Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will vote for this resolution which reaffirms current U.S. policy towards Iran.

In doing so, I want to emphasize that it is my understanding that this Resolution, which is non-binding, is in no way intended by its sponsors to endorse, authorize, or otherwise encourage the use of military force against Iran.

Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Gates, and other top Pentagon officials have strongly advised against the use of pre-emptive military force. They said it would, at best, only temporarily halt Iran's nuclear program, it would drive their program further underground, and it could ignite a wider war in the Middle East that could spin out of control.

I am as concerned as anyone about Iran. But while this Resolution reaffirms that concern, that is the extent of what it does. The policy of the Administration, and of our allies is to support sanctions, to use diplomacy, to resort to military force only if all other options fail. This Resolution does not change that.

Mr. President, Senate Republicans' partisan obstructionism has reached a new low. There are 17 district court nominees pending before the Senate, and 12 of them would fill judicial emergency vacancies on our Federal trial courts. In an unprecedented breaking from our tradition, Senate Republicans have decided that they will recess for the election and deny almost all of these consensus nominees confirmation. Worse, they have decided to extend the delays that Americans face in our overburdened Federal courts by denying new judges to those courts. We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. By denying confirmation votes to 15 of these 17 nominations, Senate Republicans are denying justice to the American people. By refusing to vote on these 15 nominations, Senate Republicans have declared that they are unconcerned about the millions of Americans who will continue to lack adequate access to our Federal courts and speedy justice.

Mr. President, today the majority leader was required to take the extraordinary step of asking for unanimous consent to secure Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court nominations. Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Deference was traditionally afforded to home State Senators and district court nominees supported by home State Senators were almost always confirmed unanimously.

However, Senate Republicans have raised the level of partisanship so that these Federal trial court nominees have now become wrapped around the axle of partisanship. Despite a vacancy crisis that threatens the ability of Federal courts to provide justice for the American people, Senate Republicans now refuse to allow a vote on any of the 17 pending district court nominees, including 12 that have been declared judicial emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans' across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees that began with their filibuster of his very first nominee continues. For the first time I can recall, even district court nominees with support from Republican home State Senators face

months of delay if not outright opposition from the Senate Republican leadership and Senate Republicans.

The long delays and backlog we are seeing on the Federal trial courts and Senate Republicans' refusal to vote on so many consensus judicial nominees before we recess for the upcoming Presidential election are entirely without precedent. The Thurmond rule has never been applied to stop votes on consensus district court nominees. In September 2008 we reported and confirmed 10 of President Bush's district court nominees and left none on the Senate calendar as we headed into that Presidential election. In contrast, this year we are still waiting on votes for district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee in April, June, July, and August. All but 1 of these 17 district court nominees was reported with significant bipartisan support, all but 3 nearly unanimously.

The partisan refusal to allow votes on consensus nominees has become standard operating procedure for Senate Republicans. In each of the last 2 years, Senate Republicans refused to follow the Senate's traditional practice of clearing the calendar of noncontroversial nominees. As a result, there were 19 judicial nominees pending without a final confirmation vote at the end of 2010 and another 19 left without a vote at the end of 2011. Due to this latest refusal to consent to vote, Senate Republicans are ensuring that the Senate will recess for the election without voting on 21 judicial nominees ready for final Senate action. The result is that for the first time in decades Federal courts are likely to have more vacancies at the end of these 4 years than at the beginning of the President's term. Federal judicial vacancies have been at historically high levels for years, remaining near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the President. Judicial vacancies today are more than 2\1/2\ times as high as they were at this point in President Bush's first term, with nearly 1 out of every 11 Federal judgeships currently vacant.

I urge Senator Toomey, Senator Kirk, Senator Rubio, Senator Coburn, Senator Inhofe, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe, all of whom have judicial nominees on the calendar ready for a final Senate vote, to reason with their leadership about this obstruction. I ask other Republican Senators who know better to weigh in with their leadership. This is wrong for the country, damaging to the Federal courts, and harmful for the American people looking to our courts for justice.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a column by Russell Wheeler entitled ``The Case for Confirming District Court Judges'' that appeared in Politico on Wednesday and notes the unprecedented and destructive nature of this obstruction.

I have served in the Senate for 37 years, and I have never seen so many judicial nominees, reported with bipartisan support, be denied a simple up-or-down vote for 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, even 11 months. And if there was any doubt that Senate Republicans insist on being the party of no, their current decision to deny votes on these highly qualified, noncontroversial district court nominees--while we are in the middle of a judicial vacancy crisis--shows what they stand for. They care more about opposing this President than helping the American people.

Mr. President, Sunday marked the 1-year anniversary of the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. One year ago, I was pleased to stand on a stage at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia with House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office David Kappos, Acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank, and others. Together, we watched President Obama sign into law the most important changes to our Nation's patent laws in 60 years.

Many of the provisions of the legislation took effect on the 1-year anniversary, while other important changes, such as the shift to first- inventor-to-file, will take effect in 6 months. I commend the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, for the work they have done, in a transparent manner, to prepare for the new procedures that take effect this week.

At its best, our patent system encourages exploration and invention, creating wealth, and providing jobs. Abraham Lincoln famously said that ``the patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.'' But when patents are granted on unpatentable subject matter or on obvious creations already in use, they can be misused to stifle competition.

The new patent law will aid the PTO in separating the wheat from the chaff, weeding out low-quality patents that infect our system, and bolstering those patents that truly advance ``the progress of science and useful arts.''

While the changes made by the patent bill were sweeping, I am under no illusion that they solved all the problems that confront our patent system. The assertion of patents is too often still used by patent trolls to extract payment even where there is not infringement of a valid patent because the cost of litigation makes settlement more expedient, and the ``tech patent wars'' among the large mobile phone companies show the perils to competition that can come when companies do not reach business-to-business resolutions of their patent disputes. But the improvements made by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act will go a long way to making the system work better for inventors and implementers.

Enactment of the patent bill was more than a victory for American inventors, large and small; it was a demonstration that Congress can still work in a bipartisan, bicameral matter. I stood proudly on the stage 1 year ago with a Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, watching the President sign a law on which Chairman Smith and I had worked closely together for 6 years.

The legislative success of the patent bill shows what we can achieve when we put aside rhetoric and, instead, negotiate and collaborate in good faith. We held countless bipartisan, bicameral meetings, briefings, and discussions with all interested parties. We worked closely with Director Kappos, then-Secretary of Commerce Locke, and Members of Democratic and Republican leadership in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In short, the process that took the patent bill from the Congress to the President for his signature was one of which we can all be proud. In an increasingly partisan Congress, I was pleased to have the opportunity to lead a legislative process that was, from start to finish, both bipartisan and bicameral.

Mr. President, next month, a distinguished member of our Armed Forces will retire. I want to recognize and congratulate GEN Craig McKinley, who has spent the last 38 years in service to our country, and who has led the National Guard through a unique period of challenge, change, and triumph.

General McKinley's service began during another period of dramatic change. He received his commission as a distinguished graduate of the ROTC program at Southern Methodist University and entered undergraduate pilot training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1974. With the conclusion of military engagement in Vietnam, the nation's military leaders faced a number of questions, including the future role of the National Guard. These same questions would later guide General McKinley's efforts to lead the National Guard toward its current role as an operational force.

General McKinley has had a distinguished career, including assignments as an instructor pilot, the commander of the 125th Fighter Wing, the commander of the 1st Air Force, and the commander of the Continental United States Region of the North American Aerospace Defense Command. He served in the U.S. European Command and as Director of the Air National Guard. These assignments culminated in General McKinley earning his fourth star as Chief of the National Guard Bureau. He did all of this while logging over 4,000 flying hours in a wide range of aircraft and earning the rating of command pilot.

While I could reflect on many notable moments in General McKinley's career, I will never forget one in particular. It was November 10, 2011, when Senator Levin and Senator McCain convened an historic hearing of all six sitting Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense General Counsel, and General McKinley, to examine a proposal I had introduced to add the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Despite the arguments against this change by all six sitting Joint Chiefs, General McKinley's measured and reasonable responses won the day. Ultimately, 71 senators came to agree with General McKinley and joined as cosponsors of what is known commonly as the second National Guard Empowerment Act. This bill became law in December 2011, and General McKinley was a decisive factor in this victory for the National Guard. Without his resolve to see the almost half a million men and women of the Guard represented at the top military panel in the national command structure, we would not have triumphed.

General McKinley has offered steady leadership to the Guard during a truly historic period. I am grateful to have had him as a partner. Without him, I doubt our nation would have the world-class operational reserve that we have today.

Congratulations, General McKinley. Best wishes to you, Cheryl, Patrick, and Christina as you retire to civilian life.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in introducing legislation that has already attracted broad support--from across the social and political spectrum.

This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2012, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights and humanitarian problem--the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities.

On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many in pretrial detention having never been brought before a judge or formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom in abysmal conditions, often for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted.

Others are imprisoned after being convicted of offenses, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity.

Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or press reports of what they are like, understands that this is about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

A few examples illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the 2010 earthquake, more than 4,000 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility filled up again.

I recall a newspaper article about how in Benin, in West Africa, the skin of prisoners was ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, an affliction that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin, was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. More than 1,000 have reportedly been confined there.

In February of this year, a fire at the Comayagua Prison in Honduras killed 360 inmates. In one overcrowded cell block only 4 of 105 prisoners survived. More than half of those who died were waiting to be charged or tried.

It is common in prisons from Latin America to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals.

Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common.

A government commission in Cameroon reported that an average of five prisoners die per month in a prison there, simply from lack of proper medical care. Inmates in many countries suffer from HIV/AIDS and other illnesses in prisons with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released they infect the local population.

A New York Times article described how prisoners in Zambia were punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf- high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how Zambia's Prison Service conducted its own internal audit, appointed a new medical director, and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The legislation Senator Inhofe and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following:

First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know.

Second, it sets forth primary indicators for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food and safe drinking water.

Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities in at least 30 countries receiving United States assistance or under sanction by the United States, selected by the Secretary's determination that such conditions raise the most serious human rights or humanitarian concerns.

Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to furnish assistance for the purpose of eliminating inhumane conditions where such assistance would be appropriate and beneficial.

For countries that are not making significant efforts to eliminate such

conditions, the Secretary is to enter into consultations with their government to achieve the purposes of the Act.

The legislation also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and directs the Secretary to designate, within the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, an official with responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act.

Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the Act.

Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2012 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life.

In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money prison conditions can be significantly improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly.

Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a defender of justice. This legislation will further that goal and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. It has already been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including Amnesty International, USA; Baptist World Alliance, Division of Freedom and Justice; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; International CURE; International Justice Mission; International Prison Chaplains' Association; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Just Detention International; Justice Fellowship/Prison Fellowship Ministries; National Association of Evangelicals; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; Open Society Policy Center; Penal Reform International; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to thank these groups for their support and their efforts to focus attention on this urgent problem.

Identical legislation is being introduced today in the House by Representatives Chris Smith and Russ Carnahan, both of whom care deeply about this issue, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

Finally, I want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has visited many African countries and has witnessed the problems this legislation seeks to address, as well as his staff, who have been very helpful in this process. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is another example of how two Senators and two Representatives, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for her kind comments. She knows that this, whether in Washington State or the State of Vermont, is a major issue. She has voted for and supported the Leahy-Crapo bill, as has the distinguished Presiding Officer. I have said so many times on this floor that violence is violence is violence and abuse is abuse is abuse, and this should not be a partisan issue.

Two weeks ago, in Tampa, Republican leaders from Congress and around the country sought to make clear their commitment to advancing causes important to women. Well, I will say as a Democrat I was pleased to see that commitment from the Republican Party. But now I hope they will put those words into action and prove that this was not just campaign rhetoric. While they have not asked me for advice, I would give some advice to my Republican friends. If they do want to show their commitment to women, one significant step Republicans should take would be to help us reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

It was signed into law 18 years ago today--18 years ago today. I remember that day. I was there. As one of those who helped draft it, I was so proud to see it signed into law.

This landmark bill, which fundamentally changed the way our country responds to domestic and sexual violence, expired, though, 1 year ago this month. There is no good reason why we cannot all work together to see that this lifesaving law is reauthorized immediately. It should not be a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an American issue. How can people say they are not opposed to violence against women?

Just yesterday, the Republican attorney general from Utah and the Democratic attorney general from Maryland--people who have completely different philosophies--called on Congress to pass the Senate bill, which covers all victims, including immigrant women. In their guest column in Politico, the two noted that the bipartisan Senate bill would give ``a significant boost for law enforcement and public safety.'' At the same time, they said the politically charged House bill ``seeks to turn a bipartisan concern for abuse survivors into a partisan wedge'' and ``dramatically roll[s] back important protections for battered immigrant women and their children.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Politico column, along with a statement released today by Attorney General Holder on the 18th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, be printed in the Record at the end of my comments.

You hear these continued calls for action. We know the Leahy-Crapo reauthorization bill passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan majority of 68 votes. Every woman in the Senate--Republican and Democrat alike--voted for it. But Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate have hidden behind a procedural technicality. They refuse to allow the House to vote on the Senate bill.

Well, that obstruction has to end. Too many lives are on the line to play these political games. Here in the Senate, we have twice asked Republican leaders to agree to take up a House revenue bill, substitute the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, and send it to the House immediately to overcome this procedural concern. Each time they have refused this commonsense resolution. This contrasts how we moved forward earlier this year using the same process to overcome similar technical hurdles with both the Transportation bill and the FAA reauthorization legislation. So with a little bit of cooperation from the other side we could move VAWA now.

People watching this and listening to this might think: Well, these are technical and arcane procedures. They are technical and arcane procedures. But they are stopping us from moving forward with the Violence Against Women Act. We can set them aside for Transportation and the FAA--both important things--but if you are somebody who has been battered and abused, if you are near death, do not talk to that person about technicalities.

I have said many times on this floor--I still have nightmares from some of the crime scenes I went to as a young prosecutor. It was always at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning. The ones easiest to handle were those where the victim lived, although sometimes just barely. I remember riding in the ambulance with a victim on the way to the emergency room to find out what happened. Many other times we were there waiting for the coroner to arrive because the body was on the floor.

I wish everybody who is hiding behind these technicalities would come with those of us from both parties, those of us who have been prosecutors, who have gone to those crime scenes. I guarantee you, they would be back here saying: Get rid of those technicalities.

I cannot understand the House Republican leadership hiding behind this excuse to avoid debating and voting on the bipartisan Senate bill. This is a good bill. It brought Republicans and Democrats together in this body across the political spectrum. The House Republican leadership should stop blocking it on this obscure technicality. The Speaker can waive the technicality. The House could vote on the Senate bill any time.

I would like to see people stand up and say: Yes, I want to stop violence against women or I am going to vote ``no.'' Right now they are allowed to vote ``maybe.'' No victim wants to hear ``maybe.'' They want us to do something. Both in the House and the Senate, we have a privileged position as Members. Do not hide behind a technicality. Have the courage--have the courage--to stand up and vote ``yes'' or ``no.''

The House Republicans could have allowed a vote on the text of the Senate bill as a House amendment or a House bill. Instead, they are choosing to hold up VAWA reauthorization for all victims. Please reconsider. Move forward with us to protect all victims of violence. And if you are unwilling to do that, if you are going to stand behind this, do not go home and campaign and say you have a commitment to women.

Battered women are in all categories. They go across all political spectrums. They go across all economic spectrums. Do not go back home and say: I am standing up for you. No, you are not standing up. You are hiding. You are hiding. You are hiding behind a technicality. Well, these victims cannot hide. They are sought out, and they become victims. Let's do something for them.

Our bill was developed with the input of victims and the service providers who work with them day in and day out. It helps women who are victims of terrible crimes--the very people we claim we want to support and protect. It does so in important and responsible ways. Do not go home and say: I stand up for all of you; do not go home and say: I am standing for law enforcement; do not go home and say: I want people protected when you refuse to step around a procedural motion and protect them. Do not be that hypocritical.

We have only a few precious days left this Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. If the Republican leadership wants to help end domestic and sexual violence, well then, do so. Now is the time to act. Do not hide behind fiction. Have the courage to stand up and say you are on the side of victims. And if you are not on their side, then stand up and vote against them. Do not vote ``maybe.'' Do not hide behind a technicality. It is time to make good on our promise to

the victims of these horrible crimes. Helping them--no matter who they are--has to be our goal. Their lives depend upon it. Our lives do not depend upon it, but their lives depend upon it. They are counting on us. It is time to stand up.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From Politico, Sept. 11, 2012]

Weakening Violence Against Women Act Betrays Immigrant Victims

(By Mark Shurtleff and Doug Gansler)

All women who have lived through violence and abuse should

have the certainty that the law will protect them--no matter

their race, creed, color, religion or immigration status.

Unfortunately, Congress is now considering proposals that

would erode this certainty--and its failure to act is already

causing harm.

We urge congressional leaders to move forward now to

reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, without

provisions harmful to immigrants.

As long-time law enforcement leaders, we know this act is

crucial. Since passage in 1994, it has helped cut domestic

violence by more than half. Still, the scourge of domestic

violence remains a serious problem: One in four women

experiences an act of domestic violence or sexual assault in

her lifetime, and three women die every day at the hands of

abusive husbands or partners.

Rates of trafficking women--often from one abusive context

to another--are also alarmingly high. Roughly 100,000

survivors of human trafficking live in the United States

today, according to the State Department, whose estimates

suggest as many as 17,500 foreign-born victims are illegally

brought in each year.

We need every available tool to fight these serious crimes,

so we fully support reauthorization of the Violence Against

Women Act--but not in a dangerously altered form that would

harm vulnerable immigrant women.

We don't use ``dangerously'' lightly. When the House sought

reauthorization, legislators made changes that dramatically

roll back important protections for battered immigrant women

and their children--leaving them vulnerable to abuse and,

worse, death at the hands of an abuser.

Several House provisions would further endanger immigrant

survivors of human trafficking and domestic abuse. These

provisions would leave them no legal way to break the cycle

of violence in which they are trapped and leave law

enforcement no way to bring perpetrators to justice. The

changes, for example, would discourage immigrant survivors

from calling the police, for fear of immigration issues--so

police can't intervene and save their lives.

For many of these women, immigration status is one more

weapon that abusers use to intimidate them. Abusers often

threaten, ``You can't call the police. They'll just deport

you.''

Under the existing law, our response is clear: ``He's

wrong. You're safe.'' If we certify that a victim was helpful

to law enforcement during an investigation, she can seek

special legal immigration status--known as a U visa.

But the House bill would make this visa temporary and take

away an immigrant survivor's incentive to come forward.

``He's wrong; you're safe'' would be replaced with the far

less reassuring message ``You'll have to wait and see.''

What kind of person does the U visa help? Consider

``Stephanie,'' an immigrant living in Maryland who lacked

work authorization. She had already been sexually harassed by

work supervisors when a stranger followed her into a room in

the building where she was working and tried to rape her.

Stephanie was able to fight him off and immediately reported

the incident to police, who found the man nearby and arrested

him.

After reporting the terrible crime, Stephanie learned she

would be eligible for a U visa for her cooperation with

police and the state's attorney. Her assistance helped get a

rapist off the streets. Today, Stephanie has her U visa and

is confident and self-supporting.

The House bill would silence thousands of women like

Stephanie and derail our efforts to put their attackers

behind bars. Worse, it would further endanger some of the

very women whom the Violence Against Women Act is meant to

help.

In late August, we received a reminder of reauthorization's

urgency. Our immigration authorities announced that they had

reached the limit of 10,000 U visas for the current fiscal

year, leaving a six-week gap before the new fiscal year

brings a fresh allotment. In the meantime, lives are at risk.

The Senate's bipartisan reauthorization bill would increase

that visa limit to 15,000, a significant boost for law

enforcement and public safety.

The law enforcement community now has 17 years of

experience with the Violence Against Women Act and has used

it successfully to combat human trafficking, sexual assault

and domestic violence. We have relied on it to protect

survivors of all stripes and hold their abusers accountable.

These abusers don't differentiate by race, creed, color,

religion or immigration status. In seeking justice for

survivors, neither should we.

The House version of the Violence Against Women Act

reauthorization seeks to turn a bipartisan concern for abuse

survivors into a partisan wedge. Congress must not let

partisanship stand in the way of our work to protect all

women, and their families, from harm.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives passed S. 3245, legislation to reauthorize the job-creating EB-5 Regional Center Program for an additional 3 years. In addition to this important program, the legislation also prevents the expiration of three other immigration programs important to Senator Conrad, Senator Hatch, and Senator Grassley.

I am very pleased the House acted with such strong bipartisan support, and I commend House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith for his quick action on the bill. Once again I thank the Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Senator Grassley, for his partnership on this legislation.

Passage of this legislation in the House today will ensure that the job-creating EB-5 Regional Center Program will continue. Today's action will allow the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to continue to improve and grow the program administratively and will give me and other interested lawmakers, agency officials, and private citizens the time needed to consider and find consensus on lasting statutory improvements to the program so that it may continue as a permanent and vital part of our immigration system. Most importantly, it will allow American entrepreneurs to continue building job-creating development projects around the country.

This program is and will remain a productive part of America's immigration system. Like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, the United States is right to provide the world's citizens the opportunity to immigrate to its shores based upon investment. This program welcomes people from around the world who devote substantial investment capital to American businesses to invigorate American communities. And it does so at no cost to the American taxpayer. Moreover, those who immigrate through this program will purchase

real estate and other goods, enroll their children in our schools, colleges, and universities, pay taxes, and enrich the communities in which they will live and work.

As the availability of credit in the United States has become restricted, particularly for new and small businesses, many have turned to this program for capital. The program's growth over the last several years has been significant. And with increased growth comes the need for the law to keep pace and for the administering agency to adapt to this growth and devote the necessary resources. As we move forward, I look forward to continuing my work on comprehensive legislation to make this program an efficient, more productive, and permanent part of our immigration law. We have already seen many instances of the way in which this program can harness together many individual investments to do big things in many communities. But the law can and will benefit from some improvement in the coming months, and I stand ready to work with any Senators who recognize the value and potential of this program.

Our immigration law provides 10,000 visas each year for this program. When this program reaches the point at which it is fully subscribed, based on the minimum required investment amount and the statutory job creation requirement, it has the potential to direct $5 billion in foreign capital investment into American communities each year, with the potential for the creation of 100,000 American jobs. And that calculation does not take into account the domestic capital that can be attracted when projects are capitalized and carried out through this program or the ancillary benefits that communities experience when local economies are strengthened, nor does it account for the immeasurable contributions that new Americans make to our communities across the country every day.

We all recognize the need to take steps to do whatever we can to spur our economy and create jobs for American citizens. I have no doubt that the action taken unanimously by the Senate on August 3 and the decisive action taken by the House of Representatives today to complete the legislative process on this bill will help us meet this shared goal.

Mr. President, eleven years ago today, on a crisp early autumn morning much like today's, I was at the Supreme Court for the semiannual meeting of the Judicial Conference when I got word of the first attack of 9/11. I quietly informed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was presiding over our meeting. Soon afterward we heard a muffled ``bump,'' followed by a report that a car bomb may have gone off across town at the State Department. Of course, we later learned that this had been the sound of another plane, as it slammed into the Pentagon.

I remember later that day, evacuating my staff from the Russell Senate Building. I remember crossing along the West Front of the Capitol as two fighter jets streaked up the Mall. I remember the unnatural stillness of a big city in shock, similar only to what I saw as a law student at Georgetown, when a pall descended over Washington after the news that President John F. Kennedy had been killed.

At this morning's meeting of the Judicial Conference in that same room where we met 11 years ago on this date, several participants offered reflections about this somber anniversary.

I noted that much of what holds our country together in times of crisis is the integrity of the three branches of our constitutional government. In recent times, for temporary political gain, there too often has been the temptation to tear down our foundational institutions, undermining the public's faith and confidence in our system. Over time, that cannot help but erode that foundation. I pointed out that this was why, the day after the attacks 11 years ago, each and every Senator made the effort to be in his or her seat in an unmistakable gesture of unity of purpose. We knew that we had to reopen this emblem and pillar of American democracy, and I was proud to be in my seat representing Vermont when the Senate convened for business that next morning.

Over this past decade, as Americans we have gathered each year on this date to remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken so casually and so callously on that terrible morning. We also remember and honor the brave first responders and military servicemembers who have lost their lives protecting and serving our country. It has been more than a year since

President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden had finally been brought to justice. Although his death will never heal the pain of the families who grieve their losses, we all hope that it will bring a degree of closure and a measure of solace to them, and to all Americans.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, it became clear that changes to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies were needed to address the government's failure to connect the dots before the attacks. I have worked to ensure that Federal agencies have the tools they need to make our borders more secure, improve our intelligence gathering, track down terrorists and bring them to justice, in ways that are consistent with our laws and fundamental values. I firmly believe that we can keep our Nation safe without relinquishing our values.

The last 11 years have further exposed the perversity and bankruptcy at the core of al-Qaida's philosophy and the resilient strength at the core of America's foundational principles. We are a people whose power is in our diversity, our principles, and our liberty. No attack on our shores has ever taken those from us, and no attack ever will.

Mr. President, like others in this body, including Senator Udall of Colorado and my fellow senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders, I support extending the production tax credit for wind energy. This extension is critical to maintaining America's leadership in green energy development and can directly increase domestic job growth. Vermont has already seen the positive results of the production tax credit for wind energy, but the wind industry impacts our entire country. Every American has a stake in the extension of this tax credit.

I am proud that Vermont is a leader in green energy. My State has set ambitious, yet achievable, goals to develop renewable energy resources and technology. We are doing our part to promote job growth, national security, and environmental benefits that tap into local, renewable energy sources. Yet despite these efforts, Vermont has already experienced negative consequences from the uncertainty that surrounds the extension of this tax credit.

I frequently hear the success stories in the renewable energy industry coming out of Vermont, and from industry leaders there about the exciting new projects they are developing. But this summer, the stories have been different. One such company, NRG Systems in Vermont, has been a global leader in wind measurement. The company's CEO, Jan Blittersdorf, and her team of dedicated employees take great pride in delivering precise, reliable and proven wind measurement and turbine control equipment. Jan is an industry leader who has been recognized as a Champion of Change by President Obama and who has been praised for her renewable energy work and efforts to advance the role of women in the green energy sector.

During the recession, as jobs were being cut in many sectors across the country and in Vermont, NRG bucked the trend by hiring new workers, and the company continued to innovate and look for ways to grow their business. Today, you can find their products in more than 144 countries. Now, however, due to the uncertainty surrounding the extension of the production tax credit, companies like NRG are putting new projects on hold, and for the first time in its 30 year history NRG Systems has been forced to lay off workers--a devastating prospect for a business in a rural state that has prided itself on its ability to adapt to changing market conditions and its strong support for its workers.

These are skilled and dedicated employees losing vital domestic jobs. American workers cannot afford a delay in the extension of the production tax credit. At a time when manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, the wind energy sector has done the opposite: it has added manufacturing jobs here in America. Wind energy companies, like NRG Systems, are entrepreneurs who are doing the kind of groundbreaking work that drives our economy.

We have a chance to invest in jobs for America, rather than subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Our continued dependence on fossil fuels ensures that we will have more of the extreme weather events that have long been a predicted consequence of global warming, such as the drought that is devastating our Nation's farmers this summer and the terrible flooding from Hurricane Irene last summer. It is time to say goodbye to the big oil tax subsidies and usher in a new era of wind energy. The benefits are clear: wind energy has propelled a sustainable and domestic energy source, increased jobs for Americans, and strengthened our domestic energy security.

These are jobs we cannot afford to lose. In Vermont, and for the wind industry across the country, NRG Systems is the canary in the coal mine--an early indicator of the crisis that the wind industry is headed toward if the production tax credit is not extended. This crisis is something we have seen every time this tax credit has lapsed. Each time the production tax credit has been allowed to lapse, revenues in the wind industry fall precipitously, businesses shutter their doors, and workers lose their jobs. There are ways to avoid this catastrophe.

We must continue the production tax credit now or we will most certainly cede these jobs to other countries. I urge all Senators to join me in supporting these important credits. They support American jobs, American companies, American ingenuity, and American energy security. We should extend the production tax credit for wind and continue America's leadership in this growing energy sector.

Mr. President, it is an honor to recognize Rosaire Longe, a

man who has dedicated much of his life to civil service. Whether fighting fires, serving the city of Burlington, VT, as city assessor, representing his district in the Vermont State Legislature, or maintaining order in the courtroom as a court officer, Mr. Longe has continually served the people and State of Vermont.

A native of New York, Mr. Longe spent most of his childhood years in Vermont. After graduating from Burlington High School in 1958, Mr. Longe worked as a firefighter for the Burlington Fire Department, a profession he continued for 10 years. Mr. Longe went back to school at Champlain College, where he received his associate's degree in accounting in 1979. Before beginning his career as a court officer, Mr. Longe worked as the Burlington City Assessor and served as a state representative for one term in the Vermont Legislature. For the past 20 years, Mr. Longe has ensured the smooth running of the Vermont Superior Court in Burlington as a court officer. His ready smile and easy manners have helped jurors, witnesses and judges alike feel assured in the courtroom. Outside of work, Mr. Longe served as a Justice of the Peace for over 30 years, and in that capacity, he has presided over the marriage of over 2,000 couples.

These professional accomplishments aside, Mr. Longe has touched the lives of many Vermonters. Friends and co-workers have described him as ``one of the best men'' they know. Whether he is leading people in and out of the courthouse, officiating a neighbor's wedding, or merely encouraging those around him with a smile and a laugh, Mr. Longe has proven himself to be the epitome of a true Vermonter. Marcelle and I have known Rosaire and his wife, Irene, for decades, and share Vermonters admiration for him. In light of his character and history as a public servant, Rosaire deserves recognition for a full lifetime of civil service and contribution to his community and State.

Mr. President, I want to use this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary contribution of a dear friend of mine, Dr. Henry Jarecki, who is the founding chairman of the Institute of International Education's Scholar Rescue Fund.

This year is the fund's 10th anniversary, and on September 18, 2012, Dr. Jarecki will be honored with the Institute of International Education's Humanitarian Award--along with Scholar Rescue's other founders, Tom Russo, Henry Kaufman and George Soros--for his commitment to protecting endangered scholars around the world.

The Scholar Rescue Fund provides safe havens to scholars whose lives are threatened, often for no other reason than their intellectual pursuits, allowing them to continue their academic work. No other global fund of this kind exists. Since 2002, with congressional support, the Scholar Rescue Fund has enabled 469 threatened scholars from 48 countries to resettle in places where they have safely pursued their professional studies and research, preserving the intellectual capacity of a country during conflict or crisis.

Over 40 percent of these scholars have returned to their home countries. For example, as reports emerged of assassinations of Iraqi scholars, the Scholar Rescue Fund identified those in danger and provided stipends so they could resettle and continue teaching and writing in Jordan and other neighboring countries. Many have since returned to leadership positions at Iraqi universities as that country rebuilds its institutions of higher education.

While many have supported the Scholar Rescue Fund, Dr. Henry Jarecki stands out. Drawing on his own experiences as a child whose family fled Nazi Germany, Dr. Jarecki has generously devoted his energy, resources, and time to the fund. He has been a passionate voice for responding to the dangers confronting scholars in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and now Syria.

He has guided staff and inspired fellow board members, always striving to do more on behalf of persecuted academics. He has been a source of support and hope to threatened scholars everywhere. Dr. Jarecki's own words explain his motivation best: ``Most of all, I thank and admire our scholars, who have gone through hell to educate us.''

I am proud to have been his friend for decades, and I know his deep commitment. It is with great respect, gratitude, and admiration that, on the occasion of the Scholar Rescue Fund's 10th anniversary, we recognize and commend Dr. Henry Jarecki's work to protect scholars worldwide. Because of his efforts the fund will continue into the future, saving the lives, work, and voices of threatened academics and reminding us all of the importance of intellectual freedom.

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

Mr. President, we are beginning about 3 minutes late. I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided in such a way that the vote still starts at 5:30.

When the Senate recessed more than a month ago, 22 judicial nominees to fill vacancies in courtrooms around the country were left pending, awaiting a Senate vote. Today, Senate Republicans have agreed to vote on just one of those nominees. I want to commend Senator Harkin for working with Senator Grassley and the Majority Leader to get this vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose of Iowa. I urge votes on the other nominees, as well, without further delay.

There are currently 78 Federal judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies during the last few years have been at historically high levels and have remained near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the President. Nearly one out of every 11 Federal judgeships is currently vacant. Vacancies on the Federal courts are more than two and one half times as many as they were on this date during the first term of President Bush. One key reason for these numerous vacancies and for the extensive backlog of nominees is that Senate Republicans allowed votes on just one district court nominee per week for the last seven weeks before the August recess. This unnecessarily slow pace of consideration of judicial nominees has disserved the American people and should not continue.

The across-the-board obstruction and foot dragging from Senate Republicans since day one of President Obama's tenure means that we are likely to complete his first term with more judicial vacancies than when he took office. The partisan obstruction from Senate Republicans has been particularly damaging with respect to Federal trial courts. In a sharp departure from the past, Senate Republicans have stalled Senate approval of district court nominees, including those Republican home state Senators support.

Before the American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of weeks of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Deference was traditionally afforded to home State Senators and district court nominees supported by home State Senators were almost always confirmed unanimously. During the 18 months that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001 and 2002, we confirmed 83 of President Bush's district court nominees, and only one of them received any votes in opposition. Even though some Senate Democrats opposed the nominee, we nevertheless scheduled a vote for him just 11 days after he was reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Indeed, only five district court nominees received any votes in opposition in all 8 years of the previous Republican presidency, and none was a party-line vote. Among those nominees was one so extreme that he had announced that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' That observation was much like the outrageous recent comments about rape by a Republican House member and Senate candidate.

In all, the Senate confirmed 264 of President Bush's district court nominees, and only five of them received any votes in opposition. Senate Democrats were willing to work with a very conservative Republican President to fill vacancies on our Federal trial courts. We recognized that filling vacancies on district courts is essential to ensuring that the American people have functioning courts to serve them and provide access to justice. We know that it is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the

case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.

In The Atlantic Andrew Cohen has written recently about the ``Human Costs of Judicial Confirmation Delays.'' In that article, the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Pennsylvania describes the costs of vacancies on individuals in Pennsylvania and the pervasive and harmful delays they are suffering because there are not enough judges.

At this point in President Bush's first term, Senate Democrats had worked with Republicans to confirm 165 of his district court nominees. Despite the fact that President Obama has worked with home state Senators of both parties to select moderate, superbly-qualified judicial nominees, Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstruction of Federal trial court nominees for the last four years.

As Carl Tobias noted last month in a letter to the New York Times:

Republican senators have created and applied practices that

substantially depart from procedures employed in prior

administrations, even as recently as that of President George

W. Bush. The most important change is the refusal by the

G.O.P. leadership to enter voting agreements on well-

qualified, uncontroversial district court nominees, so they

languish for months on the Senate floor.

Professor Tobias is correct, and the result is that at this point in his first term President Obama's district court nominees have had to wait nearly three times longer for a Senate vote and the Senate has confirmed more than three dozen fewer.

Senate Republicans have made a habit of delaying and opposing President Obama's district court nominees, voting against more than a quarter of them--36 out of 127 to be precise. And they stall confirmations for months of noncontroversial nominees including those supported by home state Republican Senators who are eventually confirmed overwhelmingly.

This extreme partisanship has not just resulted in persistently high vacancies--Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently observed that it is also ``bad for the legal system'' as a whole. He indicated: ``It makes the judiciary look politicized when it is not, and it has to stop.'' District courts in particular should not be politicized. The 18 district court nominees currently pending before the Senate were not chosen based on some ideological litmus test. They were selected for their legal excellence, whether as practicing attorneys or sitting judges.

Recently, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania signaled his newfound willingness to abandon the unprecedented delays and obstruction that his caucus has employed against President Obama's trial court nominees. I only wish he had done so 2 years ago. What Senate Republicans have been doing is wrong and hurts all Americans seeking justice in our Federal courts.

Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Stephanie Rose to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest possible rating. She has the bipartisan support of her home state Senators. I worked with Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley to ensure prompt Judiciary Committee consideration of her nomination, which was reported with a virtually unanimous voice vote by the Judiciary Committee nearly five months ago. The only objection came as a protest on another issue by Senator Lee.

Stephanie Rose currently serves as the first woman U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, where she has been serving since 2009. Ms. Rose has devoted her entire career to public service, having served for 15 years as a Federal prosecutor and having been promoted to Deputy Criminal Chief in 2008. In her tenure as a Federal prosecutor, she has tried 33 cases to verdict. When confirmed, she will be the first woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa and only the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history.

With the elections approaching, the Senate will recess, again, in just a few weeks. When the Senate recessed in 2009, 10 judicial nominees were left without a final confirmation vote. When the Senate recessed in 2010, 19 judicial nominees were left pending without a final confirmation vote. When the Senate recessed last year, in 2011, 19 judicial nominees were left pending without a final vote. I urge Senate Republicans not to continue their practice of stalling qualified nominees from confirmation. I urge them to agree to schedule debate and votes on the 18 district court nominees from California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Utah who, like Stephanie Rose, could be confirmed with strong bipartisan support and without further delay. A dozen of those nominees would fill judicial emergency vacancies.

Let us act on these nominations. There is no doubt that recent precedent shows we can do this even in September of a Presidential election year. In 2008, the final year of President Bush's presidency, Senate Democrats were willing to confirm 10 of his district court nominees in a single day, all by unanimous consent. It took only a few seconds. Earlier in that Republican presidency, and again with a Democratic Majority, the Senate confirmed 18 judicial nominees in just one day and vacancies went down to 60 throughout the country, on the way down to 28. If we confirm all of the district nominees ready for final Senate action today, we can similarly reduce vacancies back down to 60.

I hope that Senate Republicans will not extend their wrongheaded application of the ``Thurmond Rule'' and further stall confirmation of consensus, well-qualified district court nominees. Given our overburdened Federal courts and the need to provide all Americans with prompt justice, the Senate should be working in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these nominees without further delay.

I ask unanimous consent the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa. I reserve the balance of my time and ask it be under the control of Senator Harkin.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will conclude debate on the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, S. 3414. Developing a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation. I commend President Obama for his commitment to addressing this national security issue. I also commend the majority leader and the bill's sponsors for their work on this pressing matter.

I share the President's view that updates to our laws are urgently needed

to keep pace with the many threats that Americans face in cyberspace. For that reason, I will support the motion for cloture on this bill. But, I do so with major reservations about the bill in its current form because this legislation does not address many of the key priories that must be a part of our national strategy for cybersecurity.

A legislative response to the growing threat of cyber crime must be a part of our debate about cyber security. Protecting American consumers and businesses from cyber crime and other threats in cyber space is a top priority of the Judiciary Committee. That is why I filed an amendment to the bill to strengthen our Nation's cyber crime laws, which takes several important steps to combat cyber crime. The amendment, among other things, updates the Federal RICO statute to add violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the definition of racketeering activity; strengthens the legal tools available to law enforcement to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure by making it a felony to damage a computer that manages or controls national defense or other critical infrastructure information; and streamlines and enhances the penalty structure under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This cyber crime amendment incorporates many of the proposals that were recommended in the cyber security proposal that President Obama delivered to Congress last May. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported these proposals in September as part of my Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. These updates to our criminal laws are urgently needed to keep pace with the cunning of cyber thieves and the many emerging threats to American's safety in cyber space. These measures must be included in any cyber security legislation the Senate considers.

In the digital age, we must also update our digital privacy laws so that Americans will have better safeguards for their electronic communications. That is why I filed an amendment to the bill that makes commonsense updates to two vital digital privacy laws that I authored several years ago--the Video Privacy Protection Act, VPPA, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA. The amendment would update the Video Privacy Protection Act to permit consumers to provide a one- time consent for video service providers to share their video viewing information with third parties via the Internet. This update will help the VPPA keep pace with how most Americans view and share videos today--on the Internet--while also requiring that video service providers provide clear and conspicuous notice that the consent to share video viewing information can be withdrawn at anytime. The amendment also updates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to prohibit service providers from voluntarily disclosing the contents of Americans' e-mails or other electronic communications to the Government, unless the Government obtains a search warrant based on probable cause. There are appropriate exceptions to this prohibition under current law, including when a customer provides consent or when disclosure to law enforcement is necessary to address certain criminal activity. I am also mindful of the need to ensure that law enforcement can do their jobs effectively. The safeguards and exceptions in this provision were designed to ensure that appropriate privacy protections do not undermine the ability of law enforcement to keep us safe.

I also filed a bipartisan amendment to promote cyber research and development in Vermont and elsewhere across the Nation. This amendment improves section 301 of the bill by clarifying that the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy's new test bed program should build upon existing work on cybersecurity test beds by the Department of Homeland Security in its Science and Technology Directorate. The amendment also expands the proposed test beds program to include funding for the military academies and senior military colleges to participate. Senator Hoeven joined me in proposing this improvement to the bill, and we both believe that it is important for these institutions, which have such a prominent role in cultivating the next generation of security leaders, to develop tools to combat the next generation's security threats.

Comprehensive cyber security legislation must also respond to the alarming number of data security breaches that threaten the privacy and security of American consumers and businesses today. The troubling data breaches at Sony, Epsilon, and Lockheed are recent reminders that new tools are needed to protect us from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. In May 2011, the Obama administration submitted a data breach proposal that adopted the carefully balanced framework of data privacy and security legislation that I have introduced--and that this Judiciary Committee has favorably reported-- several times. My data breach amendment would establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification. My data security amendment would require that companies that maintain databases with Americans' sensitive personal information establish and implement data privacy and security programs, so that data breaches do not occur in the first place. I filed these amendments because Congress must address the threat of data security breaches and make these long overdue privacy protections available to American consumers and businesses.

The threats to our privacy and security in cyber space are real, and these threats will not go away simply because the Congress fails to act. I lament the fact that a long-overdue debate on cybersecurity legislation has become embroiled in a partisan stalemate. While there are legitimate differences on how we must confront this threat, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike are put at risk if we do not do so. We must find a way to work together to confront this national challenge. I hope we will see more progress on overcoming differences on this issue in the weeks ahead. I also hope the sponsors of this bill will include the priorities I have outlined as part of any future comprehensive cyber security bill. Again, I commend the President and all Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked to address this important issue. I also thank the many privacy, civil liberties, and technology organizations that have supported my amendments to this bill.

I ask that a copy of three letters I have received in support of several of my amendments to the bill be printed in the Record following my full remarks.