funds to pay for stormwater fees. This is exactly what they all do today in paying for their drinking water and wastewater bills or any other utility bill, for that matter. This new language requires that Congress make available, in appropriations acts, the funds that could be used for this purpose. It does not mean that the appropriations act would need to state specifically or expressly that the funds could be used to pay these charges. The legislative language doesn't say that, and I want to be perfectly clear that such a restrictive reading is not our intent.

I believe that this administration recognizes its responsibility to manage the stormwater pollution that comes off Federal properties. But that responsibility needs to translate into payments to the local governments that are forced to deal with this pollution. Adopting this legislation today removes all ambiguity about the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay these normal and customary stormwater fees.

This is a matter of basic equity.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do intend to object, first, let me point out to Senator Crapo, he and I have worked together on the Water and Wildlife Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think we have had a fine relationship over the past couple years, and we have worked together on a series of bills that I think will improve water and wildlife in this Nation. This legislation has not had a hearing and has not been approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee. It deals with undermining one of the most important laws in our country, the Endangered Species Act. That is one of our most important environmental laws and has protected iconic species such as the bald eagle. The act has long enjoyed bipartisan support. President Nixon signed the ESA into law on December 28, 1973.

This bill attempts to solve politically what should be done by good science. Despite many disagreements in the more than three decades of the ESA, there has never been a removal of a species by Congress. Also, there have been efforts made to work out a reasonable compromise as it relates to the wolf. It is my understanding that it has been blocked on the Republican side in trying to get that compromise brought forward.

I will make one more suggestion to my friend, Senator Crapo. As you know, the work product of our subcommittee, along with other bills in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and some lands bills have been combined into one bill, Calendar No. 30, S. 3003. I encourage the Senator to look at that package. If we can get consent to include a compromise on the gray wolf, we would be willing to try to get it done in the remaining hours of this session. I offer that to my friend.

Madam President, in its current form, I do object.

Madam President, I understand Senator Sessions is on the floor and wishes to speak. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair recognize Senator Sessions, and after Senator Sessions, recognize myself and then Senator Shaheen, so we stay in order, if that is agreeable.

Madam President, we are now only hours away from when we will have a chance to vote on the ratification of the New START treaty. The Senate has invoked cloture, so we are in that 30-hour postcloture period. We are now in a period where we need to consider some additional amendments, and then we will be able to vote on the ratification. I think that is good news for the United States, for national security.

I think each Member of the Senate wants to do what is right for our national security. And I wish to emphasize the point that whenever I look at a national security issue, I want to get the best advice I can from the experts--from our military experts, from our experts who are charged with making sure we have the best intelligence to protect the security of America, from our diplomatic experts, who understand the ramifications of what we do here and around the world in other areas of concern for national security. I would say it is unanimous that the experts are telling us it is in the security interests of the United States to ratify the New START treaty.

I will be glad to yield.

I am glad I yielded to Senator Sessions for that point because I do believe the fellows from the military assigned to our offices are extremely valuable in our work. I was fortunate to have CDR Andre Coleman in my office from the Navy, and I can tell you that what I learned from his presence in my office was important to me, and I think it really made me much more informed when it came to decisions I have had to make in the Senate. So this program is a very valuable program.

I was pleased to yield to the Senator so he could recognize the person in his office. He is from the Navy? He is a Navy officer?

Navy officers are always the best, and coming from Maryland, where we have the Naval Academy, we were pleased to provide some help to the Senator from Alabama.

If I can continue on the New START treaty, the real test here is the national security of our Nation. When you listen to the advice given to us by our military experts, they tell us the ratification of New START will enhance our national security. When you

talk to the people who are responsible for collecting intelligence information and analyzing that information, they tell us it is in our national security interest to ratify the New START treaty. When you talk to the political experts, those who are charged with managing our foreign policy considerations around the world, they tell us the ratification of New START will help protect our national security interest.

The reason is that when you look at this treaty and find out what is in this treaty that restricts what the United States can do and you look at the number of deployed warheads and the number of delivery vehicles we are permitted to have, our experts say those numbers are clearly achievable for us without compromising whatsoever all of our national security interests. That is what they tell us. And these numbers were not developed by the political system; they were developed by the military experts as to what is reasonable as far as limitations on deployed warheads.

When you look at the other restrictions--and we have heard a lot of debate that we are restricted on other defense issues. There is nothing in this agreement that limits missile defense issues. That is going to be a matter for our national debate. It will be a matter, in working with our allies, of analyzing where our current risks come from. But we can make independent judgments, and we are not restricted at all by the New START treaty as to how we make those judgments.

What is in this treaty is our ability to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear stockpile and what they are doing with their warheads and with their delivery systems. It allows us to have inspectors on the ground. Since the end of last year, we have not had inspectors on the ground. That is intelligence information that is extremely valuable for us to have. You can't substitute for that. Yes, we can get certain intelligence information from the assets we have, but having boots on the ground is critically important to our national security. So without the ratification of New START, we do not have the inspectors on the ground telling us, in fact, what Russia is doing, inspecting the warheads, and inspecting their delivery systems.

There is a third reason in addition to it being important from the point of view of what our experts are saying and in addition to the fact that it gives us verification. It also is a very important part of our national security system in working with other countries. We want to make sure we know what Russia is doing, yes. We understand Russia is a country of interest to the United States. But when you look at countries that are developing nuclear weapons, we need Russia's help and the international community working with us to make sure we prevent countries such as Iran from becoming nuclear weapon states. The ratification of this treaty will help us in those political efforts.

When you put all this together, it gives us what we need for verification. The restrictions in this treaty were worked out by our military as being what they believed was right, and it gives us the ability to continue to lead internationally not just on strategic arms reduction but on nonproliferation issues. So for all those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to vote for ratification.

Madam President, I appreciate the concerns my colleague from Arizona is raising in regards to mobile launchers, particularly as it relates to rail-mobile launchers. But I am reading the same language the Senator has put on the floor, and it says very clearly that it is subject to the 700 limit. I think what my colleague is referring to is the fact that Russia today does not have rail-mobile launchers. So, therefore, there are other protocols in the treaty in regard to inspection, et cetera, that are not provided for in this treaty because it is not relevant since Russia today does not have rail-mobile launchers. But if they were to develop rail-mobile launchers, they would be subject to the 700 limitation of launchers, if it was being deployed. The consultation process will work out the procedures for adequate inspection.

So I think it is already covered under the treaty. In the language of the treaty Senator Kerry mentioned it is clear to me it is covered. But in the report language I think it is stating the obvious.

One last point, and that is, again, you do not dispute the fact that if we were to adopt this amendment, it would be the effect of denying the ratification of the treaty until it was modified in Russia, which is the same as saying we are not going to get a ratified treaty on this issue.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

To me, it is the language of the treaty itself. The language of the treaty itself is pretty clear as to what the definition of a launcher is, with three exclusions. Just look at the language of the treaty that any type of launcher would be covered.

Madam President, let me first tell my colleague that I support the treaty because it is in the best interest of the United States. It is in our national security interest. It is not an accommodation to Russia. This treaty helps us on national security. That is what our military experts tell us. That is what our intelligence experts tell us. That is what our diplomats tell us. On all fronts, the ratification of this treaty makes us a safer nation. So it is not an accommodation to Russia.

On the issue the Senator is concerned about, both the Obama administration and this body have repeatedly reaffirmed our commitment to Georgia's territorial sovereignty and integrity. We very much want Russia to withdraw. We are very sympathetic to the issue the Senator brings to our attention. We have taken action in this body to support Georgia's territorial integrity. The START treaty and its ratification is important in reestablishing confidence on verification as it relates to our relationship with Russia on strategic arms, but it is also important for the engagement of Russia on other issues. We can do more than one thing at a time.

President Saakashvili of the Republic of Georgia said:

We all want--I personally want--Russia as a partner and not

as an enemy. Nobody has a greater stake than us in seeing

Russia turn into a country that truly operates within the

concert of nations, respects international law, and--this is

often connected--upholds basic human rights. This is why I

wholeheartedly support the efforts of European and American

leaders to strengthen their relationship with Russia.

The leader of Georgia understands that a better relationship between Russia and the United States will help Georgia and its territorial integrity. This treaty and its ratification will help not only build confidence between Russia and the United States but will help the other countries of Europe, particularly a country such as Georgia.

So the chairman of the committee is absolutely correct--and I think we can verify that with the Parliamentarian--that this is not relevant on the issue we have before us. It is not part of the treaty we have negotiated. It is not part of the ratification process. It is not the appropriate forum for this type of amendment to be considered. It should be rejected on that basis.

The important thing in moving forward with U.S. influence on Russia as it relates to its neighbors, such as Georgia, is to move forward with ratification of this treaty.

Madam President, I, first, thank the Senator from Idaho for bringing up this issue. I might tell him, I have a laundry list of issues with which I would like to deal with Russia.

I have the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission. We have a lot of human rights issues with Russia, and we raise them all the time as aggressively as we can. I am proud the Obama administration has raised these issues at the highest level with the Russian Federation. We are very sympathetic to the issue the Senator has brought up. It is the wrong vehicle to deal with this issue. It is the wrong vehicle. This treaty is important for U.S. national security. That is why I support the ratification. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the ratification.

Yes, it is appropriate in our advise-and-consent role for us to take up issues that are relevant to the subject matter of the treaty. The problem is, the issues the Senator from Idaho is bringing up are not relevant to the subject matter of the treaty. Therefore, it is the wrong vehicle to take up this issue.

I do not want the Senator from Idaho to interpret my opposition to his amendment as opposing what he is trying to do. I agree with what he is trying to do. It is the wrong vehicle on which to put it. I urge the Senator to work with Senator Shaheen, work with the Helsinki Commission on other issues.

The issue the Senator is bringing up about the return of property is very important to America. We believe in many cases the Russian Federation is not living up to their international commitments under international agreements. We will bring those up, and we will fight in those forums. But this treaty is in our interest. This treaty and our actions should deal with the four corners of the agreement.

In that respect, I very much oppose the Senator's amendment.

Let me thank Senator Wicker for bringing forward this amendment. I know it is an amendment he feels very strongly about. I compliment him because I believe a good part of what he was concerned about is already in the resolution of advice and consent on ratification.

As the Senator pointed out, there is a consultation process before the Bilateral Consultative Commission to meet on any changes that would modify the treaty itself. There has to be consultation with Congress on those issues, as the Senator pointed out in his comments. So I think we have already taken care of the major concern the Senator has that it would be a substantive decision made by the Bilateral Consultative Commission.

Secondly, let me point out that whatever the Bilateral Consultative Commission does, it is limited by the treaty itself, which, hopefully, will have been ratified by both the United States and Russia. So there will be a limit on the ratification already in the process.

As Senator Kerry pointed out, we certainly do not want to hold up Senate ratification for minor administrative issues, knowing how long Senate ratification of anything related to a treaty could take.

The last point I want to bring out is, the Senator mentioned missile defense, and I know this has been brought up over and over and over. But in our advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty, we have already put in that:

. . . the New START Treaty does not impose any limitations

on the deployment of

missile defenses other than the requirements of paragraph 3

of Article V of the New START Treaty, which states, ``Each

Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers or

SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors

therein.''

So we already put in the resolution the concern that the Senator has voiced as the major reason he wanted to expand the consultative process, which is also already included in the resolution.

I think the point Senator Kerry has raised is that this would make it technically unworkable for the Bilateral Consultative Commission to do its work if we required Senate consultation or ratification every time the Commission wanted to meet.

For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. President, I will say, I think we just have a disagreement. I think where Senate confirmation would be at issue is where there is an amendment to the treaty, and that is exactly what is included in our resolution.

I think it is unworkable to try to get the Senate involved in all the changes in trying to say what is substantive and what is not. I think you would be interfering with the administration of the verification systems, et cetera. So I would just urge our colleagues to reject the amendment.

I say to Senator Wicker, I think on our side we are prepared to yield back. So if the Senator would like to----

Mr. President, we yield back the time on this amendment.

As I understand the unanimous consent agreement, it is 30 minutes per amendment. Then I think we are prepared to go to Senator Kyl for his amendment.

First, let me thank Senator Kyl for bringing this issue to our attention. I think this is a very important issue. We have a lot of security issues as they relate to Russia, as they relate to Europe, and as they relate to the sea-launch cruise missiles. I couldn't agree with the Senator more. But this falls under the same category of the discussion we had earlier about a side agreement on tactical weapons.

These are all beneficial issues, but it is not the key issue that is before us today. If we were to adopt this amendment, I think we all would agree it would cause a considerable delay in the implementation of the START treaty.

Let me remind my colleagues that the START treaty, according to our military experts, is needed now. We have been a year without having inspection regimes in Russia so we can get the intelligence information we need by people on the ground. That expired in December of last year. So we have already been delayed through this year, and the longer we delay, the less reliable the information we have for our own national security.

Although it would be nice to have all of these side agreements with Russia on a lot of other issues, every time we ask our negotiators to do that, it takes time. It takes a lot of time to negotiate. It is not all one-sided when you negotiate. My colleagues know that. We know that here as we negotiate issues.

This is an important issue, but it shouldn't delay the ratification and implementation of the New START treaty so that we can get our inspectors on the ground, giving us the information we need for our own national security as it relates to the strategic capacity of Russia.

For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. President, I say to Senator Kyl, these missiles are not strategic. Do they affect our strategic balance? I say that everything in our defense toolbox can affect our strategic balance. That was taken into consideration in the negotiations. I thank him for bringing this issue to our attention, but for the reasons we have stated, we urge our colleagues to reject the amendment.

We are prepared to go to the Senator's next amendment if he is prepared to go forward.

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate has confirmed the nomination of Albert Diaz of North Carolina to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Judge Diaz is strongly supported by his home State Senators, Senators Hagan and Burr, and he received the highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association's rating committee. The process Senators Hagan and Burr used to recommend these nominations to the President--working in a bipartisan fashion with each other and the White House--is a model for how we can improve the judicial selection and confirmation process going forward.

I chaired the confirmation hearing for Judge Diaz in December 2009, and in January 2010 the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved his nomination by a 19-0 vote.

I am disappointed that it has taken the Senate almost a full year to take final action on this nomination.

I take a special interest in the Fourth Circuit, as it includes my home State of Maryland. When President Bush was in office, in May 2008 I chaired the confirmation hearing for Justice Steven Agee, who served on the Virginia Supreme Court and was confirmed to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. Since President Obama has taken office, in April 2009 I chaired the confirmation hearing for Judge Andre Davis of Maryland, a Federal district judge in Baltimore, who was confirmed last year to be a judge on the Fourth Circuit. In October 2009, I chaired the confirmation hearing of Justice Barbara Keenan of Virginia, who had served on the Virginia Supreme Court and was confirmed in March of this year by the Senate. Finally, in December 2009, I chaired the

confirmation hearing of James Wynn of North Carolina, who had served as an associate judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, and was confirmed by the Senate in August 2010.

I mention these nominations by way of background for my colleagues, because the Fourth Circuit has had one of the highest vacancy rates in the country. When I came to the Senate in 2007, out of the 15 seats authorized by Congress, 5 of the seats of the Fourth Circuit were vacant. That means that one-third of the court's seats were vacant. Our circuit courts of appeals are the final word for most of our civil and criminal litigants, as the Supreme Court only accepts a handful of cases.

We should also be working to increase the diversity of the judges of the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit is one of the most diverse circuits in the Nation, according to the most recent Census estimates. In terms of the Fourth Circuit--which consists of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina--22 percent of the residents are African American. In my home State of Maryland, African Americans constitute 30 percent of the population. By way of comparison, the U.S. population is 12 percent African American.

Ironically, the judges on the Fourth Circuit have not historically been known for their diversity. The first woman to sit on the Fourth Circuit was not appointed until 1992. The first African American to sit on the Fourth Circuit was not appointed until 2001.

In recent years I am pleased that the Fourth Circuit has indeed become more diverse and representative of the population it oversees. The Senate took another important step forward to increase diversity on the Fourth Circuit with the confirmation of Judge James Wynn before our August recess. I am pleased that 4 out of the 15 judges on the Fourth Circuit--about one-quarter of the court--are now African American. And I am also pleased that in 2007, for the first time in history, a woman served as chief judge of the Fourth Circuit. Until a vacancy occurred last year, women made up 3 out of the 15 judges on the Fourth Circuit, or one-fifth of the court. I look forward to further increasing the diversity of the Fourth Circuit in the future.

With the nomination of Judge Diaz, the Senate has another opportunity to increase diversity on the Fourth Circuit. Judge Diaz is the first Latino judge to ever sit on the Fourth Circuit in its history.

Judge Albert Diaz also comes to the Senate with a broad range of both judicial and legal experience in both the civilian and military court systems.

Judge Diaz currently serves as a special superior court judge for complex business cases, one of only three in North Carolina.

Judge Diaz began his legal career in the U.S. Marine Corps legal services support section, where he served as a prosecutor, defense counsel, and ultimately chief review officer. He then moved to the Navy's Office of the Judge Advocate General, JAG, where he served for 4 years as appellate government counsel handling criminal appeals. Upon entering private practice, Judge Diaz remained in the Marine Corps Reserves, serving over the years as a defense lawyer, trial judge, and appellate judge.

Judge Diaz was the first Latino appointed to the North Carolina Superior Court when he was named as a resident superior court judge in 2001.

I therefore pleased that the Senate has confirmed Judge Diaz, an outstanding nominee who enjoys bipartisan support from his home State Senators and a unanimous endorsement from the Judiciary Committee. By confirming Judge Diaz, the Senate takes an important step in bringing the vacancy rate down on the Fourth Circuit, and for the first time in many years the confirmed judges on the Fourth Circuit will be almost up to full strength. Finally, we will have a more diverse bench that better represents the population of this circuit.

Mr. President, the current framework concerning the espionage statutes was designed to address classic spy cases involving persons who intended to aid foreign governments and harm the United States. The current framework traces its roots to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to disclose defense information during wartime. The basic idea behind the legislation, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 1919, was to stop citizens from spying or interfering with military actions during World War I. The current framework was formed at a time when intelligence and national security information existed primarily in some tangible form, such as blueprints, photographs, maps, and other documents.

Our Nation, however, has witnessed dramatic changes to nearly every facet of our lives over the last 100 years, including technological advances which have revolutionized our information gathering abilities as well as the mediums utilized to communicate such information. Yet, the basic terms and structure of the espionage statutes have remained relatively unchanged since their inception. Moreover, issues have arisen in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases when the statutes have been applied to persons who may be disclosing classified information for purposes other than to aid a foreign government or to harm the United States. In addition, the statutes contain some terms which are outdated and do not reflect how information is classified by the Executive branch today.

Legal scholars and commentators have criticized the current framework, and over the years, some federal courts have as well. In 2006, after reviewing the many developments in the law and changes in society that had taken place since the enactment of the espionage statutes, one district court judge stated that ``the time is ripe for Congress'' to reexamine them. United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 646 E.D. Va. 2006, Ellis, J. Nearly 20 years earlier in the Morison case, one federal appellate judge stated that ``[i]f one thing is clear, it is that the Espionage Act statutes as now broadly drawn are unwieldy and imprecise instruments for prosecuting government `leakers' to the press as opposed to government `moles' in the service of other countries.'' That judge also stated that ``carefully drawn legislation'' was a ``better long-term resolution'' than judicial intervention. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1086, 4th Cir. 1988.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing on May 12, 2010, entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' At that Subcommittee hearing, I questioned a number of witnesses, which included witnesses from academia as well as former officials from the intelligence and law enforcement communities, about how well the espionage statutes have been working. Since that hearing, I have been closely and carefully reviewing these statutes, particularly in the context of recent events. I am now convinced that changes in technology and society, combined with statutory and judicial changes to the law, have rendered some aspects of our espionage laws less effective than they need to be to protect the national security. I also believe that we need to enhance our ability to prosecute spies as well as those who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information if we add to the existing statutes. We don't need an Official State Secrets Act, and we must be careful not to chill protected First Amendment activities. We do, however, need to do a better job of preventing unauthorized disclosures of classified information that can harm the United States, and at the same time we need to ensure that public debates continue to take place on important national security and foreign policy issues.

As a result, I am introducing the Espionage Statutes Modernization Act, ESMA, of 2010. This legislation makes important improvements to the espionage statutes to make them more effective and relevant in the 21st century. This legislation is narrowly-tailored and balanced, and will enable the government to use a separate criminal statute to prosecute government employees who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information in violation of the nondisclosure agreements

they have entered, irrespective of whether they intend to aid a foreign government or harm the United States.

This legislation is not designed to make it easier for the government to prosecute the press, to chill First Amendment freedoms, or to make it more difficult to expose government wrongdoing. In fact, the proposed legislation promotes the use of Federal whistleblower statutes and regulations to report unlawful and other improper conduct. Unauthorized leaks of classified information, however, are harmful to the national security and could endanger lives. Thus, in addition to proposing important refinements to the espionage statutes, this legislation will deter unauthorized leaks of classified information by government employees who knowingly and intentionally violate classified information nondisclosure agreements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the current framework concerning the espionage statutes was designed to address classic spy cases involving persons who intended to aid foreign governments and harm the United States. The current framework traces its roots to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a crime to disclose defense information during wartime. The basic idea behind the legislation, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 1919, was to stop citizens from spying or interfering with military actions during World War I. The current framework was formed at a time when intelligence and national security information existed primarily in some tangible form, such as blueprints, photographs, maps, and other documents.

Our Nation, however, has witnessed dramatic changes to nearly every facet of our lives over the last 100 years, including technological advances which have revolutionized our information gathering abilities as well as the mediums utilized to communicate such information. Yet, the basic terms and structure of the espionage statutes have remained relatively unchanged since their inception. Moreover, issues have arisen in the prosecution and defense of criminal cases when the statutes have been applied to persons who may be disclosing classified information for purposes other than to aid a foreign government or to harm the United States. In addition, the statutes contain some terms which are outdated and do not reflect how information is classified by the Executive branch today.

Legal scholars and commentators have criticized the current framework, and over the years, some federal courts have as well. In 2006, after reviewing the many developments in the law and changes in society that had taken place since the enactment of the espionage statutes, one district court judge stated that ``the time is ripe for Congress'' to reexamine them. United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 646 E.D. Va. 2006, Ellis, J. Nearly 20 years earlier in the Morison case, one federal appellate judge stated that ``[i]f one thing is clear, it is that the Espionage Act statutes as now broadly drawn are unwieldy and imprecise instruments for prosecuting government `leakers' to the press as opposed to government `moles' in the service of other countries.'' That judge also stated that ``carefully drawn legislation'' was a ``better long-term resolution'' than judicial intervention. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1086, 4th Cir. 1988.

As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing on May 12, 2010, entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' At that Subcommittee hearing, I questioned a number of witnesses, which included witnesses from academia as well as former officials from the intelligence and law enforcement communities, about how well the espionage statutes have been working. Since that hearing, I have been closely and carefully reviewing these statutes, particularly in the context of recent events. I am now convinced that changes in technology and society, combined with statutory and judicial changes to the law, have rendered some aspects of our espionage laws less effective than they need to be to protect the national security. I also believe that we need to enhance our ability to prosecute spies as well as those who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information if we add to the existing statutes. We don't need an Official State Secrets Act, and we must be careful not to chill protected First Amendment activities. We do, however, need to do a better job of preventing unauthorized disclosures of classified information that can harm the United States, and at the same time we need to ensure that public debates continue to take place on important national security and foreign policy issues.

As a result, I am introducing the Espionage Statutes Modernization Act, ESMA, of 2010. This legislation makes important improvements to the espionage statutes to make them more effective and relevant in the 21st century. This legislation is narrowly-tailored and balanced, and will enable the government to use a separate criminal statute to prosecute government employees who make unauthorized disclosures of classified information in violation of the nondisclosure agreements

they have entered, irrespective of whether they intend to aid a foreign government or harm the United States.

This legislation is not designed to make it easier for the government to prosecute the press, to chill First Amendment freedoms, or to make it more difficult to expose government wrongdoing. In fact, the proposed legislation promotes the use of Federal whistleblower statutes and regulations to report unlawful and other improper conduct. Unauthorized leaks of classified information, however, are harmful to the national security and could endanger lives. Thus, in addition to proposing important refinements to the espionage statutes, this legislation will deter unauthorized leaks of classified information by government employees who knowingly and intentionally violate classified information nondisclosure agreements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, was enacted in 1980 with bipartisan support to address the ``disclose or dismiss'' dilemma that arose in espionage prosecutions when a defendant would threaten the government with the disclosure of classified information if the government did not drop the prosecution. Previously, there were no congressionally mandated procedures that required district courts to make discovery and admissibility rulings regarding classified information in advance.

CIPA has worked reasonably well during the last 30 years, but some issues have arisen in a number of notable terrorism, espionage, and narcotics cases that demonstrate that reforms and improvements could be made to ensure that classified sources, methods, and information can be protected and to ensure that a defendant's due process and fair trial rights are not violated. In 2009, when the Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act, MCA, the Congress drew heavily from the manner in which the Federal courts interpreted CIPA when it updated the procedures governing the use of classified information in military commission prosecutions. At that time, however, the Congress did not update CIPA. Indeed, since its enactment in 1980, there have been no changes to the key provisions of CIPA.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I have chaired a number of hearings during which witnesses have testified about the capacity of our civilian courts to try alleged terrorists and spies. The first subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on July 28, 2009, and was entitled ``Prosecuting Terrorists: Civilian and Military Trials for GTMO and Beyond.'' The second Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on May 12, 2010, and was entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' The testimony I have heard in regard to terrorism, espionage, and our civilian courts has convinced me that while our courts have the capacity and the procedures in place to try alleged terrorists and spies, reforms and improvements could be made to CIPA to codify and clarify the decisions of the Federal courts.

As a result, today I am introducing the CIPA Reform and Improvement Act, CRIA, of 2010. CRIA contains reforms and improvements to ensure that the statute maintains the proper balance between the protection of classified sources, methods and information, and a defendant's constitutional rights. Among other things, this legislation, which includes the applicable changes that the Congress made when it enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2009, will codify, clarify, and unify Federal case law interpreting CIPA; ensure that all classified information, not just documents, will be governed by CIPA; ensure that prosecutors and defense attorneys will be able to fully inform trial courts about classified information issues; and will clarify that the civil state secrets privilege does not apply in criminal cases. CRIA will also ensure high-level DOJ approval before the government invokes its classified information privilege in criminal cases and will ensure that the Federal courts will order the disclosure and use of classified information when the disclosure and use meets the applicable legal standards. This legislation will also ensure timely appellate review of lower court CIPA decisions before the commencement of a trial, explicitly permit trial courts to adopt alternative procedures for the admission of classified information in accordance with a defendant's fair trial and due process rights, and make technical fixes to ensure consistent use of terms throughout the statute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, was enacted in 1980 with bipartisan support to address the ``disclose or dismiss'' dilemma that arose in espionage prosecutions when a defendant would threaten the government with the disclosure of classified information if the government did not drop the prosecution. Previously, there were no congressionally mandated procedures that required district courts to make discovery and admissibility rulings regarding classified information in advance.

CIPA has worked reasonably well during the last 30 years, but some issues have arisen in a number of notable terrorism, espionage, and narcotics cases that demonstrate that reforms and improvements could be made to ensure that classified sources, methods, and information can be protected and to ensure that a defendant's due process and fair trial rights are not violated. In 2009, when the Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act, MCA, the Congress drew heavily from the manner in which the Federal courts interpreted CIPA when it updated the procedures governing the use of classified information in military commission prosecutions. At that time, however, the Congress did not update CIPA. Indeed, since its enactment in 1980, there have been no changes to the key provisions of CIPA.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary's Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, I have chaired a number of hearings during which witnesses have testified about the capacity of our civilian courts to try alleged terrorists and spies. The first subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on July 28, 2009, and was entitled ``Prosecuting Terrorists: Civilian and Military Trials for GTMO and Beyond.'' The second Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing that I chaired was on May 12, 2010, and was entitled ``The Espionage Statutes: A Look Back and A Look Forward.'' The testimony I have heard in regard to terrorism, espionage, and our civilian courts has convinced me that while our courts have the capacity and the procedures in place to try alleged terrorists and spies, reforms and improvements could be made to CIPA to codify and clarify the decisions of the Federal courts.

As a result, today I am introducing the CIPA Reform and Improvement Act, CRIA, of 2010. CRIA contains reforms and improvements to ensure that the statute maintains the proper balance between the protection of classified sources, methods and information, and a defendant's constitutional rights. Among other things, this legislation, which includes the applicable changes that the Congress made when it enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2009, will codify, clarify, and unify Federal case law interpreting CIPA; ensure that all classified information, not just documents, will be governed by CIPA; ensure that prosecutors and defense attorneys will be able to fully inform trial courts about classified information issues; and will clarify that the civil state secrets privilege does not apply in criminal cases. CRIA will also ensure high-level DOJ approval before the government invokes its classified information privilege in criminal cases and will ensure that the Federal courts will order the disclosure and use of classified information when the disclosure and use meets the applicable legal standards. This legislation will also ensure timely appellate review of lower court CIPA decisions before the commencement of a trial, explicitly permit trial courts to adopt alternative procedures for the admission of classified information in accordance with a defendant's fair trial and due process rights, and make technical fixes to ensure consistent use of terms throughout the statute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of the confirmation of two judicial confirmations pending before the Senate from my home State of Maryland. Both James Bredar and Ellen Hollander have been nominated by the President to be U.S. district judges for the District of Maryland.

I was pleased to work with our senior Senator, Ms. Mikulski, to recommend these nominations to the President last year. I chaired their confirmation hearing in May of this year before the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve. These two judges were approved by a voice vote in the Judiciary Committee in June.

Judge Ellen Hollander currently serves as a judge on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Maryland's second highest court, which hears mandatory appeals from our State trial courts in Maryland.

She has served as a judge on that court since 1994. Judge Hollander comes to the Senate with an impressive amount of experience in Federal and State court. She served as a Federal prosecutor in Maryland for 4 years, served as a State circuit court judge in Baltimore City for 5 years, and has served as a State appellate court judge for 16 years. As a State trial court judge, she heard thousands of criminal and civil cases--hundreds of which went to verdict or final judgment--and handled both jury trials and bench trials. As an appellate judge, she has authored over 1,000 opinions.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluated Judge Hollander's nomination and rated her unanimously ``well qualified,'' the highest possible rating.

Judge Hollander, really exemplifies the spirit of public service. She is well known by lawyers and jurors alike in Maryland for her meticulous reasoning process and well-crafted legal opinions. She really is a model of a fair and impartial judge who will dispense equal justice under the law. I know Judge Hollander has also supported efforts to reduce recidivism and is a strong supporter of our drug treatment courts and juvenile diversion programs.

Judge Jim Bredar also comes to the Senate with a wide range of courtroom and litigation experience. He served as a Federal prosecutor in Colorado for 4 years before coming to Maryland and serving as a Federal public defender for 6 years. Since 1998, he has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where he works closely with our judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. He conducts preliminary proceedings in felony cases, all proceedings in petty offense cases, and all proceedings in misdemeanor and civil matters upon the consent of the parties. Judge Bredar has conducted over 700 mediation and settlement conferences in civil cases.

Judge Bredar has been a member of the Maryland Bar since 1995. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluated Judge Bredar's nomination and rated him unanimously ``well qualified,'' the highest possible rating.

With Judge Bredar, I see a nominee who is genuinely concerned about broadening the access to justice of Americans to their courts. He believes that we can do better with both our criminal and civil justice systems. I know of Judge's Bredar work as a mediator in our Federal court's alternative dispute resolution program, which has received high praise from Maryland lawyers and litigants alike.

The people of Maryland will be well served by having Judge Bredar and Judge Hollander on the Federal bench in Baltimore. I look forward to the Senate confirming these two outstanding nominations.

We are extremely pleased that we are now getting a chance to vote on the confirmation of Judge Hollander to the Maryland District Court. Senator Mikulski has taken the leadership in bringing forward the nominations that we strongly support, the two of us.

I would yield the time to the senior Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, as we take up the consideration of the New START, we not only have the opportunity, but also an obligation to provide consent on the ratification of this treaty. It is long overdue. We need to regain our ability to provide boots-on-the-ground verification of the Russian nuclear complex.

Over the past 8 months, we have all had ample opportunity to review the documents and reports related to the New START. We have conducted 20 hearings, taken over 900 questions. They were questions asked by Members of the Senate, mainly to the administration, in which those answers have been provided; 900 questions, over 900 for the record.

In short, we have given significant consideration to the ratification of New START. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are committed to guaranteeing the security of our country and also recognize the obligation to ratify this arms control agreement immediately.

I want to take you back a little bit because I hear my colleagues talking about not having enough time. I want to take you back to a hot day this summer in the Foreign Relations Committee, where--Madam President, you were at that meeting in which those who are now saying we do not have enough time, asked for just a little bit more time, during the impending recess, so we could orderly consider the ratification process.

That was a hot summer day. It is now a snowy day in December, and they are still saying the same thing: Just give us more time. We have had plenty of time.

I compliment Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for the manner in which they have considered this treaty. This is a very important treaty for America, and they have made sure that the Senate has had, and each Senator has had, ample opportunity to get all of the information we need--all of the information we need from administration individuals or from experts or from anyone. They have been very open in this process.

They have also given every Member of the Senate ample time to get every question answered, to get all of the material they need, and it is now time for us to take on our responsibility; that is, to take up this treaty for ratification and vote it up or down.

I certainly hope my colleagues will vote to ratify this treaty. I think it is critically important to our national security. In addition to its contributions to American security, one of the most compelling reasons we should ratify this treaty, and do so before we recess, is to regain our insight into Russia's strategic offensive arms.

Since START I expired over a year ago, we have had no comprehensive verification regime in place in order to help us understand Russia's strategic nuclear force. We need the transparency to know what Russia is doing to provide confidence and stability, and we need that confidence and stability to contribute to a safer world. We will

only regain that transparency by ratifying this treaty, and we are in dangerous territory without it.

Let me repeat. We need this treaty for verification. We need this treaty to know what Russia is doing, so we can verify what Russia tells us, to make sure, in fact, that it is true. Not only will this treaty enhance the national security of the United States, it will serve as a significant step forward in our relationship with Russia, a key partner in the overall U.S. strategy to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide.

Let's be perfectly clear about this. There are still two nations that have the majority of the nuclear weapon capacity in this world; it is Russia and the United States. Working together, we can make this world safer. Working together, we can move forward with reductions in strategic arms around the world. Working together, we provide the leadership so we can move forward against proliferation of nuclear weapons. In fact, we have done that.

But the failure to ratify this treaty could have a major negative impact on the leadership of the United States in this area. The U.S. relationship with the Russian Federation is key in our efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions. In June, Russia voted for the latest U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran and later canceled the sale of an advanced arms defensive missile system.

The ratification of New START is essential in reinitiating verification inspections and, more importantly, for the United States and Russia to lead the way in reducing the world's nuclear arms stockpile. This is for leadership. We all talk about making sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. Ratifying the New START treaty will help us in making sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. It keeps the United States and Russia focused on strategic arms reduction and focused on nonproliferation.

The failure to ratify this treaty is a setback in our ability to effectively stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. New START, the first treaty with Russia in almost a decade, calls for both sides to reduce their deployed warheads modestly from 2,200 to 1,550. The new treaty would restore verification, inspections, and other exchanges of information about the American and Russian arsenals. New START could pay dividends not only by improving nuclear security but by paving the way to greater cooperation between the two powers in dealing with such hot spots as Iran and Afghanistan.

Let me just point out one other part, if I might; that is, previous arms treaties have been ratified with overwhelming bipartisan support. START I was passed 93 to 6 in 1994. The Moscow Treaty passed 95 to 0 in 2003. Legislators recognized then that arms control agreements between Russia and the United States are not just good for the security of our two nations but can lead the way to the world to reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons.

During last month's NATO Summit in Lisbon, the NATO Secretary General stated:

The New START treaty would also pave the way for arms

control and disarmament initiatives and other areas that are

vital to Euro-Atlantic security.

So I think this is a key moment in the history of the Senate. I know there are many important votes that we take in the Senate. There are many votes we take that have very significant consequences. The ratification of this treaty is just one of those moments. It keeps us on path and enhances our credibility to make the world safer, and does it in a way that enhances the security of the people of the United States of America.

This is a treaty that needs to be ratified and needs to be ratified now. I urge my colleagues to vote in the interests of national security, to move swiftly, and pass this treaty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to CDR Andre Coleman, a Department of Defense Fellow, who has been extremely helpful in my office, from the Department of the Navy, during the Senate's consideration in executive session of Treaty Document 111-5, the New START Treaty.

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the Tax Relief Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act, the tax package, the Senate amendment No. 4753. This is the tax bill we have been talking about for the last several weeks. The first thing I wish to point out is that this bill is the result of a compromise. Similar to any compromise, there are some provisions I strongly support, and there are provisions I would have preferred not to see in this legislation. We have to evaluate the positive aspects as well as those provisions that I would prefer not to be included. There are some very important provisions included in this legislation that I fought long and hard to make sure we accomplished before Congress adjourns this year.

First and foremost is a provision that would extend the current tax rates for middle-income families. If we don't do that by December 31, those tax rates will go up, and the withholding schedules would be changed.

The bill also extends unemployment insurance, a matter I have voted for and I have spoken on the floor about, the fairness and the importance to our economy of extending unemployment compensation benefits for those who are unemployed, giving the more recent unemployed the same benefits we gave the earlier unemployed during this downturn in the economy. Those benefits would be available through 2011. That is an extremely important provision, not just for the individual who depends upon it in order to pay the mortgage or to pay the bills, it is important because it speaks to the fairness of our society during a recession. This is an insurance program. It is

meant to provide benefits to those who have been in the workforce and have lost their jobs. It is very important for our economy, as far as our recovery is concerned.

The legislation also extends the refundable child tax credit. This is important to middle-income families in our communities. This is a provision that helps lower wage families in particular. It extends the American opportunity tax credit, to help middle-income families to afford college education for their children, up to $2,500 a year. That can make the difference between a person being able to go to a college or not or go to the school they want to go to, which is not only important for that family, it is also important for the country. Investing in education is our best investment in order for America to be competitive internationally.

The legislation also extends certain green energy tax credits. That means jobs. Investing in green energy will help the economy create and keep jobs in America. It will help us on an energy policy that will not only be friendly toward the environment but help us in regards to national security so we don't have to import oil from countries that disagree with our way of life.

The legislation also provides important tools for business to invest in job growth by allowing expensing. A company that makes an investment in order to create more jobs will be able to write off that investment during 2011 rather than having to wait and amortize it over a longer period. It is a major incentive to get businesses more actively involved in making the investments we need to create jobs. It is particularly important for small companies. I hear frequently from small businesses in my State of Maryland that tell me how difficult it is for that business owner to make the type of investments necessary to take advantage of job growth. Expensing helps them make that decision now, giving confidence to our economy, which is something we desperately need.

These provisions and others will help our economy. I need not remind my colleagues that we have a 9.8-percent unemployment rate. That is not acceptable to any one of us. It is the wrong time to allow tax rates to go up for middle-income families when we have that type of unemployment. The provisions I outlined will help job growth. Economists are in agreement. The passage of these provisions will save and create millions of jobs in America. That is what we need to do. We need to get our people to work. Then we can deal with the other tough issues, including deficit reduction and getting the budget in balance. It is difficult to do that until we get the economy back on track.

The first priority is to get Americans back to work. The provisions I outlined will help in that regard. It is clear to me from my constituents in Maryland that during these tough economic times, it is the wrong time to increase rates for middle-income families. I made it clear that I would do everything I could to make sure that wouldn't happen. The largest amount of the $858 billion this package provides in tax relief, the overwhelming amount will go to benefit middle-income families and create jobs. But there are other provisions that were included in this package that I don't believe are helpful for job growth. I don't believe they are worth the cost for the jobs they may create. I refer to two provisions I strongly object to and would have preferred not being in this package.

The extension of tax breaks for higher income wage earners will do very little to spur additional economic growth. Let me give an example. If you are making $1 million a year and get thousands of dollars of tax relief provided under this legislation, the odds that you will spend more and help stimulate the economy are very remote. It is another thing if you are unemployed and you get an unemployment check. That money will go right back into the economy and will help create jobs. For people who are well off, millionaires, the economic benefit of extending these tax rates is very marginal, minimal compared to the cost of extending the tax breaks for the wealthiest.

It is consistent with how I voted last Saturday. Last Saturday, I voted to extend the tax rates for those under $1 million. I thought that was the right way, a good compromise. Unfortunately, the bill we have before us extends the tax rates for all taxpayers.

The second provision I strongly object to being in this package is the estate tax relief. The estate tax relief would provide, for the next 2 years, families with $10 million of an estate or lower to be totally exempt from the Federal estate tax and would reduce the rate to 35 percent.

Those who benefit from that are the upper one-quarter of 1 percent of the families in this Nation. Quite frankly, I do not think, in these tough economic times, that is going to have much stimulative effect on job growth in America, and the revenues we lose could have been used in a better way, I believe, for deficit reduction, which would have been a stronger positive effect on our economy.

I thought we had a reasonable compromise on this issue. I thought we had a reasonable compromise to go back to the 2009 rates. In 2009, as you remember, we had gotten up to $3.5 million per person and $7 million per family and a 45-percent tax rate. I thought that was a good compromise, and I am disappointed we did not come back to that compromise. I think if we had done that, there would have been much stronger consensus not only in this body but in the House for this package.

So there is a good part of this package which I support. There is one other good provision in there I wish to point out in regard to the two last provisions and others I spelled out. It provides relief only for the next 2 years. In other words, it is temporary relief. It will expire in 2012. I think that is a good provision because that means we are going to need to deal with the budget deficit. As I said earlier, once our economy starts getting back on track, once we get the unemployment rate down to a reasonable level, then we have a much better chance of dealing with the budget deficit.

We have to start dealing with the budget deficit this year. I acknowledge that. But our real effort is going to be, when we have a growing economy, what will help us get our budget back into balance.

Let me remind my colleagues, just 11 years ago, the Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses that could have retired our Nation's marketable debt between 2007 and 2009. In other words, if we would have used that surplus wisely, we would not be looking at a $14 trillion national debt. But, instead, the Congress passed the so-called Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I voted against those tax cuts. I did not believe we could afford that type of revenue loss and, in fact, that has been the largest contributing factor to the deficit we have today: the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Remember, in those days, we had a growing economy. So there was no need to stimulate the economy. Today, we are in a different position. Allowing increased rates for middle-income families in these economic times would be the wrong thing to do. But I do think we have to get back to dealing with the deficit. We need to have a credible plan, a credible strategy, and that strategy should include shared sacrifices. We need to deal with spending. We have to get not only domestic but military spending under control and, yes, we need revenues. I would hope we would start with allowing the termination of the extension of the higher income tax brackets for the millionaires as we start to take a look at ways we can balance the budget as we move toward the next 3 or 4 or 5 years. When we get our 5-year budget, the first thing we should do is make it clear we are not going to extend the higher income tax rates.

There is one more very positive aspect to this package I wish to bring up. This is a major bill dealing with a serious problem in our Nation, and we have Democrats and Republicans working together. I can tell you that when I talk to my constituents in Maryland, they tell me this institution is too partisan. They like a lot of the things we have done, but they do not like the fact that we cannot get Democrats and Republicans to allow the system to work, with the give and take that should take place in this most deliberative body.

Well, we have done it on this issue. We may not like everything that is in it because when you do compromises,

there are going to be things in it you do not always agree with. But the system has worked. It includes a lot of what I like, a lot of what my Republican colleagues like, and together we have produced a bill that is going to help our economy.

I hope this will be a model of what is to come. I hope it is an indication that we will be able to work together across party lines to deal with the major challenges of our Nation. We need to put our national business first over partisan agenda.

So, on balance, I am going to support this package. I am going to support this package because I think it is critically necessary for our economy. I think it provides the type of help for middle-income families they need today. I think it represents the way our political system should operate, with the type of compromises that allow us to get to a conclusion dealing with major issues in our country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the most solemn obligations of Senators is try impeachments. The Constitution provides that the Senate shall have the ``sole power to try all impeachments,'' and that ``all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment'' for various offenses. Senators also take a special oath when hearing an impeachment case before the Senate holds an impeachment trial.

I recently heard evidence in the case of Judge Porteous, who would have lifetime tenure under the Constitution unless he resigns or is removed by the Senate. The House of Representatives impeached Judge Porteous on four different articles. After deliberation, I voted to convict Judge Porteous of three of the four articles, but voted against conviction on one of the articles. I rise to explain my not guilty vote on one of the articles.

Article I stated that Judge Porteous engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge. The Senate voted that Judge Porteous was guilty on this count by a unanimous vote of 96 to 0.

Article IV stated that Judge Porteous knowingly made material false statements about his past both to the U.S. Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in order to obtain the office of U.S. district court judge. The Senate voted to convict Judge Porteous on this count by a vote of 90 to 6.

I voted against article IV because, in my view, it was duplicative of article I.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I regularly review the questionnaire and nomination materials for Federal judicial nominees who are nominated for lifetime appointments. One question we ask nominees on our committee questionnaire--under oath--is whether there was ``any unfavorable information that may affect your nomination.'' Judicial nominees also fill out SF-86 personnel forms as part of the executive branch's review of a potential nomination. One question on the form asks--under oath--whether:

There [is] anything in your personal life that could be

used by someone to coerce or blackmail you? Is there anything

in your life that could cause an embarrassment to you or to

the President if publicly known? If so, please provide full

details . . .

The FBI also asks potential nominees whether they are concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce or compromise them in any way or that would impact negatively on their character, reputation, judgment or discretion. Judge Porteous answered no to all of these questions.

I am concerned about the vagueness and catchall nature of these questions and its responses being the basis of an Article of Impeachment. I could understand an Article of Impeachment based on a response that hides information that if discovered later would be the basis of impeachment and where a separate Article of Impeachment using these specific facts was not presented to the Senate by the House of Representatives. Also, I would have understood if the statements in article IV were included as part of article I. Such was not the case here.

For this reason, I voted not guilty on article IV.

Mr. President, the Internet has had a profound impact on the daily lives of millions of Americans by enhancing communications, commerce, education, and socialization between and among persons regardless of their location. However, computers and other devices that connect to the Internet may be used, exploited, and compromised by terrorists, criminals, spies, and other malicious actors. As a result, they pose a risk to computer networks, critical infrastructure, and key resources in the United States. Users of computers and other devices that connect to the Internet are generally unaware that these devices can be easily used, exploited and compromised by others with spam, viruses, and other malicious software and agents. Internet and cybersecurity safety has therefore become an urgent homeland security issue that needs to be addressed by internet service providers, technology companies, other entities that enable devices to connect to the Internet, and by individuals.

I have been focusing on cybersecurity issues for quite some time. More than a year ago, as chairman of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing titled ``Cybersecurity: Preventing Terrorist Attacks and Protecting Privacy in Cyberspace.'' The hearing included witnesses from key Federal agencies responsible for cybersecurity, as well as representatives of the private sector. We reviewed governmental and private sector efforts to prevent a terrorist cyber attack that could cripple large sectors of our government, economy, and essential services. It was both illuminating and frightening.

The expertise that I have developed in regard to cybersecurity has convinced me that the Government and the private sector need to work together to develop and enforce minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards for users of computers and

other devices that connect to the Internet. In the same way that automobiles cannot and should not be sold or operated on public highways unless they meet certain minimum safety standards, minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards are essential for the nation's information superhighway.

As a result, today I am introducing the Internet and Cybersecurity Safety Standards Act, ICSSA. My bill will require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce, to conduct an analysis to determine the costs and benefits of requiring internet service providers and others to develop and enforce minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards. The Secretary will be required to consider all relevant factors in this analysis, including the effect that the development and enforcement of minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards would have on homeland security, the global economy, innovation, individual liberty, and privacy. My bill will also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to consult with relevant stakeholders in the Government and, most importantly, the private sector, including the academic community and groups or institutions that have scientific and technical expertise related to standards for computer networks, critical infrastructure, or key resources. The private sector must be a partner in the efforts to secure the nation's information superhighway. Under my bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security will be required to report to Congress within one year with specific recommendations for minimum voluntary or mandatory Internet and cybersecurity standards for computers and other devices that connect to the Internet, so that we can prevent them from being used, exploited, and compromised by terrorists, criminals, spies, and other malicious actors.

In December of 2009, I praised the appointment of Howard Schmidt as the new White House Cybersecurity Coordinator to make sure that agencies are all working together on this critical challenge. In April of this year, I also stressed with Secretary Napolitano, at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing for the Department of Homeland Security, the need to continue to make cybersecurity a top priority. But we can and must do more. My bill will help secure our nation's digital future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Internet has had a profound impact on the daily lives of millions of Americans by enhancing communications, commerce, education, and socialization between and among persons regardless of their location. However, computers and other devices that connect to the Internet may be used, exploited, and compromised by terrorists, criminals, spies, and other malicious actors. As a result, they pose a risk to computer networks, critical infrastructure, and key resources in the United States. Users of computers and other devices that connect to the Internet are generally unaware that these devices can be easily used, exploited and compromised by others with spam, viruses, and other malicious software and agents. Internet and cybersecurity safety has therefore become an urgent homeland security issue that needs to be addressed by internet service providers, technology companies, other entities that enable devices to connect to the Internet, and by individuals.

I have been focusing on cybersecurity issues for quite some time. More than a year ago, as chairman of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing titled ``Cybersecurity: Preventing Terrorist Attacks and Protecting Privacy in Cyberspace.'' The hearing included witnesses from key Federal agencies responsible for cybersecurity, as well as representatives of the private sector. We reviewed governmental and private sector efforts to prevent a terrorist cyber attack that could cripple large sectors of our government, economy, and essential services. It was both illuminating and frightening.

The expertise that I have developed in regard to cybersecurity has convinced me that the Government and the private sector need to work together to develop and enforce minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards for users of computers and

other devices that connect to the Internet. In the same way that automobiles cannot and should not be sold or operated on public highways unless they meet certain minimum safety standards, minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards are essential for the nation's information superhighway.

As a result, today I am introducing the Internet and Cybersecurity Safety Standards Act, ICSSA. My bill will require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce, to conduct an analysis to determine the costs and benefits of requiring internet service providers and others to develop and enforce minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards. The Secretary will be required to consider all relevant factors in this analysis, including the effect that the development and enforcement of minimum Internet and cybersecurity safety standards would have on homeland security, the global economy, innovation, individual liberty, and privacy. My bill will also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to consult with relevant stakeholders in the Government and, most importantly, the private sector, including the academic community and groups or institutions that have scientific and technical expertise related to standards for computer networks, critical infrastructure, or key resources. The private sector must be a partner in the efforts to secure the nation's information superhighway. Under my bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security will be required to report to Congress within one year with specific recommendations for minimum voluntary or mandatory Internet and cybersecurity standards for computers and other devices that connect to the Internet, so that we can prevent them from being used, exploited, and compromised by terrorists, criminals, spies, and other malicious actors.

In December of 2009, I praised the appointment of Howard Schmidt as the new White House Cybersecurity Coordinator to make sure that agencies are all working together on this critical challenge. In April of this year, I also stressed with Secretary Napolitano, at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing for the Department of Homeland Security, the need to continue to make cybersecurity a top priority. But we can and must do more. My bill will help secure our nation's digital future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.