Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of S. 1103, the legislation before the Senate to extend the term of Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This is an important piece of legislation because without it, Director Mueller's term will end very soon, as he completes his 10 years in office.

That would leave the FBI, the Nation's leading law enforcement agency and the lead intelligence agency for domestic counterterrorism, without a Director as we approach the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

This would be unacceptable in my view. Unfortunately, unanimous consent to pass this legislation, S. 1103, is being held up. I urge my colleagues to approve this bill quickly.

Earlier this year, the President conducted a search for a replacement for Director Mueller. He determined that the best choice for the nation, at this critical time, was not to replace him, but rather to seek a legislative extension to Director Mueller's term.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing with Director Mueller on June 8, 2011, and has considered the text of this legislation, S. 1103. Under a proposed unanimous consent agreement circulated earlier this month, passage of this legislation would be followed by the President's formal nomination of Mr. Mueller for an additional 2 years, and the nomination will be placed directly on the Senate's Executive Calendar.

I do not know of any Senator who does not respect and support Director Mueller. Over the past 10 years that he has been in office, Robert Mueller has provided steady leadership and stability at the FBI. He has worked to transform the Bureau into an agency that can better detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States.

Under Mueller's direction, the FBI has played an essential role in more than 20 significant counterterrorism operations, while infiltrating and arresting groups of individuals charged with planning attacks against our country.

The FBI has also built its cyber investigation capability, focused on counterintelligence, investigated public corruption cases, and tracked and disrupted gang activity.

Despite the major setback of the September 11 attacks, the FBI is among our most respected government institutions, and it has changed dramatically to respond to the challenges of our time.

Let me talk about Director Mueller for a moment, who is, personally, a symbol of integrity and dedicated public service. I am very pleased to call him my friend, and thank him for his willingness to continue to serve for another 2 years.

I recognize that there were good reasons that Congress placed a term limit on the Director of the FBI. History has shown that the position, and the FBI, wield enormous powers and that the Bureau should not have a director for life.

The legislation before us recognizes that concern, and creates a one- time extension that would only apply to Director Mueller. Future FBI Directors would still be limited to a 10-year term.

Extending Director Mueller's term at the FBI for an additional 2 years will ensure the evolution of the FBI continues. It will provide important stability to the President's national security team during this sensitive and challenging time and while it is otherwise going through important leadership changes.

This summer Leon Panetta has succeeded Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, and GEN David Petraeus has been confirmed to be the next Director of the CIA, but because he is transitioning out of Afghanistan, General Petraeus won't arrive at Headquarters in Langley until after Labor Day.

We are seeing changes in major military commands, and changes in the Joint Chiefs of Staff are coming soon. Also, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I have the honor of chairing, is now considering the nomination of Matt Olsen to be the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC, because Mike Leiter stepped down as the head of NCTC on July 8.

So in the midst of this change, Director Mueller will be an experienced, steady hand among the President's national security advisers. The American people will be well-served having him in place.

I support the legislation and urge its adoption. Now is not the time to keep it from passing.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act, a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls throughout the day and night. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Durbin.

In recent years, we have seen an increase in the development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters. This is a good thing. Political speech is essential and should be protected. The vast majority of these developments strengthen the Democratic process by promoting an interchange of information and ideas.

One of these developments is the robocall--a prerecorded message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation. With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role in alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

But the process can be abused. Throughout recent elections, we have continued to hear stories about people being inundated with phone calls throughout the day and night. There is simply no good reason why Americans wanting a good night's sleep should be awakened at 4:30 in the morning by a robocall.

Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list, which millions of individuals have registered for. But political calls are specifically exempted from this list.

Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards. Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do.

It would ban political robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.

It would ban any campaign or group from making more than two robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.

It would prohibit the organizer of any robocall from blocking the ``caller identification'' number and require an announcement at the beginning of the call indentifying the individual or organization making the call, and the fact that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent robocalls from misleading the recipient of the call.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and directed toward stopping the worst of these calls. The bill would create a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive monetary damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Let me briefly describe a few incidents that showcase why the provisions in this bill are so important.

On Election Day in 2010, over 110,000 Maryland voters began receiving anonymous robocalls instructing them to ``relax'' and stay home because Governor Martin O'Malley had already won re-election. These calls came a full two hours before the polls would close.

Days before the 2010 Midterm elections, voters in Kansas received anonymous robocalls telling them to bring a voter registration card and proof of home ownership to the polls on Wednesday. Not only are these items not required to vote, but as we know, the election was on a Tuesday.

Similarly, in my home state of California, about two dozen Los Angeles residents complained of receiving Spanish language robocalls from an unidentifiable source instructing them to vote on Wednesday, November 3--the day after Election Day.

Shortly before last year's elections, individuals in St. Louis, Missouri, heard their phones ring and checked the caller ID to find a number belonging to a local hospital. Expecting the worst, they answered the call. The voice on the other end was not a hospital employee, but rather a prerecorded political message from an organization that had been able to manipulate caller ID devices to make it seem as if the calls were coming from emergency officials.

In October 2010, 50,000 Nevadans were awoken at 1 a.m. by a robocall regarding a ballot question in the state that would change the judicial selection process. The calls came in the middle of the night due to a programming error--they were supposed to be made at 1 p.m.

To be clear, incidences like these involving the malicious or untimely use of robocalls are not unique to the recent election.

In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push Organization,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the false, late-night call.

In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech, but the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes and spreading misleading and outright false information. Something must be done to rein in the robocalls which perpetrate these actions.

This bill presents a solution. It does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act, a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls throughout the day and night. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Durbin.

In recent years, we have seen an increase in the development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters. This is a good thing. Political speech is essential and should be protected. The vast majority of these developments strengthen the Democratic process by promoting an interchange of information and ideas.

One of these developments is the robocall--a prerecorded message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation. With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role in alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

But the process can be abused. Throughout recent elections, we have continued to hear stories about people being inundated with phone calls throughout the day and night. There is simply no good reason why Americans wanting a good night's sleep should be awakened at 4:30 in the morning by a robocall.

Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list, which millions of individuals have registered for. But political calls are specifically exempted from this list.

Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards. Let me tell you exactly what this bill would do.

It would ban political robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.

It would ban any campaign or group from making more than two robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.

It would prohibit the organizer of any robocall from blocking the ``caller identification'' number and require an announcement at the beginning of the call indentifying the individual or organization making the call, and the fact that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent robocalls from misleading the recipient of the call.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and directed toward stopping the worst of these calls. The bill would create a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive monetary damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Let me briefly describe a few incidents that showcase why the provisions in this bill are so important.

On Election Day in 2010, over 110,000 Maryland voters began receiving anonymous robocalls instructing them to ``relax'' and stay home because Governor Martin O'Malley had already won re-election. These calls came a full two hours before the polls would close.

Days before the 2010 Midterm elections, voters in Kansas received anonymous robocalls telling them to bring a voter registration card and proof of home ownership to the polls on Wednesday. Not only are these items not required to vote, but as we know, the election was on a Tuesday.

Similarly, in my home state of California, about two dozen Los Angeles residents complained of receiving Spanish language robocalls from an unidentifiable source instructing them to vote on Wednesday, November 3--the day after Election Day.

Shortly before last year's elections, individuals in St. Louis, Missouri, heard their phones ring and checked the caller ID to find a number belonging to a local hospital. Expecting the worst, they answered the call. The voice on the other end was not a hospital employee, but rather a prerecorded political message from an organization that had been able to manipulate caller ID devices to make it seem as if the calls were coming from emergency officials.

In October 2010, 50,000 Nevadans were awoken at 1 a.m. by a robocall regarding a ballot question in the state that would change the judicial selection process. The calls came in the middle of the night due to a programming error--they were supposed to be made at 1 p.m.

To be clear, incidences like these involving the malicious or untimely use of robocalls are not unique to the recent election.

In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push Organization,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, in part because of the false, late-night call.

In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech, but the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes and spreading misleading and outright false information. Something must be done to rein in the robocalls which perpetrate these actions.

This bill presents a solution. It does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would provide a much- needed tool for prosecutors to use to combat the exploitative actions of fraudulent lawyers and consultants who take advantage of individuals seeking immigration assistance.

The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud immigrants.

Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to knowingly and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative authorized to represent aliens in immigration proceedings; and to knowingly defraud or receive money or anything of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises.

Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.

The bill would also work to combat immigration fraud by increasing the awareness of notario fraud to immigrants.

The bill would require immigration courts to provide immigrants in removal proceedings with information about notario fraud.

The bill would require the Justice Department to compile and make available to the public a list of individuals and organizations that have been convicted of immigration fraud; and permit only people who have, within a 12-month period, represented immigrants pro bono appear on the Justice Department's list of pro bono legal services.

By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Mr. Ibarra, a Mexican national and father of four, who has resided in Los Angeles since 1988. Mr. Ibarra hired a so-called ``immigration specialist'' and paid him over $7,500. In his apartment, Mr. Ibarra keeps reams of documents that the immigration consultant claimed to have filed on his behalf but never did--as Mr. Ibarra subsequently learned from immigration authorities when he was placed into removal proceedings. I wish I could tell you that this kind of egregious behavior is uncommon, but sadly, that is not the case.

Last November, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a lawsuit against a former lawyer who ran an illicit immigration law practice. In the three decades in which the lawyer was licensed to practice law, he was reported on numerous occasions to the California bar for his unethical behavior that included collecting exorbitant fees; representing clients in a negligent manner; and misleading immigrants with assurances of favorable outcomes.

Eventually, the lawyer resigned from the legal profession and was prohibited from representing clients before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The terms of his resignation prevented him from practicing law or portraying himself as eligible to practice law. Instead of abiding by these terms, the lawyer proceeded to set up another law practice through which he defrauded over two hundred immigrants, depleting many of these victims of their entire life savings.

I am pleased that last month the Federal Government partnered with State prosecutors and immigration advocacy organizations to launch a nationwide campaign to combat these harmful schemes. The enactment of this bill would enhance the government's ability to achieve the goals of this national campaign by providing prosecutors with a tough new Federal criminal law that could be used to convict fraudulent-lawyers and consultants who prey on immigrants.

Mr. President, I urge support for the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would provide a much- needed tool for prosecutors to use to combat the exploitative actions of fraudulent lawyers and consultants who take advantage of individuals seeking immigration assistance.

The Immigration Fraud Prevention Act would punish fraud and misrepresentation in the context of immigration proceedings. The act would create a new Federal crime to penalize those who engage in schemes to defraud immigrants.

Specifically, the act would make it a Federal crime to knowingly and falsely represent that an individual is an attorney or accredited representative authorized to represent aliens in immigration proceedings; and to knowingly defraud or receive money or anything of value from any person by false or fraudulent pretences, representations, or promises.

Violations of these crimes would result in a fine, imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both.

The bill would also work to combat immigration fraud by increasing the awareness of notario fraud to immigrants.

The bill would require immigration courts to provide immigrants in removal proceedings with information about notario fraud.

The bill would require the Justice Department to compile and make available to the public a list of individuals and organizations that have been convicted of immigration fraud; and permit only people who have, within a 12-month period, represented immigrants pro bono appear on the Justice Department's list of pro bono legal services.

By enacting this bill, Congress would help prevent more victims like Mr. Ibarra, a Mexican national and father of four, who has resided in Los Angeles since 1988. Mr. Ibarra hired a so-called ``immigration specialist'' and paid him over $7,500. In his apartment, Mr. Ibarra keeps reams of documents that the immigration consultant claimed to have filed on his behalf but never did--as Mr. Ibarra subsequently learned from immigration authorities when he was placed into removal proceedings. I wish I could tell you that this kind of egregious behavior is uncommon, but sadly, that is not the case.

Last November, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a lawsuit against a former lawyer who ran an illicit immigration law practice. In the three decades in which the lawyer was licensed to practice law, he was reported on numerous occasions to the California bar for his unethical behavior that included collecting exorbitant fees; representing clients in a negligent manner; and misleading immigrants with assurances of favorable outcomes.

Eventually, the lawyer resigned from the legal profession and was prohibited from representing clients before the Board of Immigration Appeals. The terms of his resignation prevented him from practicing law or portraying himself as eligible to practice law. Instead of abiding by these terms, the lawyer proceeded to set up another law practice through which he defrauded over two hundred immigrants, depleting many of these victims of their entire life savings.

I am pleased that last month the Federal Government partnered with State prosecutors and immigration advocacy organizations to launch a nationwide campaign to combat these harmful schemes. The enactment of this bill would enhance the government's ability to achieve the goals of this national campaign by providing prosecutors with a tough new Federal criminal law that could be used to convict fraudulent-lawyers and consultants who prey on immigrants.

Mr. President, I urge support for the Immigration Fraud Prevention Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center and a good friend of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This is Mike's last week and I want to thank him for his service and wish him the very best in the next steps in his career.

Director Leiter has been at the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, for most of its existence. He was the principal deputy director from February 2007 to November of that year when he became the acting director. President Bush nominated him to be the Director on March 31, 2008, and he was confirmed by the Senate on June 10, 2008.

Mike has served in both the Bush and Obama administrations which speaks to his bipartisan and professional approach to the Nation's security, and the support that he has earned from the Congress and within the executive branch.

His leadership at the NCTC has brought stability and continuity to our Nation's counterterrorism efforts, and he should take pride in the fact that under his tenure, there have been no successful attacks against the United States homeland by foreign terrorists. In this threat environment, that is an impressive accomplishment indeed.

As is often the nature of the intelligence business, much of the successes of the National Counterterrorism Center go unrecognized. Terrorists plotting and carrying out attacks are captured through good intelligence and law enforcement work, and through strong cooperation with allies and partners around the world. Often, terrorist plots fail to proceed because of the barriers to recruit, travel, raise funds, get training, or gain access to destructive materials that have been erected through the efforts of the United States and other nations.

Even in counterterrorism victories that become known, such as the cases of Najibullah Zazi in the United States or the identification of Usama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, the National Counterterrorism Center's important--sometimes absolutely critical role--is often not well known.

So I am pleased today to be able to recognize Mike Leiter for his work in keeping our Nation safe for the past 4\1/2\ years.

As a member, and now as chair of the Intelligence Committee, I have come to rely on Mike's analysis and judgment. He has been willing to admit that at times our counterterrorism policies or practices haven't been what they should be.

He has appeared regularly before the committee and has been very accessible for the committee's staff as well. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings we hold, I have received secure calls from Mike often, apprising me on new threats and the status of investigations. He is, without fail, available to provide updates and assessments, and I appreciate the importance he has placed on keeping the committee, and me personally, fully informed.

Director Leiter has also worked tirelessly to achieve the goals set out for the National Counterterrorism Center in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The NCTC was established to bring together information and officers from across the intelligence community and from other parts of the government involved in the spectrum of counterterrorism, including counter-radicalization, detection, and prevention of attacks.

Even after the experiences of 9/11 and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, it was a difficult and enormously frustrating challenge to truly integrate the Nation's counterterrorism efforts. It speaks to Director Leiter's energy and dedication that he was, eventually, able to bring together analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and military services to share the threat streams that each one collected and assessed.

The result has been the ability to better connect the intelligence information that points to suspicious activity, to develop the case when a terrorist or a terror plot is identified, and to take coordinated action to disrupt that plot.

The NCTC now produces, on a daily basis, its own counterterrorism analysis that provides Intelligence Community-wide assessments and warning. Analysts at the NCTC are among the finest we have, and Director Leiter has fostered a productive environment through analytical roundtables and weekly forums in which analysts share information, provide briefings, and develop improved analytic tradecraft.

In fact, I recently learned that as the CIA was developing its assessment that Usama bin Laden was in the Abbottabad compound, it turned to NCTC analysts to ``red-team'' the intelligence case and give their assessments. And Director Leiter was involved in the briefings and discussions with the President that led to the decision to carry out the operation.

Director Leiter has demonstrated leadership in hard times, as well. After the failed terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner on December 25, 2009, investigations uncovered significant failures and shortcomings in our counterterrorism efforts. The Senate Intelligence Committee's review found 14 specific ``points of failure'' across the government that enabled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to come so close to carrying out a major attack.

While several of our conclusions and recommendations fell to other agencies, Director Leiter moved quickly to implement the changes that we and others suggested. Since early 2010, the NCTC has vastly improved its methods for screening counterterrorism data and watchlisting individuals who pose a threat to our Nation.

In response to the finding that no agency in the government was ensuring that all terrorist leads were pursued, Mike implemented ``Pursuit Groups'' at NCTC, teams of highly skilled analysts who sift through massive amounts of data to identify disparate pieces of intelligence and find linkages that identify terrorists, their plans, and their networks before they reach the point of plot execution.

In addition to his service at the National Counterterrorism Center, Mr. Leiter helped establish the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as its deputy chief of staff, having previously served as the deputy general counsel and assistant director of the very well- regarded WMD Commission led by Senator Chuck Robb and Judge Laurence Silberman.

From 2002 to 2005, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the most active jurisdictions for national security cases. He clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer and for Chief Judge Michael Boudin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Most people do not know that Mike was also a naval aviator, flying EA-6B Prowlers with action in operations in the former Yugoslavia and in Iraq.

In short, he has served the Nation in a wide variety of capacities over the past 20 years

I thank Mike for his exemplary service in keeping this Nation safe and for his very positive relationship with the Intelligence Committee as we have carried out our oversight duties.

I expect that this will not be Mike's last service to the Nation, and I wish him all the best.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2011. This bill would close a loophole in current law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. We must close this gap in our laws before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities.

Under current Federal law, people who are convicted in the United Sates of violent felonies like rape, murder and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. But, shockingly, Federal law does not bar criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns. This outrageous loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States.

In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony ``in any court'' cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded that the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact that the Gun Control Act had been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect.

At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could have serious consequences. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' But whatever one may think of the Court's ruling, it is now the law of the land.

We must make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the bill I am introducing today would do just that.

Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18 would be amended to state that ``[t]he term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act. Where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law,'' the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of offenses under foreign law.

In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun in the U.S., then they

will be disqualified from gun possession under U.S. law. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid.

Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' under the Gun Control Act, if either: the foreign conviction resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States.

I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. In any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a dangerous policy which essentially treats every foreign conviction as invalid.

Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States.

With each passing day, we run a risk that foreign felons are exploiting this loophole in our law. This is unacceptable.

Criminals convicted in foreign courts should not be able to have guns when U.S. law forbids those convicted of the same crimes on U.S. soil from possessing guns. We should not wait for lives to be lost before we act to close this loophole.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the No Firearms for Foreign Felons Act of 2011. This bill would close a loophole in current law, by ensuring that people convicted of foreign felonies and crimes involving domestic violence cannot possess firearms. We must close this gap in our laws before it is exploited by terrorists, drug gangs, and other dangerous criminals who threaten our communities.

Under current Federal law, people who are convicted in the United Sates of violent felonies like rape, murder and terrorism are prohibited from possessing firearms. But, shockingly, Federal law does not bar criminals convicted of these same violent crimes in foreign courts from possessing guns. This outrageous loophole for foreign convicts is the result of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Small v. United States.

In that case, the Court analyzed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which states that anyone who has been convicted of a felony ``in any court'' cannot possess firearms. The Court concluded that the phrase only applied to American courts, despite the fact that the Gun Control Act had been applied to foreign felonies since 1968, the year it took effect.

At the time, the Supreme Court was very much aware that its ruling could have serious consequences. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, ``the majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States.'' But whatever one may think of the Court's ruling, it is now the law of the land.

We must make every effort to close this dangerous loophole and the bill I am introducing today would do just that.

Under this bill, section 921 of Title 18 would be amended to state that ``[t]he term `any court' includes any Federal, State, or foreign court.'' Similar changes would be made in other sections of the Gun Control Act. Where there are references to ``state offenses'' or ``offenses under state law,'' the bill would expand these terms to include convictions of offenses under foreign law.

In other words, the bill would make it clear that if someone was convicted in a foreign court of an offense that would have disqualified him from possessing a gun in the U.S., then they

will be disqualified from gun possession under U.S. law. The only exception will be if there is reason to think the conviction entered by the foreign jurisdiction is somehow invalid.

Under the bill, a foreign conviction will not constitute a ``conviction'' under the Gun Control Act, if either: the foreign conviction resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States, or the conduct on which the foreign conviction was based would be legal if committed in the United States.

I expect that these circumstances will be fairly rare, but the bill does take them into account and will provide a complete defense to anyone with an invalid foreign conviction. In any event, it is clear that we should not keep in place a dangerous policy which essentially treats every foreign conviction as invalid.

Particularly in these times, America cannot continue to give foreign- convicted murderers, rapists and even terrorists the right to buy firearms in the United States.

With each passing day, we run a risk that foreign felons are exploiting this loophole in our law. This is unacceptable.

Criminals convicted in foreign courts should not be able to have guns when U.S. law forbids those convicted of the same crimes on U.S. soil from possessing guns. We should not wait for lives to be lost before we act to close this loophole.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Lisa O. Monaco to be the Assistant Attorney General for National Security that is before the Senate.

The Assistant Attorney General for National Security is a fairly new position but a very important one, especially in a time of rapidly evolving threats to our nation and increasingly challenging legal questions about how to prepare for and combat those threats.

As the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Ms. Monaco would represent the government in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, proceedings and sign off on applications to allow the government to move quickly to track down terrorists and spies operating against the United States. She will be the principal official in the Department of Justice for engaging with the intelligence community as agencies determine the authorities and limitations under the law.

Ms. Monaco's confirmation is long overdue. She was approved unanimously by both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees last month after the May 1 strike against Osama bin Laden.

Importantly for the Assistant Attorney General for National Security position, that operation netted a large cache of al-Qaida documents, communications, and videos that will, no doubt, lead to new counterterrorism leads.

On May 8 National Security Adviser Tom Donilon was on ``Meet the Press,'' and he said, ``This is the largest cache of intelligence derived from the scene of any single terrorist. It's about the size, the CIA tells us, of a small college library.''

In the past 2 months, intelligence and law enforcement professionals have been scouring that information for new threats, leads, and insights into al-Qaida and global terrorism. As the intelligence gained is turned into counterterrorism actions, Lisa Monaco will oversee those activities.

The bottom line is that at this time of heightened potential threat of terrorism, the Attorney General, the intelligence community, and the entire administration need to have their team in place.

Ms. Monaco was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 9 and by the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 24, in both cases by unanimous vote. Both committees held nomination hearings for Ms. Monaco and for both committees, she completed prehearing and post-hearing questions. I know Ms. Monaco also had a chance to meet with members of both committees and it is clear she is impressive and well-qualified.

There is no doubt that Ms. Monaco has the experience to be an effective Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Let me describe her background in more detail.

Since February 2010, Lisa Monaco has served as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General or acted in that capacity, and she served as Associate Deputy Attorney General from January 2009 through February 2010.

She also has considerable experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, having served as chief of staff to Director Robert Mueller, September 2007-January 2009.

Ms. Monaco spent 6 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia when she received the Attorney General's Award for Exceptional Service, the Department of Justice's highest award. She also received Department of Justice Awards for Special Achievement on three occasions, in 2002, 2003, and 2005.

She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School, 1997, and her B.A. from Harvard University, 1990.

Ms. Monaco's nomination has received support from a range of former senior officials of the FBI and Department of Justice, including former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein.

So we see that Ms. Monaco's background and qualifications are impeccable. I strongly urge the Senate to approve her nomination to be the Assistant Attorney General and wish her success in this position.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011.

This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.

The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees.

The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.

The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.

The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards.

In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.

In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill.

These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy.

Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.

A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance.

However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.

That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation.

I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.

I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas.

But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated.

To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it.

Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.

But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government.

The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones.

FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees.

Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government.

The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.

Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change.

At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications.

I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly.

There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue.

On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments.

But a little fine tuning is in order.

Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves.

Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.

The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.

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 Flood Protection Fairness Act of 2011.

This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.

The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on Federal tax dollars to build their levees.

The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.

The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.

The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back yards.

In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.

In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood insurance bill.

These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid to build their levee. That is not sound policy.

Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.

A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of insurance.

However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.

That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless of your economic situation.

I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.

I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new construction in hazardous areas.

But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the NFIP are antiquated.

To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, and until recently, were unaware of it.

Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program.

But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were built by the Federal Government.

The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for reduced rate flood insurance zones.

FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by federally funded levees.

Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not being paid for by the Federal Government.

The original idea behind this requirement was that information on non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they really were.

That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.

Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are seeking this change.

At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense modifications.

I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope to see these changes enacted quickly.

There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her effective advocacy on this issue.

On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not trivial accomplishments.

But a little fine tuning is in order.

Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should not be penalized for paying for it themselves.

Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.

The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with Senator Kerry, the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011. We are joined by Senators Reid, Leahy, and Durbin.

This bill would take important steps to improve veterans' access to voter registration services. Our veterans have served our Nation at great risk and sacrifice. I believe we should do everything in our power to ensure that they play a central role in our democratic process, that their votes are cast and their voices heard.

Almost 4 years ago, during the previous administration, I learned that a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in California had been barring voter registration groups from accessing veterans in the facility. Similar reports emerged in Connecticut and other parts of the country.

Since that time, Senator Kerry and I have been working, together with our cosponsors, to make sure that our Government works to provide veterans with voter registration services, not to prevent them from receiving election-related materials.

We have written letters and our staffs have held meetings with the VA to establish a fair, nonpartisan policy to facilitate voter registration for veterans who receive services from VA facilities.

We have made significant progress.

After much negotiation, in 2008, the VA established a new and substantially improved policy that allows state and local election officials, as well as nonpartisan groups, to access VA facilities for voter registration under terms and conditions set by the facility. This is an improvement, and we have not heard serious complaints in recent years.

However, legislation remains necessary. First, this voluntary policy could be rescinded or rolled back in the future; Federal law cannot. Second, more should be done to ensure not only that outside groups can register voters in a nonpartisan manner in VA facilities but also that veterans who live in and use these facilities have easy access to voter registration and absentee ballot forms, even when no group or official comes by.

The Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011 would require the VA to provide voter registration forms to veterans when they enroll in the VA health care system, or change their status or address in that system.

The bill would also ensure that veterans who live in VA facilities have access to absentee ballots when they want to cast votes, and that VA employees assist veterans with election-related forms if necessary, in the same way that these employees assist veterans with other forms.

It would allow nonpartisan voter groups and election officials to provide voter information and registration services to veterans in a time, place, and manner that makes sense for the facilities.

It would give the Attorney General authority to enforce these provisions.

It is a cornerstone of our democracy that every eligible citizen is able to register and cast their vote. These rights should never be denied, by fiat or as a matter of practicality, to those who have given the very most for our country.

I believe it is time that the VA provides veterans with the support they need and deserve to register, cast their votes, and have those votes counted.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with Senator Kerry, the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011. We are joined by Senators Reid, Leahy, and Durbin.

This bill would take important steps to improve veterans' access to voter registration services. Our veterans have served our Nation at great risk and sacrifice. I believe we should do everything in our power to ensure that they play a central role in our democratic process, that their votes are cast and their voices heard.

Almost 4 years ago, during the previous administration, I learned that a Department of Veterans Affairs facility in California had been barring voter registration groups from accessing veterans in the facility. Similar reports emerged in Connecticut and other parts of the country.

Since that time, Senator Kerry and I have been working, together with our cosponsors, to make sure that our Government works to provide veterans with voter registration services, not to prevent them from receiving election-related materials.

We have written letters and our staffs have held meetings with the VA to establish a fair, nonpartisan policy to facilitate voter registration for veterans who receive services from VA facilities.

We have made significant progress.

After much negotiation, in 2008, the VA established a new and substantially improved policy that allows state and local election officials, as well as nonpartisan groups, to access VA facilities for voter registration under terms and conditions set by the facility. This is an improvement, and we have not heard serious complaints in recent years.

However, legislation remains necessary. First, this voluntary policy could be rescinded or rolled back in the future; Federal law cannot. Second, more should be done to ensure not only that outside groups can register voters in a nonpartisan manner in VA facilities but also that veterans who live in and use these facilities have easy access to voter registration and absentee ballot forms, even when no group or official comes by.

The Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011 would require the VA to provide voter registration forms to veterans when they enroll in the VA health care system, or change their status or address in that system.

The bill would also ensure that veterans who live in VA facilities have access to absentee ballots when they want to cast votes, and that VA employees assist veterans with election-related forms if necessary, in the same way that these employees assist veterans with other forms.

It would allow nonpartisan voter groups and election officials to provide voter information and registration services to veterans in a time, place, and manner that makes sense for the facilities.

It would give the Attorney General authority to enforce these provisions.

It is a cornerstone of our democracy that every eligible citizen is able to register and cast their vote. These rights should never be denied, by fiat or as a matter of practicality, to those who have given the very most for our country.

I believe it is time that the VA provides veterans with the support they need and deserve to register, cast their votes, and have those votes counted.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2011.

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

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Leon Panetta to be the 23rd Secretary of Defense.

Mr. Panetta, who currently serves as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was nominated by President Obama on April 28. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on his nomination on June 9, and I was honored to introduce him at that hearing. His nomination was approved unanimously by the committee on June 14.

I would like to speak briefly about Director Panetta's career, and in particular his time at the Central Intelligence Agency.

In his 47 years of public service, Director Panetta has held the positions of Congressman, chairman of the House Budget Committee, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, chief of staff to the White House, codirector, with his wife, of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, which I have had the pleasure of speaking before, member of the Iraq Study Group, and Director of the CIA.

His career and service started in 1964 as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, and now 47 years later he has come full circle to be nominated to lead the Department of Defense and U.S. Armed Forces.

In the course of 2 years as Director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta has mastered the intelligence field, led the CIA through a very tumultuous time, restored badly damaged relationships with Congress and with the Director of National Intelligence, and carried out President Obama's personal instruction to him to find Osama bin Laden.

It has been my pleasure to serve as the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during this time and to be able to work closely with Mr. Panetta.

I have no doubt that his past experience and his capabilities prepare Leon Panetta to meet the major challenges before the Department of Defense.

With knowledge of CIA operations and analysis, he will come to the Pentagon with a thorough understanding of the situation in Afghanistan as well as the aggravating factors of our relationship with Pakistan. Through CIA analysis and operations, he is also well aware of the other contingencies around the globe where the U.S. military may be called to deploy.

Director Panetta is also well positioned to guide the Department through the constrained budget environment. The budget cuts to the Pentagon have already begun, for the first time in 10 years, with the appropriations bills now moving through the Congress.

The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I serve, held a hearing last week with Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. Both of them expressed concerns that budget cuts not lead to a ``hollow force'' or deprive the Department and the Nation of needed capabilities.

I am confident that Leon Panetta possesses the credentials and experience to make cuts where needed and where prudent, but that he will do so in a way that keeps the military strong and capable, and in a way that maintains the cohesion of the Department and its services.

Beyond Director Panetta's experience is his leadership style, his character, and a deft personal touch. As we all know, personal relationships and the way one approaches things matter a great deal, whether within Cabinet meetings or negotiating with foreign counterparts. Mr. Panetta's approach is effective, and it provides for a very good working relationship with the Congress.

Positions like the Director of the CIA or the Secretary of Defense require a strong character and a strong moral compass, qualities that this nominee possesses.

Let me give you an example. Early in his tenure at the CIA in 2009, Director Panetta was briefed on a number of active and recent intelligence programs. One of them, which I can't describe here, was particularly sensitive and provoked questions and concern. Director Panetta asked the CIA staff if the congressional intelligence committees had been briefed on this program. He was told they had not.

Mr. Panetta immediately requested an urgent meeting with the Intelligence Committee to brief us. He said he found it unacceptable that this program had been withheld from Congress, and terminated it in large part on that basis.

In the 2 years since, he has never declined to answer a question or provide us with his candid views. He has been completely forthright, and motivated only by what is best for the CIA, and more importantly, this nation.

The Department of Defense is the largest Department in the Federal Government. As Secretary Gates recently noted, the health care budget of the Department of Defense is bigger than the entire budget of the CIA. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for thousands of young men and women serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and deployed around the world, and bears the burden of every death and casualty we suffer.

I agree with Secretary Gates that no other position can fully prepare someone to be Secretary of Defense. But I believe that Leon Panetta, who has served honorably and successfully in Congress, at the Office of Management and Budget, at the White House, and now the CIA, is uniquely qualified to be

another outstanding Secretary of Defense in this very challenging time.

I urge his confirmation.