Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Robert Casey and Senator Ron Wyden.

This bill will support the Obama Administration's recently released Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial tools to help combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we must keep up with them rather than allowing our laws to lag behind.

This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold to reasonable cause to believe.

The Department of Justice has informed my office that with increasing frequency, it sees drug traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru who produce cocaine in their countries but leave transit of cocaine to the United States in the hands of Mexican drug trafficking organizations such as the Zetas. Under current law, our ability to prosecute source- nation traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United States.

Second, this bill ensures that current penalties apply to precursor chemical producers from other countries. This includes those producing pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine who illegally ship precursor chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be used to make illegal drugs.

Third, this bill will expand conspiracy liability when controlled substances are destined to the United States from a foreign country. This means that members of any conspiracy to distribute controlled substances will be subject to U.S. jurisdiction when at least one member of the conspiracy intends or knows that illegal drugs will be unlawfully imported into the United States.

As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and as a public servant who has focused on law enforcement issues for many years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new ways to circumvent our laws. We must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011 with my colleagues and friends, Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Robert Casey and Senator Ron Wyden.

This bill will support the Obama Administration's recently released Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime by providing the Department of Justice with crucial tools to help combat the international drug trade. As drug traffickers find new and innovative ways to avoid prosecution, we must keep up with them rather than allowing our laws to lag behind.

This legislation has three main components. First, it puts in place penalties for extraterritorial drug trafficking activity when individuals have reasonable cause to believe that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States. Current law says that drug traffickers must know that illegal drugs will be trafficked into the United States and this legislation would lower the knowledge threshold to reasonable cause to believe.

The Department of Justice has informed my office that with increasing frequency, it sees drug traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru who produce cocaine in their countries but leave transit of cocaine to the United States in the hands of Mexican drug trafficking organizations such as the Zetas. Under current law, our ability to prosecute source- nation traffickers from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru is limited since there is often no direct evidence of their knowledge that illegal drugs were intended for the United States.

Second, this bill ensures that current penalties apply to precursor chemical producers from other countries. This includes those producing pseudoephedrine used for methamphetamine who illegally ship precursor chemicals into the United States knowing that these chemicals will be used to make illegal drugs.

Third, this bill will expand conspiracy liability when controlled substances are destined to the United States from a foreign country. This means that members of any conspiracy to distribute controlled substances will be subject to U.S. jurisdiction when at least one member of the conspiracy intends or knows that illegal drugs will be unlawfully imported into the United States.

As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and as a public servant who has focused on law enforcement issues for many years, I know that we cannot sit idly by as drug traffickers find new ways to circumvent our laws. We must provide the Department of Justice with all of the tools it needs to prosecute drug kingpins both here at home and abroad.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution designating October 2011 as National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month with my colleagues and friends, Senators Charles Grassley, Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Manchin and Rob Portman.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, prescription drug abuse is our Nation's fastest-growing drug problem. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that the non-medical use of prescription drugs rose from 2.5 percent of the population in 2008 to 2.8 percent in 2009. The 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health illustrates that the abuse of prescription medications such as pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives is second only to marijuana, the number one illegal drug of abuse in the United States.

Sadly the number of people who have unintentionally overdosed on prescription drugs is rising rapidly. The misconception that taking prescription drugs, even if not prescribed by a doctor is safer than using street drugs is becoming more and more widespread, as seen in the number of visits by individuals to hospital emergency rooms involving the misuse or abuse of pharmaceutical drugs which has doubled over the past five years.

Throughout National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month, we encourage communities to promote the message that over-the-counter and prescription medicines are to be taken only as labeled or prescribed and to encourage safe disposal of unused medications. Educating the public on the dangerous consequences of taking prescription drugs to get high or in large doses is critical.

We applaud the efforts of the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and local and State law enforcement agencies across the country to collect potentially dangerous, expired, unused or unwanted medications during their nationwide prescription drug ``take back'' campaign. We invite our colleagues to join us in continuing the efforts of the DEA and partnering organizations to combat the misuse of psychotherapeutic medications by designating October 2011 as National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month. This is an opportunity for Americans to reaffirm our national, State and local level commitment to living healthy, drug-free lifestyles.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the joint resolution to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.

I am proud to be joined in this effort once again by Senator McConnell, a true champion for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Burma.

The House passed this resolution unanimously on July 20 and I urge the Senate to begin action on it now by supporting the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

These sanctions expired on July 26 and we should extend them as soon as possible.

We must send a message to the people of Burma that we continue to stand with them in their struggle for a truly representative government.

I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for over 10 years.

In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, re- arrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition.

President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive order and the ban remains on the books today.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed 1 year at a time.

It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time since then. A renewal of that ban is now before us today.

Since we last debated the import ban on the Senate floor, we have received one piece of good news.

On November 13, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the democratic opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, was released from house arrest.

Her latest detention lasted more than 7, and in total she has spent the better part of the last 20 years in prison or under house arrest.

Her release was wonderful news for those of us who are inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy for the people of Burma.

Yet our joy was tempered by the fact that her release came just days after a

fraudulent and illegitimate election for a new parliament that was based on a sham constitution.

The regime's intent was clear: keep the voice of the true leader of Burma silent long enough to solidify their grip on power using the false veneer of a democratic process.

Neither I, the people of Burma, nor the international community were fooled.

We all know that the last truly free parliamentary elections were overwhelmingly won by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy in 1990, but annulled by the military junta, then named the State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC.

In 1992, this military government announced plans to draft a new constitution to pave the way for a return to civilian rule.

Yet the human rights abuses and the suppression of Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition continued and no constitution emerged.

In 1997, the junta changed its name to the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, in a vain attempt to put a more positive spin on its oppressive rule and lack of democratic legitimacy in the eyes of its people and the international community.

Again, nothing changed.

The new constitution was drafted in secret and without the input of the democratic opposition led by Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy.

It was approved in an illegitimate referendum held just days after Cyclone Nargis devastated the country in May 2008 setting up elections which eventually took place in November 2010.

It set aside 25 percent of the seats in the new 440 seat House of Representatives for the military.

That is in addition to the seats won in the November, 2010 elections by the Union Solidarity and Development Party, which was founded by the military junta's Prime Minister Thein Sein and 22 of his fellow cabinet members who resigned from the army to form a so-called ``civilian'' political party.

The constitution barred Suu Kyi from running in the parliamentary elections.

And it forced the National League for Democracy to shut its doors because it would not kick Suu Kyi out of the party.

It should come as no surprise that the military-backed party won nearly 80 percent of the seats in the new parliament.

In addition to preventing Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy from competing in the elections, the regime ensured that no international monitors would oversee the elections and journalists would be prohibited from covering the election from inside Burma.

President Obama correctly stated that the elections ``were neither free nor fair, and failed to meet any of the internationally accepted standards associated with legitimate elections.''

The National League for Democracy described the elections and the formation of a new government as reducing ``democratization in Burma to a parody.''

Indeed, the new parliament elected Thein Sein, the last Prime Minister of the junta's State Peace and Development Council, as Burma's new president.

He is reported to be heavily influenced by Burma's senior military leader and former head of state, General Than Shwe.

The names change--the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the State Peace and Development Council, the Union Solidarity and Development Party--but the faces, the lack of democracy, the human rights abuses and the lawlessness remain the same.

So while we celebrate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, we recognize that Burma is not free and the regime has failed to take the necessary steps to lift the import ban.

As called for in the original Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, we must stand by the people of Burma and keep the pressure on the military regime to: end violations of internationally recognized human rights; release all political prisoners; allow freedom of speech and press; allow freedom of association; permit the peaceful exercise of religion; and bring to a conclusion an agreement between the military regime and the National League for Democracy and Burma's ethnic minorities on the restoration of a democratic government.

By every measure, the regime has failed to make progress in any of these areas.

We cannot reward the regime for 2,100 political prisoners, the use of child soldiers or the persecution of ethnic minorities. We can't reward the use of rape as an instrument of war or the continued use of torture. And we can't reward the use of forced labor or the wholesale displacement of civilians.

Until the regime changes its behavior and embraces positive, democratic change, we have no choice but to press on with the import ban as a part of a strong sanctions program.

This must include tough banking sanctions.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again urge the administration to put additional pressure on the ruling military junta by exercising the authority for additional banking sanctions on its leaders and followers as mandated by section 5 of the Block Burmese Junta's Anti-Democratic Efforts Act.

Some of my colleagues may be concerned about the effectiveness of the import ban and other sanctions on Burma and the impact on the people of Burma.

I understand their concerns. I am disappointed that we have not seen more progress towards freedom and democracy in Burma.

But let us listen to the voice of the democratic opposition in Burma on the efficacy of sanctions:

A paper released by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy in February 2011 argues that sanctions are not targeted at the general population and are not to blame for the economic ills of the country.

Rather, the economy suffers due to mismanagement, cronyism, corruption and the lack of the rule of law.

The best way for the Burmese government to get the sanctions lifted, the paper argues, is to make progress on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It concludes:

Now more than ever there is an urgent need to call for an

all inclusive political process. The participation of a broad

spectrum of political forces is essential to the achievement

of national reconciliation in Burma. Progress in the

democratization process, firmly grounded in national

reconciliation, and the release of political prisoners should

be central to any consideration of changes in sanctions

policies.

I agree.

So, let us once again do our part and stand in solidarity with Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and vote yes on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator Coburn's amendment to prevent the diversion of patent and trademark fees to other purposes.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I believe this amendment is critical for this bill to have the innovation-encouraging, job-creating effects that its proponents say it will.

Prior to 1990, taxpayers supported the operations of the Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO. In 1990, this was changed through a 69 percent user fee ``surcharge,'' so that the PTO became funded entirely through fees paid by its users, the American inventors who seek to protect the genius of their inventions from those who would copy these innovations for their own profit.

In short order, Congress began using the funds that inventors paid to protect their inventions for other purposes. In 1992, $8.1 million in user fees were diverted. In 1993, $12.3 million was diverted. In 1994, $14.7 million. And so it continued, escalating every year, until what started as a trickle became a flood in 1998, with $200.3 million in PTO user fees diverted. All told, since 1992, an estimated $886 million in fees that were paid for the efficient and effective operation of the Patent and Trademark Office have been diverted to other uses, according to the Intellectual Property Owners Association.

Meanwhile, at the same time that these fees were being taken away, the length of time that it takes to get a patent out of the Patent Office has steadily increased. In fiscal year 1991, average patent pendency was 18.2 months. By fiscal year 1999, it had increased to 25 months. By fiscal year 2010, average patent pendency had increased all the way to 35.3 months.

These are not just numbers. This is innovation being stifled from being brought to market. The longer it takes to get a patent approved, the longer a new invention, a potential technological breakthrough, sits on the shelf gathering dust instead of spurring job growth and scientific and economic progress.

Ultimately, this hurts the competitiveness of the American economy. America has a stunning record of leading the world in innovation, which has provided us a competitive edge over the decades and even centuries. By stifling the progress of our innovation within the PTO, we are dulling that competitive edge.

Obviously, there is a direct relationship between fee diversion and patent pendency. The more fees that are diverted away from the PTO, the fewer patent examiners they can hire, the more patents each examiner has to process, and the longer it takes them to get to any individual patent--a longer patent pendency.

The manager of this bill, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has argued that ``the bill will speed the time it takes for applications on true inventions to issue as high quality patents, which can then be commercialized and used to create jobs. . . . The America Invents Act will ensure that the PTO has the resources it needs to work through its backlog of applications more quickly. The bill accomplishes this objective by authorizing the PTO to set its fees . . .''

But what this bill gave with the one hand, in authorizing the PTO to set its fees, the House of Representatives took away with the other hand, by striking the strong antifee diversion language that the Senate included in its patent bill earlier this year. Setting higher fee levels to reduce patent pendency does no good if those fees are simply diverted away from the PTO, and not used to hire additional patent examiners. Indeed, requiring the payment of higher patent fees which are then used for general government purposes really amounts to a tax on innovation--which is the last thing we should be burdening in today's technology-driven economy.

The chairman argues that the bill ``creates a PTO reserve fund for any fees collected above the appropriated amounts in a given year--so that only the PTO will have access to these fees.'' However, with all due respect, the language that the House put into the bill is not really different from previous bill language that proved ineffective to prevent diversion.

The 1990 law that authorized the patent user surcharge provided that the surcharges ``shall be credited to a separate account established in the Treasury . . .; '' and ``shall be available only

to the Patent and Trademark Office, to the extent provided in appropriation Acts. . . .''

However, notwithstanding this language, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2008 that $230 million had been diverted from the surcharge account.

Similarly, the House changed the bill before us today to ``establish[] in the Treasury a Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund . . .; '' and ``to the extent and in the amounts provided in appropriations Acts, amounts in the Fund shall be made available until expended only for obligation and expenditure by the Office . . .''

The key language is the same--``to the extent provided in appropriation Acts.'' Calling it a ``fund'' rather than an ``account'' should not lead anyone to expect a different result.

Indeed, the Senate bill that we passed earlier this year explicitly struck the existing statutory language, ``To the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts . . .'' And the House specifically restored that language, omitting only the words ``in advance.'' The Coburn amendment would restore the changes we made earlier this year, eliminating that language again.

The Coburn amendment, like the Senate bill, contains other key language, providing that amounts in the fund it establishes ``shall be available for use by the Director without fiscal year limitation.'' The bill before us today provides no such protection against diversion.

In short, this bill will permit the continued diversion of patent fees, to the detriment of American inventors and innovation.

But don't just take my word for this. The Intellectual Property Owners Association, which includes more than 200 companies, just yesterday said:

The greatest disappointment with the House-passed patent

reform bill H.R. 1249 . . . is its failure to stop USPTO fee

diversion. The House-passed patent reform bill creates

another USPTO account, a ``reserve fund,'' but nothing in the

proposed statutory language guarantees the USPTO access to

the funds in this new account. The language of H.R. 1249

defers to future appropriations bills to instruct the USPTO

on how to access fees in the new USPTO account. Therefore,

despite some claims to the contrary, the creation of this new

account, alone, will not stop diversion.

The Innovation Alliance, a major coalition of innovative companies, and CONNECT, an organization dedicated to supporting San Diego technology and life science businesses, among others, also believe that the House language is insufficient to prevent fee diversion.

Without this protection from fee diversion, this bill could well make our patent system worse, not better. Many of the changes made by this bill will impose additional burdens on the PTO. For example, the CBO found that the new post-grant review procedure would cost $140 million to implement over a 10-year period; the new supplemental review procedure would cost $758 million to implement over that period; and the changes to the inter partes reexamination procedure would cost $251 million to implement.

All told, these changes would impose additional duties on the PTO costing over $1 billion to implement over a 10-year period. If the PTO is not permitted to keep the fees it needs to meet these obligations, patents will take even longer to be issued, and the promised improvements in patent quality may prove to be ephemeral. We won't encourage innovation; we won't create new jobs.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, to support the strong antidiversion language that we passed this Spring, and to end fee diversion once and for all.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to GEN James E. Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who will retire tomorrow after 40 years of distinguished service to his country.

General Cartwright is one of America's most respected four-star generals. His leadership and dedication to the security of this country will be sorely missed and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

On a personal note, I will miss the detailed briefings, insightful discussions, and honest assessments that I have come to expect from General Cartwright.

Simply put, he has had a notable record of achievement throughout his career.

As head of the U.S. Strategic Command, STRATCOM, General Cartwright led the effort to develop new strategies to tackle cyber, nuclear proliferation, space, and missile defense issues.

He transformed Strategic Command from an organization largely dominated by its mission with respect to nuclear weapons and nuclear doctrine to being the true center in the U.S. military for all strategic issues.

Of special note was General Cartwright's interest and action on cybersecurity and the use of cyberspace. He saw this as a major emerging threat and responsibility of the Department, and put STRATCOM on a footing to deal with cyber as a major strategic issue.

He distinguished himself as one of those special leaders who is able to foresee and understand the constantly evolving national security environment rather than getting stuck in the old ways of seeing the world and doing things.

Based on his notable record of service, on June 28, 2007, President Bush nominated General Cartwright to succeed ADM Edmund Giambastiani as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Cartwright was confirmed by the full Senate on August 3, 2007 and was sworn in on August 31 as the eighth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Recognizing his exceptional leadership, General Cartwright was confirmed for a second term on July 31, 2009.

He has, not surprisingly, used his capacity as the second most senior military officer in the Pentagon to make the Armed Forces a more strategic and more nimble military.

As the Vice Chairman, General Cartwright has helped guide the United States through many pivotal moments in our history: notably, the end of the military mission in Iraq, the implementation of a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, and securing ratification of the New START agreement with Russia which will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 30 percent.

I spoke with General Cartwright many times over the course of the treaty negotiations, and during the Senate's debate that ultimately led to ratification and signing New START.

He never failed to provide me with his frank and honest assessment and I greatly appreciated his clear and persuasive support for the treaty.

He recognized, as I do, that if we are to convince other nations to forgo acquiring nuclear weapons, it is imperative for the two nations that possess more than 90 percent of these weapons to take meaningful steps to reduce our stockpiles.

General Cartwright knows that lowering the number of nuclear weapons in the world and stopping their spread will enhance our national security, not diminish it. And we will still maintain a robust arsenal for our defense.

As he stated:

I think we have more than enough capacity and capability

for any threat that we see today or that might emerge in the

foreseeable future.

General Cartwright's commitment to providing his honest and blunt assessments go beyond nuclear forces and extend to all security threats facing our nation, and the best way to prepare and respond to them, even when it was not popular to do so.

In his recent book, ``Obama's Wars,'' Bob Woodward describes General Cartwright as committed to providing the President his candid advice. Woodward quotes General Cartwright as saying ``I'm just not in the business of withholding options. I have an oath, and when asked for advice I'm going to provide it.''

He certainly has come a long way.

General Cartwright grew up in Rockford, IL, and joined the Marine Corps in 1971.

After numerous operational assignments as both a naval flight officer and naval aviator, the pinnacle of his Marine Corps operational aviation career came as the Commanding General of First Marine Aircraft Wing in Okinawa, Japan, from 2000 to 2002.

After a tour with the Joint Staff, in 2004, General Cartwright became the first Marine Corps general to lead the United States Strategic Command, STRATCOM.

As always, the security and defense of our Nation has been his top priority. That, along with his commitment to the active, guard, and reserve members of the Armed Forces and their families, is probably his greatest attribute and lasting impact.

I wish General Cartwright all the best as he retires from 40 years of service to his country and, on behalf of the people of California and all Americans, I offer him my most sincere and heartfelt thanks and gratitude.

Mr. President, the Senate Intelligence Committee just approved the nomination of Mr. Matthew Olsen to be the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, known as NCTC, by a unanimous voice vote.

The distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee spoke on the floor earlier in support of this nomination. I would like to add to his comments and offer my support so that the Senate can take up this nomination quickly and hopefully confirm Mr. Olsen before the Senate goes on its August recess.

I have tried to move quickly on this nomination because the period leading up to the tenth anniversary of 9/11 is a period of heightened threat, and one in which all parts of the national security agencies of the government need to be operating at full capacity.

Mr. Olsen is currently the general counsel of the National Security Agency and has held a number of senior positions in the Department of Justice, including at the National Security Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Let me take just a moment to discuss the current terrorist threat and the role of the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, which Mr. Olsen will be leading, if confirmed.

The NCTC is the central agency within the U.S. government dealing with the identification, prevention, disruption, and analysis of terrorist threats. While it is best known for its role in consolidating and analyzing terrorism-related intelligence, the NCTC also plays an important role in conducting strategic planning for counterterrorism actions across the U.S. Government.

As I mentioned before, I believe that the period leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is a period of heightened threat. Despite counterterrorism pressure against al-Qaida in Pakistan-- including the successful strike against Usama bin Laden in Abbottabad-- the group remains dangerous and vengeful.

At the same time, the threat from al-Qaida's affiliates and adherents around the world has increased and presents particular challenges. I am especially concerned about the threat to the U.S. homeland from al- Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, as well as threats emanating from terrorist safehavens in Somalia and elsewhere.

This means, to me, that this is a crucial time for our counterterrorism establishment to be at full strength. And the NCTC is a linchpin of that establishment.

So I am pleased that the President moved quickly to nominate Mr. Olsen--an individual serving in a senior intelligence community position today--to take the helm of the National Counterterrorism Center.

As I mentioned previously, Mr. Olsen is currently the general counsel of the National Security Agency. In that capacity, he has the challenging job of ensuring that the NSA's highly technical and highly capable signals intelligence system is operating fully within the law, and using all legal authorities available to it.

Before his current position at the NSA, Mr. Olsen served in the Department of Justice in several capacities for 18 years, including 12 years as a Federal prosecutor.

Among Mr. Olsen's positions at the Department of Justice, which has been the subject of some recent attention, was that of executive director of the Guantanamo Review Task Force created by Executive Order 13492. The role of the task force was to conduct a detailed review of all of the information available on each of the roughly 240 detainees being held at Guantanamo as of January 2009.

It was Mr. Olsen's job to lead the large, interagency effort of more than 100 national security professionals to compile and analyze all intelligence relevant to the detainees, the feasibility of prosecuting them, the ability of a potential country receiving a detainee to mitigate the threat the detainee posed, and whether some detainees should be held in long-term Law of War detention.

I will say this to my colleagues. Being the director of a large task force making recommendations on Guantanamo detainees is about as thankless, as difficult, and as controversial a position that I can imagine. Every decision would be reviewed and criticized. But the new Attorney General asked Mr. Olsen to take on this job, and he agreed to do it. That is what we admire about career professionals in government service. And we should respect and reward that dedication and willingness to take on the difficult and unpopular jobs.

I note as well that Mr. Olsen has been recommended by his current and past colleagues in the current and the past administration. The Intelligence Committee received letters of recommendation from General Alexander, former Attorney General Mukasey, former DNI McConnell, all three former assistant attorneys general for National Security, former NCTC Director Mike Leiter, and many others. They have all spoken to his capability and to his character.

I believe that Mr. Olsen is well qualified for the position, that he will be forthcoming with Congress, and that he will do a good job in leading the NCTC.

Prior to serving on the Guantanamo Review Task Force, Mr. Olsen had been the Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice as well as the deputy assistant attorney general with responsibility for intelligence matters.

He led the Department's effort to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a process that eventually led to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. In that position he worked closely with both sides of the aisle, and was an invaluable resource as we found a compromise to update important surveillance authorities and strengthen civil liberty protections.

Mr. Olsen was also previously a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, chief of the office's National Security Section, and a special counsel to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The Intelligence Committee has thoroughly reviewed Mr. Olsen's background, he has answered all of our questions, and we held a hearing on July 26 on his nomination. In sum, our due diligence is complete.

Now it is up to the Senate to confirm Mr. Olsen so that we do not leave the NCTC without a permanent director as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

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

Mr. President, I have served in this body for 19 years, and I will say I have never been more dismayed, more concerned, or more frustrated than I have been these past few days. Every day it gets a little bit worse because day by day our country grows closer to defaulting on our sovereign debt. That is something which has never, ever happened in the history of this country.

The repercussions of this protracted and public debate on whether our government will honor its financial obligations are already evident. This is what

we know for sure: The stock market has seen several days of decline as investors sell off securities. The United States is at high risk of a credit downgrade. Gold prices are climbing as people try to protect themselves from a rating downgrade and a drop in the value of the dollar. In short, default may well have catastrophic economic consequences domestically and internationally.

What is the message we are communicating to the world? Secretary Clinton told me in an evening conversation I had with her--she had just returned from visiting five countries. She said everybody was asking her: What is wrong in your country? What are you going to do?

This is now a worldwide crisis and one we must address. What we are seeing here is, in a sense, a broken government that can't take care of the affairs of its people in a prudent and practical way.

It is absolutely amazing to me that 20 to 70 Members of the House of Representatives believe they can run the government of the United States despite the fact that the Presidency and the majority in the U.S. Senate are controlled by another party. Essentially, they appear willing to allow this great Nation to default rather than compromise and reach a practical solution.

What are the consequences of default for American families? For sure, default would raise interest rates, driving up costs for everyone. For sure, the cost of owning a home, buying a car, buying food, filling a gas tank, and sending children to college will become even more expensive. It will squeeze already tight family budgets and damage this fragile economy. Many people predict a second dip recession. In essence, default causes an immediate tax increase in the form of these rising interest rates on families.

The talk of default is disrupting financial markets and will trigger a sharp fall in the stock market, causing huge losses in retirement accounts and wiping out the gains of 2 years. This morning, I saw a TV story about a man who was selling his mutual funds because he has no confidence in our ability to resolve this crisis--not a good thing to do.

Higher interest rates will also drive up costs for both the Federal and State governments because every 1 percent increase in interest payments for the Federal Government means an additional $100 billion cost to the government. A default will be devastating for State governments that would see their borrowing costs dramatically increase because their ability to borrow is tied to the interest rates paid by the Federal Government.

The cost of borrowing for States, for municipalities, and for local water districts will all rise. Let me give you an example. My own State of California recently took out a $5.4 billion loan from five major investment banks ahead of a possible default to ensure itself against rising interest rates. Here is the sixth largest economy on Earth worried that their interest rates are going to jump, so they take out a $5 billion loan from investment banks to be able to meet any increased interest on obligations owed.

For the broader economy, default would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every year, according to the Federal Reserve. Chairman Bernanke said:

The economy may be thrown into reverse and employers would

start cutting jobs if Congress fails to raise the Nation's

legal borrowing authority.

I have heard some say that on August 3, the Treasury will still have enough money to meet our obligations and avoid default. That is simply false. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. Government has $306.7 billion in payments due in August and will take in an estimated $172.4 billion in revenue for the month. That is a $134 billion shortfall for the month of August, so the Treasury will not be able to pay its bills. In other words, 44 percent of U.S. Government bills will go unpaid if the Federal Government fails to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline.

Treasury would be forced to spend all income inflows covering just six major items: interest, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and defense vendors. That would mean entire Federal Departments would have no funds, including Justice, Labor, and Commerce. It would mean no funds for veterans' benefits, Active-Duty military pay, IRS refunds, special education, Pell grants, and more. There is simply no way to escape it.

Let me give you an example. On the next day, which is August 3, the Treasury will take in $12 billion in revenues, but it will still owe $32 billion in revenues. Let me tell you what that includes. It includes $23 billion in Social Security payments. I understand 45 million checks are ready to go out during those days. It is $2.2 billion for Medicare, $1.8 billion for education, and $1.4 billion for defense.

If the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2 or if we only reach an agreement for a short-term extension, the already-spooked credit rating agencies could react unfavorably. And here is the problem: Do you want to go back to this same situation in 6 months and go through this all over again? It makes no sense. If the marketplace wants stability and constancy, they are clearly not going to get it knowing this is going to be coming up in 6 months again.

Moody's has said it is possible our credit rating would go down with a short-term increase and warned that an agreement should get us through the year 2012. All right, don't pay attention to it, but that warning is out there. It is going to take getting through the year 2012, according to at least one of the rating houses.

Fitch has said a deficit deal must be credible and sustainable or U.S. ratings could still be downgraded. Does anybody believe it is credible and sustainable to do this for 6 months and be right back where we are today? I don't think so.

Standard & Poor's has said it may lower the country's long-term credit rating if it concludes that future adjustments to the debt ceiling are likely to be the subject of political maneuvering--not my words, their words. Do you want to go through this in 6 months again with the same results and creating all of the uncertainty for the 6 months between now and then? I don't think so.

In other words, these rating agencies have very real questions about the willingness and ability of this Congress and the administration to timely honor scheduled debt obligations.

Now, I have to say this--and I have been here for 19 years--I have never seen a time when Republicans just do not want to come to an agreement with this President. The President, I think by any standard, has bent over backward, and still Republicans walk away from the negotiating table. Well, let me tell you, I have done a lot of negotiations in my time with big labor strikes and work stoppages----

I would ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

How about 3 minutes?

Mr. President, there were 2 months of negotiations with the Vice President, and Majority Leader Cantor walked out. There were negotiations with the President and Speaker Boehner, and the Speaker walked out. House Republicans do not like Simpson-Bowles, nor do they like the Gang of 6 plan. These are the two big plans which offer a solution for the future. Instead, they want massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and discretionary spending and absolutely nothing from those Americans who are doing very well in this economy--actually, the top 1 percent.

Well, I represent 37 million people. California is bigger than 21 States and the District of Columbia put together. Fifteen million to twenty million people in my State depend on programs the Republicans want to take a meat axe to--not a scalpel, but a meat axe--SSI, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. We have gotten these numbers. We have looked at them for overlapping, and I can truthfully say the

number is 15 million to 20 million. Well, look, I want to know how a cut is going to affect these programs.

We could do this if we agree to take 6 months, draft in bill language from the Gang of 6, mandate the hearings, and fast track a bill to the floor of the Senate. Every Member of this body knows it is bill language that spells out what we need to look out for. I need to look out for what happens to the Medicare provider tax because so many hospitals in my State depend on it. If it lasts until 2014, it is OK, but I don't know.

I very strongly believe there is a solution and that reasonable people can work it out, and I hope the leadership of this body will talk with the leadership of the other body.

I thank the Chair, I thank Senator Corker for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act to help some of the world's poorest countries sustain vital export industries and promote economic growth and political stability.

This legislation will provide duty free and quota free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

They are among the poorest countries in the world.

Nepal has per capita income of $240. Unemployment in Bangladesh stands at 40 percent. Approximately 36 percent of Cambodia's population lives below the poverty line.

Each country faces critical challenges in the years ahead including poor health care, insufficient educational opportunities, high HIV/AIDS rates, and the effects of war and civil strife.

The United States must take a leadership role in providing much needed assistance to the people of these countries.

Yet humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts to put these countries on the road to economic prosperity and political stability.

Indeed, the key for sustained growth and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to a neighbor in need and helping him to stand on his own two feet.

Success in this endeavor will ultimately allow these countries to become less dependent on foreign aid and allow the United States to provide assistance to countries in greater need.

But make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

Our efforts to promote economic growth, jobs, and political stability will fail if these countries are strangled by human rights abuses, corruption, and the absence of the rule of law.

Instead of lifting the citizens of these countries out of poverty and giving hope for a better future, we will ignore our values and sustain the status quo.

So, this legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

I firmly believe that these benefits will make a difference.

The garment industry is a key part of the manufacturing sector in some of these countries.

In Nepal, the garment industry is entirely export oriented and accounts for 40 percent of foreign exchange earnings. It employs over 100,000 workers, half of them women, and sustains the livelihood of over 350,000 people.

The United States is the largest market for Nepalese garments and accounts for 80-90 percent of Nepal's total exports every year.

In Cambodia, approximately 250,000 Cambodians work in the garment industry supporting approximately one million dependents. The garment industry accounts for more than 90 percent of Cambodia's export earnings.

In Bangladesh, the garment industry accounts for 75 percent of export earnings. The industry employs 1.8 million

people, 90 percent of whom are women, and sustains the livelihoods of 10 to 15 million people.

Despite the poverty seen in these countries and the importance of the garment industry and the U.S. market, they face some of the highest U.S. tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent.

In contrast, countries like Japan and our European partners face tariffs that are nearly zero.

Surely we can do better.

By targeting the garment industry, we can make a real difference now in promoting economic growth and higher standards of living.

This legislation will help these countries compete in the U.S. market and lift their and let their citizens know that Americans are committed to helping them realize a better future for themselves and their families.

Doing so is consistent with U.S. goals to combat poverty, instability, and terrorism in a critical part of the world. We should not forget that the vast majority of the people from these beneficiary countries are Muslim.

The impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

At a time when we are trying to rebuild the image of the U.S. around the world, we need legislation such as this to show the best of America and American values. It will provide a vital component to our development strategy and add another tool to the war on terror. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act to help some of the world's poorest countries sustain vital export industries and promote economic growth and political stability.

This legislation will provide duty free and quota free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

They are among the poorest countries in the world.

Nepal has per capita income of $240. Unemployment in Bangladesh stands at 40 percent. Approximately 36 percent of Cambodia's population lives below the poverty line.

Each country faces critical challenges in the years ahead including poor health care, insufficient educational opportunities, high HIV/AIDS rates, and the effects of war and civil strife.

The United States must take a leadership role in providing much needed assistance to the people of these countries.

Yet humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts to put these countries on the road to economic prosperity and political stability.

Indeed, the key for sustained growth and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to a neighbor in need and helping him to stand on his own two feet.

Success in this endeavor will ultimately allow these countries to become less dependent on foreign aid and allow the United States to provide assistance to countries in greater need.

But make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

Our efforts to promote economic growth, jobs, and political stability will fail if these countries are strangled by human rights abuses, corruption, and the absence of the rule of law.

Instead of lifting the citizens of these countries out of poverty and giving hope for a better future, we will ignore our values and sustain the status quo.

So, this legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

I firmly believe that these benefits will make a difference.

The garment industry is a key part of the manufacturing sector in some of these countries.

In Nepal, the garment industry is entirely export oriented and accounts for 40 percent of foreign exchange earnings. It employs over 100,000 workers, half of them women, and sustains the livelihood of over 350,000 people.

The United States is the largest market for Nepalese garments and accounts for 80-90 percent of Nepal's total exports every year.

In Cambodia, approximately 250,000 Cambodians work in the garment industry supporting approximately one million dependents. The garment industry accounts for more than 90 percent of Cambodia's export earnings.

In Bangladesh, the garment industry accounts for 75 percent of export earnings. The industry employs 1.8 million

people, 90 percent of whom are women, and sustains the livelihoods of 10 to 15 million people.

Despite the poverty seen in these countries and the importance of the garment industry and the U.S. market, they face some of the highest U.S. tariffs in the world, averaging over 15 percent.

In contrast, countries like Japan and our European partners face tariffs that are nearly zero.

Surely we can do better.

By targeting the garment industry, we can make a real difference now in promoting economic growth and higher standards of living.

This legislation will help these countries compete in the U.S. market and lift their and let their citizens know that Americans are committed to helping them realize a better future for themselves and their families.

Doing so is consistent with U.S. goals to combat poverty, instability, and terrorism in a critical part of the world. We should not forget that the vast majority of the people from these beneficiary countries are Muslim.

The impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

At a time when we are trying to rebuild the image of the U.S. around the world, we need legislation such as this to show the best of America and American values. It will provide a vital component to our development strategy and add another tool to the war on terror. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two fellows in Senator Rockefeller's office, Dale Orth and Janice Phillips, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 123.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today the Data Breach Notification Act of 2011.

This bill would require that consumers be notified when their sensitive personally identifiable information has been exposed in a data breach and also that law enforcement receive notice of major breaches of data security.

In 2003, California was the pioneer in requiring data breach notification. Forty-six States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands now have similar laws.

Consumers in all states deserve to benefit from these protections; businesses should not be subject to 46 different and at times conflicting laws; and Federal law enforcement critically needs to receive information about major breaches occurring across the country.

I have introduced data breach notification legislation in several prior Congresses. During the last Congress, that legislation, called the Data Breach Notification Act, S. 139, passed through the Judiciary Committee and was reported to the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the bill stalled there and went no further.

President Obama included similar data breach notification provisions in his broad cybersecurity proposal, released just last month.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to the bill I have introduced in the past. This legislation is long overdue and should finally be enacted now, during this Congress.

I have 3 points to make about this bill.

First, this bill will protect consumers, who need to know when their sensitive data has been exposed so they can take measures to protect themselves.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, between 8 and 10 million American consumers are victims of identity theft each year.

In April of 2007, a Zogby survey found that an astonishing 91 percent of adult users of the Internet said they were

concerned that their identities might be stolen.

They have good reason to be concerned.

According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, over 500 million records containing sensitive personally identifiable information have been exposed in data breaches since 2005.

Earlier this year, a giant security breach at Epsilon, an online marketing firm, exposed the personal information of millions of American consumers, along with information about stores where they had been customers. The breach raised serious concerns that data thieves would use this personal information to subject consumers to targeted, fraudulent e-mails, used to try to trick people into turning over even more personal information.

Last year, data thieves acquired identity data on roughly 3.3 million student loan borrowers from the Educational Credit Management Corp.--a number that accounts for almost five percent of all Federal student loan recipients. The data included names, addresses, social security numbers, and other personal data, creating the opportunity for identity theft.

In 2009, Federal officials indicted three men on charges of stealing data linked to more than 130 million credit cards by hacking into five major companies' computer systems. The companies were Heartland Payment Systems, 7-Eleven, the Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain, and two other companies not named in the indictment.

The problem is getting worse, not better. Recently, one major breach hit Citibank, exposing information of more than 360,000 bankcard customers. Another massive data breach exposed information about more than 100 million Sony customers.

Nor is the problem limited to businesses. In my home state of California, the state Department of Public Health was hit by its second major data breach in this year alone, affecting thousands of current and former state employees.

It is long past time for Congress to pass a national breach notification standard to ensure that when consumers' information is at risk, they know it and can take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

Second point: what works for consumers here also is a winning proposition for the business community.

Under some estimates, the business community loses as much as 48 billion dollars each year in fraudulent transactions involving stolen identities.

Additionally, under the current legal framework, businesses must comply with 46 different State laws to determine what kind of notice is necessary when a breach occurs. As long as it is not watered down, one Federal standard makes much more sense than 46 different State laws. It would ensure consumers are notified about dangerous breaches and can protect themselves, while also giving companies one clear law to follow.

Third and finally, this bill will help Federal law enforcement officials as they work to protect our cyber security.

Jeffrey Troy, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division, urged businesses in 2009 to support Federal breach notification legislation. As he explained, Federal officials need to receive information about data breaches in order to link those attacks to others and potentially stop similar attacks at other organizations. ``Connecting the dots'' is critical to this effort.

We live in a new world today, where attacks come not only through traditional means but also through cyberspace with hackers breaking into our electrical grid or viruses like the Conficker worm making their way through private computers across the country. It is essential that we give the FBI and other law enforcement agencies the tools they need to identify and eliminate potential cyber-threats.

The Federal Trade Commission, former President George W. Bush's Identity Theft Task Force, and the Business Software Alliance have all called for federal data breach notification legislation. The Data Breach Notification Act also has been supported by the Consumers Union and the Information Technology Association of America.

This bill will protect consumers, cut costs for businesses, and give law enforcement officials additional resources they need.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today the Data Breach Notification Act of 2011.

This bill would require that consumers be notified when their sensitive personally identifiable information has been exposed in a data breach and also that law enforcement receive notice of major breaches of data security.

In 2003, California was the pioneer in requiring data breach notification. Forty-six States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands now have similar laws.

Consumers in all states deserve to benefit from these protections; businesses should not be subject to 46 different and at times conflicting laws; and Federal law enforcement critically needs to receive information about major breaches occurring across the country.

I have introduced data breach notification legislation in several prior Congresses. During the last Congress, that legislation, called the Data Breach Notification Act, S. 139, passed through the Judiciary Committee and was reported to the Senate floor. Unfortunately, the bill stalled there and went no further.

President Obama included similar data breach notification provisions in his broad cybersecurity proposal, released just last month.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to the bill I have introduced in the past. This legislation is long overdue and should finally be enacted now, during this Congress.

I have 3 points to make about this bill.

First, this bill will protect consumers, who need to know when their sensitive data has been exposed so they can take measures to protect themselves.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, between 8 and 10 million American consumers are victims of identity theft each year.

In April of 2007, a Zogby survey found that an astonishing 91 percent of adult users of the Internet said they were

concerned that their identities might be stolen.

They have good reason to be concerned.

According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, over 500 million records containing sensitive personally identifiable information have been exposed in data breaches since 2005.

Earlier this year, a giant security breach at Epsilon, an online marketing firm, exposed the personal information of millions of American consumers, along with information about stores where they had been customers. The breach raised serious concerns that data thieves would use this personal information to subject consumers to targeted, fraudulent e-mails, used to try to trick people into turning over even more personal information.

Last year, data thieves acquired identity data on roughly 3.3 million student loan borrowers from the Educational Credit Management Corp.--a number that accounts for almost five percent of all Federal student loan recipients. The data included names, addresses, social security numbers, and other personal data, creating the opportunity for identity theft.

In 2009, Federal officials indicted three men on charges of stealing data linked to more than 130 million credit cards by hacking into five major companies' computer systems. The companies were Heartland Payment Systems, 7-Eleven, the Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain, and two other companies not named in the indictment.

The problem is getting worse, not better. Recently, one major breach hit Citibank, exposing information of more than 360,000 bankcard customers. Another massive data breach exposed information about more than 100 million Sony customers.

Nor is the problem limited to businesses. In my home state of California, the state Department of Public Health was hit by its second major data breach in this year alone, affecting thousands of current and former state employees.

It is long past time for Congress to pass a national breach notification standard to ensure that when consumers' information is at risk, they know it and can take the necessary steps to protect themselves.

Second point: what works for consumers here also is a winning proposition for the business community.

Under some estimates, the business community loses as much as 48 billion dollars each year in fraudulent transactions involving stolen identities.

Additionally, under the current legal framework, businesses must comply with 46 different State laws to determine what kind of notice is necessary when a breach occurs. As long as it is not watered down, one Federal standard makes much more sense than 46 different State laws. It would ensure consumers are notified about dangerous breaches and can protect themselves, while also giving companies one clear law to follow.

Third and finally, this bill will help Federal law enforcement officials as they work to protect our cyber security.

Jeffrey Troy, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division, urged businesses in 2009 to support Federal breach notification legislation. As he explained, Federal officials need to receive information about data breaches in order to link those attacks to others and potentially stop similar attacks at other organizations. ``Connecting the dots'' is critical to this effort.

We live in a new world today, where attacks come not only through traditional means but also through cyberspace with hackers breaking into our electrical grid or viruses like the Conficker worm making their way through private computers across the country. It is essential that we give the FBI and other law enforcement agencies the tools they need to identify and eliminate potential cyber-threats.

The Federal Trade Commission, former President George W. Bush's Identity Theft Task Force, and the Business Software Alliance have all called for federal data breach notification legislation. The Data Breach Notification Act also has been supported by the Consumers Union and the Information Technology Association of America.

This bill will protect consumers, cut costs for businesses, and give law enforcement officials additional resources they need.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 17 years.

The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990's in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several years later learned that she had contracted HIV.

Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 13, and Emmanuel, age 8.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.

Mr. Tape is employed as a security guard and unfortunately, in 2002, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life-long surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease.

In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care Specialist at a nursing home in San Pablo, California. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with former President Laurent Gbagbo. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to the Ivory Coast.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army.

This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they may face persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to the family. I have received approximately 30 letters from the church community in support of this family.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

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