Floor Statements

Mr. President, on July 4, the Nation will celebrate the 45th anniversary of the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Now in its fifth decade, FOIA remains an indispensable tool for shedding light on government policies and government abuses. This premier open government law has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know'' for generations of Americans.

Today, the U.S. Government is more committed than in any time in our history to making and keeping government open and accountable to the people. As one of his first official acts, President Obama signed an historic Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act, which restored the presumption of disclosure for all government information. I applaud President Obama for his commitment to FOIA, and I will continue to work closely with his administration to ensure that our government fulfills both the letter and spirit of this remarkable memorandum.

While the Obama administration has made significant progress in improving the FOIA process, large backlogs remain a major roadblock to public access to information. A report released by the National Security Archive found that only about half of the Federal agencies surveyed have taken concrete steps to update their FOIA policies in light of the President's reforms. According to the Department of Justice's annual FOIA Report for fiscal year 2010, more than 69,000 FOIA requests remain backlogged across our government. These delays are simply unacceptable.

To address these concerns, in May, the Senate unanimously passed the Faster FOIA Act of 2011--a bill to establish a bipartisan commission to examine the root causes of agency delays in processing FOIA requests. Senator Cornyn and I first introduced this bill in 2005, because we were concerned about the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal agencies. During the intervening years, this problem has not gone away. That is why in 2010, we reintroduced this bill and the Senate unanimously passed it. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not take action. After the Judiciary Committee's hearing on FOIA, which was held during the annual Sunshine Week in March, we reintroduced the Faster FOIA Act yet again--with the hope that the Congress would finally enact this good government legislation. I am pleased that the Senate has done its part to achieve this goal. On the occasion of this 45th anniversary of FOIA, I urge the House to act on this important bill so that the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays can begin its important work.

I thank Senator Cornyn for his work on this bill and for his leadership on this issue. I also commend and thank the many open government and FOIA advocacy groups that have supported our efforts to bolster FOIA, including OpenTheGovernment.org, the Project on Government Oversight and the Sunshine in Government Initiative.

The right to know is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without it, citizens are kept in the dark about key policy decisions that directly affect their lives. Without open government, citizens cannot make informed choices at the ballot box. And once eroded, the right to know is hard to win back.

The House Committee Report that accompanied the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 stated:

it is vital to our way of life to reach a workable balance

between the right of the public to know and the need of the

Government to keep information in confidence to the extent

necessary without permitting indiscriminate secrecy. The

right of the individual to be able to find out how his

Government is operating can be just as important to him as

his right to privacy and his right to confide in his

Government. This bill strikes a balance considering all these

interests.

As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in Congress must reaffirm the commitment to open and transparent government captured by these time-proven words.

Open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a Republican issue--it is truly an American value and virtue that we all must uphold. It is in this bipartisan spirit that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating the 45th anniversary of FOIA and all that this law has come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, on June 14, 2011, I introduced the Consular Notification Compliance Act. This legislation will help bring the United States into compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, VCCR, and is critical to ensuring the protection of Americans traveling overseas.

Each year, thousands of Americans are arrested and imprisoned when they are in foreign countries studying, working, serving in the military, or traveling. From the moment they are detained, their safety and well-being depends, often entirely, on the ability of U.S. consular officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help them obtain legal assistance, and connect them to family back home. That access is protected by the consular notification provisions of the VCCR, but it only functions effectively if every country meets its obligations under the treaty--including the United States.

As we now know, in some instances, the United States has not been meeting those obligations. There are currently more than 100 foreign nationals on death row in the United States, most of whom were never told of their right to contact their consulate, and their consulate was never notified of their arrest, trial, conviction, or sentence. This failure to comply with our treaty obligations undercuts our ability to

protect Americans abroad and deeply damages our image as a country that abides by its promises and the rule of law. It would also be completely unacceptable to us if our citizens were treated in this manner.

The Consular Notification Compliance Act seeks to bring the United States one step closer to compliance with the convention. It is a narrowly crafted solution. It focuses only on the most serious cases-- those involving the death penalty--but it is a significant step in the right direction and we need to work together to pass it quickly. Texas is poised to execute the next foreign national affected by this failure to comply with the treaty on July 7, 2011. He was not notified of his right to consular assistance, and the Government of Mexico has expressed grave concerns about the case. We do not want this execution to be interpreted as a sign that the United States does not take its treaty obligations seriously, or to further damage relations with an important ally with which we share a border. That message puts American lives at risk.

Since introduction of the Consular Notification and Compliance Act, the Department of Justice and the Department of State have worked with me to explain the importance of the bill, its limited nature, and the urgent need to see it passed. On June 28, Attorney General Holder and Secretary Clinton wrote to me in support of the ``carefully crafted, measured, and essential legislative solution'' included in the Consular Notification and Compliance Act. I will ask consent to have a copy of the letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. We have already had productive discussions with Republicans and Democrats from both the House and Senate. I appreciate that others are willing to work together to address this critical issue.

I also want to note all of the favorable commentary the bill has generated, including multiple editorials in major newspapers and numerous letters of support from across the political spectrum. I also will ask that a selection of those be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Everyone agrees that this legislation is not about giving breaks to criminals. It is not about expanding habeas corpus relief. It is not about weakening the death penalty. This bill is about three things only. It is about protecting Americans when they work, travel, and serve in the military in foreign countries. It is about fulfilling our obligations and upholding the rule of law. And it is about removing a significant impediment to full and complete cooperation with our international allies on national security and law enforcement efforts that keep Americans safe.

The bottom line is this--our failure to comply with our legal obligations places Americans at risk. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am announcing that I intend to hold a hearing on this critical issue in July. We must work together, and we must act now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters and editorials to which I referred.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with Senators Scott Brown, John Kerry, and others to introduce the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2011, which will reaffirm and expand our commitment to fighting human trafficking. Since it was first enacted with strong bipartisan support more than a decade ago, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act has played a central role in our country's efforts to combat human trafficking both abroad and at home.

Championed by the late Senator Wellstone and Senator Brownback, the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act drew upon the work and support of a broad coalition of advocacy organizations from across the political and social spectrum groups dedicated to children's rights, human rights, and women's rights, as well as religious organizations including Evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish groups. It was signed by President Clinton and reauthorized twice under President Bush. I am pleased that today we continue the tradition of bipartisan cooperation as we seek the fourth reauthorization of this critical law.

Earlier this week, the State Department released its annual Trafficking in Persons Report, which documents the continuing significant human trafficking crisis worldwide. The report has received considerable attention, as The Washington Post editorialized yesterday, the United States has made significant strides on this issue, both through the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and through important initiatives from this administration. But much work remains to be done domestically and around the world.

Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded, or coerced into labor or sexual exploitation. Millions of children, women, and men throughout the world are trafficked every year, including here in the United States. According to recent Government estimates, between 15,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked to the United States annually for the purpose of labor and sexual exploitation. Thousands more of our own children are bought and sold in the commercial sex industry every year.

It is no surprise that border states are at a particularly high risk for human trafficking. I am proud that my home state of Vermont is taking significant steps to address the issue. State legislators in Vermont recently passed a comprehensive anti-trafficking law that includes criminal penalties, prevention programs, and services for human trafficking victims. I commend the Vermont legislature for taking on this important issue.

Trafficking is an affront to human dignity that we cannot ignore. The United States offers a beacon of hope to so many who face human rights abuses abroad, so we cannot sit back idly while this injustice continues not only elsewhere in the world, but also here at home. Thanks to the tools provided by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, we have made progress in combating this major human rights abuse, but there is more work to be done.

This reauthorization reflects Congress's ongoing commitment to abolishing human trafficking. It strengthens the government's ability to combat trafficking by expanding enforcement tools, and by encouraging further inter-agency cooperation to identify victims, investigate offenses, and provide victim services.

Strengthening our response to human trafficking in the United States will help this country serve as a model for the world as we work with other nations to confront this complicated problem. An important tool in that international effort is the annual Trafficking in Persons Report established in the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That report has come to serve as an important diplomatic tool to encourage foreign governments to increase efforts against modern-day slavery. This legislation will require that the United States include itself in the report, a step already initiated by Secretary of State Clinton last year.

Fighting human trafficking was a priority of the Bush administration, and the Obama administration is continuing that commitment. I applaud the hard work of Secretary of State Clinton, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Labor Solis, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius to find new ways to work together to indentify and support victims of trafficking while bringing the full force of the United States down on those who seek to profit from the exploitation of others. Nowhere on Earth should it be acceptable to deceive, abuse, and force a person into a life of enslavement, least of all here in the United States. We must do all we can to end this scourge.

I look forward to working with Senator Brown and Senator Kerry to continue the bipartisan work started by Senators Wellstone and Brownback more than a decade ago. I hope that Senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings Will Affect Corporate Behavior.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, in the President's Room at 11 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Promoting Broader Access to Public Transportation for America's Older Adults and People with Disabilities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 29, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Emergence of Swap Execution Facilities: A Progress Report.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate

on June 29, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Diplomat's Shield: Diplomatic Security and Its Implications for U.S. Diplomacy.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

knowledgeable, especially on matters relating to legal and

business ethics, public integrity and compliance with

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

skillful litigator. As his resume demonstrates, he has long

and deep experience in the Department of Justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

believe that she has both sound judgment and a keen

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

understands both the stakes and the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not object, Madam President.

Mr. President, it is a delight to call the Senate's attention to the record of 75 years of quality productions achieved by the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company as they celebrate this major milestone with their community and friends. Among its many accolades-- including the Moss Hart Award for Best Production in New England for ``Floyd Collins''--Weston's Playhouse has earned a national reputation as a professional theatre. As Vermont's oldest theater, and one of the 15 oldest theatre companies across the United States, the Weston Playhouse has entertained families and visitors from New England and beyond since its founding in 1935. Its first professional season in 1937 included the opening of Noel Coward's ``Hay Fever,'' featuring young actor Lloyd Bridges. Since then the Weston Playhouse has grown to include musicals and late-night entertainment, cradled in Weston's small village of 640 people.

Consistent with Vermonters' willful determination and hard work, Weston's Playhouse Theatre Company endured a 1962 fire that destroyed the original playhouse building. Despite this hardship, the community pulled their resources together and continued to provide Vermonters and New England with quality theatre and musical experiences. Today the company serves 25,000 Vermonters and Vermont visitors each year with its devoted staff, talented artists, and dedicated board. The Weston Playhouse Theatre Company has routinely met their goals of making live theatre accessible and meaningful to a broad population of Vermonters. Resource support through the National Endowment for the Arts has allowed the playhouse to expand its offerings of cultural experiences to thousands of elementary, middle and high school aged children every year. Their outreach programs have promoted educational productions and have toured often throughout Vermont and New England while continuing to produce prestigious regional and world premieres.

Marcelle and I have always enjoyed attending theatre productions in Vermont, and we have wonderful memories of the time we have spent with the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company, as well as of the wonderful people we have met at the theatre. It is important to our State that we continue to host diverse actors and actresses on Vermont's stages, enriching the lives of Vermonters across the State. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum, examined an original manuscript or composition, or disappeared into a performance as the lights dimmed-- and has gained a greater understanding of both the artist and the subject as a result--knows the power and importance of these works in our lives. I am proud to join in honoring the Weston Playhouse Theatre Company for 75 wonderful years of achievements that have enriched our heritage and the quality of life in the marvelous Green Mountain State.

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

Mr. President, this year, we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. I am pleased that today, June 20, the international community is celebrating World Refugee Day, an important opportunity to recognize the continuing plight of the millions of refugees around the world who deserve our protection.

It is also a moment to celebrate the accomplishments of refugees who have been resettled and are building new lives in the countries that welcomed them.

The theme of World Refugee Day 2011 is ``Real People, Real Needs.'' This theme reminds us that each individual refugee has a story to tell. Every refugee has experienced persecution, causing him or her to flee a home, a community, and a nation, because the circumstances are so dire that flight is the only option. Conflicts around the world are displacing persons, such that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now counts over 43 million persons who have been forced from their homes, which include refugees, internally displaced, and stateless persons. For many of the world's 15.4 million refugees, resettlement is the only hope they have of rebuilding a stable life and home.

The United States has long been committed to resettling refugees, but our resettlement program was strengthened by the enactment of the 1980 Refugee Act. Over the past 30 years, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have found safety in the United States. And since 1989, almost 5,600 refugees have been resettled in my home State of Vermont. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last 5 years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. Their culture is enriching my historically Anglo Saxon and French Canadian State.

Throughout this challenging time, I have remained proud of the role that our Nation plays in protecting refugees abroad and in helping many resettle in the United States. In a time of tight budgets, I was pleased to be able to protect funding for refugee assistance and resettlement programs in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations continuing resolution, when many other programs were cut.

The United States is a leader in international refugee protection. I am proud of that commitment and will work to ensure our government maintains this strong financial and political support. There is more that we can do, however.

I regret that the United States is not in full compliance with its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Changes to the law and a handful of court opinions issued in recent years have eroded protections for some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers.

Last week, I reintroduced the Refugee Protection Act, S. 1202, to restore the legal foundation of the United States for protection of refugees and asylum seekers. The Refugee Protection Act will correct serious shortcomings in current law, such as the overly broad definition of material support for terrorist groups.

The Refugee Protection Act does not diminish the rigor of security and background checks of incoming refugees, but it recognizes that the current law sweeps in a large number of persons who were victims of persecution at the hands of terrorist organizations, not supporters of those terrorist groups.

The Refugee Protection Act also repeals the 1-year filing deadline for asylum seekers in the United States. This deadline was unnecessary when it was added to the law in 1996 and remains unnecessary now.

Under court decisions interpreting our law, certain groups of asylum seekers can face improperly high barriers to protection. For example, the Board of Immigration Appeals has required seekers who base a claim on persecution of their social group to show that the group is ``socially visible.'' This requirement is not a part of the statute or implementing regulations. Moreover, it is unnecessarily onerous for certain groups who take great pains to conceal their membership in the social group. For example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered individuals from certain countries may have to hide their identity to avoid physical attacks or extreme social isolation. Women from certain cultures must conceal that they have not been forcibly circumcised or face the threat that tribal leaders will subject them to this violent and dangerous practice.

Our law grants asylum to those who have experienced persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Therefore, courts should not require these individuals to risk serious harm by exposing their membership in the persecuted social group in the home nation. Social visibility may be a factor in some cases, but must not be a baseline requirement to prevail on an asylum claim.

I thank Senators Levin, Akaka, and Durbin for their support of the Refugee Protection Act of 2011. I also thank Representative Zoe Lofgren for introducing a companion bill, H.R. 2185, in the House of Representatives.

I hope that on World Refugee Day others will join us in helping to reform our domestic laws to help the victims of persecution worldwide.

Mr. President, as one born in Montpelier, VT, I grew up listening to WDEV in Waterbury. My mother and father were friends of the owners of the station and I still remember days as a child going to visit.

Living now in Middlesex, VT, I--like everyone else in our area listen to WDEV to find out what is happening throughout central Vermont. At a time when more and more radio stations nationwide go to a canned format, WDEV is one that has not forgotten over the decades that it is a mainstay of the community.

Recently when we were facing horrible flooding and storms in Vermont, the lifeline for all of us was WDEV. Only there could we find out what was happening on the weather, what was happening on road conditions, and what we would face. Stefan Hard of the Times Argus wrote an excellent story about Chris Bouchard and Roger Hill and what they did to keep us all safe and informed. I talked with my friend Ken Sauier, about what they had done and said I intended to speak on the Senate Floor, and now, Mr. President, I ask that the article by Stephan Hard be printed in the Record.

The article follows:

[From the Times Argus, June 6, 2011]

Storm-Centered

(By Stefan Hard)

For weather forecasters Chris Bouchard and Roger Hill, who

were on duty May 27, the historic storms of that day quickly

pushed their workdays into overdrive and overtime and gave

them a first-hand taste of the crazy weather they were

reporting on. Looking back, they are both in awe at the level

of destruction caused by the storms' related flooding, but

are grateful that no one was killed.

Hill prepares forecasts for Radio Vermont, WDEV, for

utility companies, and for his WeatheringHeights.com website;

Bouchard is a staff meteorologist at the Fairbanks Museums

Eye on the Sky forecast center.

Both men knew from early in the day, May 27, that the

weather could be turning severe.

``It was clear to us for several days that there was a

possibility for severe weather on Thursday-Friday,'' said

Bouchard. ``On the day of the event in the morning, it looked

pretty clear that we were going to get supercell

thunderstorms, large hail, damaging winds and possibly even

tornadoes.'' Bouchard reported as such during his 12:55 p.m.

weather report on Vermont Public Radio. The first supercell

of the day passed just north of Burlington at about 3p.m. and

left large hail on the ground as it passed over Lowell.

Bouchard continued his warnings through the afternoon.

By 6:30 p.m., storms were beginning to hit central Vermont,

and power was knocked out at Hill's home and forecast center

in Worcester. Hearing tornado warnings on the radio for

Caledonia County and without power to run his phalanx of

computers, Hill decided to head to the WDEV studios in

Waterbury, where the station had back-up power and where Hill

could get his own evaluations and warnings directly on the

air in the midst of what he had already determined could be

life-threatening conditions due to the continued risk of

tornadoes, dangerous lightning, and with already-saturated

ground from recent rains, a real possibility of catastrophic

flash floods. He hopped in his car and headed for Waterbury.

``I felt a need and a responsibility to do this,'' said

Hill. ``I've haven't had anybody die on my watch and I didn't

want that to happen this time,'' he said.

Hill forgot to take his cell phone charger and didn't leave

a note for his wife, Michelle, as to where he was going. ``My

wife is very upset with me,'' he said. ``She didn't know

where I was until she heard me on the air.''

Driving through Middlesex, Hill encountered a downed tree

across the road and had to reroute and rain and hail fell and

tornado warnings continued come across on the crackling

radio. When he got to the station offices in Waterbury, the

door was locked (after business hours) and his cell battery

was dead, so he couldn't call on-air host Lee Kittell to let

him inside, and Kittell was unable to check and see emails

that Hill was sending from his netbook, which still had a

charge. Kittell was very busy and lightning temporarily

knocked out the station's computer system. Hill resorted to

running down the street to use the phone at a convenience

store to call Kittell to let him in. Once inside, Hill and

Kittell reported on the storm continuously, except for a

half-hour break for the audio track of WCAX-TV news at 11,

until 1:45 a.m.

Callers kept the phone lines lit up all evening with

reports of continuous lightning, ball lightning, hail the

size of golf balls, trees down, power outages, and worst of

all, flash flooding in Barre and Montpelier. Hill, stunned,

kept seeing a line of ``training echo'' thunderstorms

streaming

into central Vermont all night and his on-air voice became

increasingly ominous.

``I felt stupid, but I got to the point where I was just

saying, Oh, my God!''

Meanwhile, Bouchard had finished his forecasting shift at

the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, and had taken to the

road, storm chasing, and didn't have the need to let anyone

know where he was going. ``I went to Barnet, because that's

where it looked like the action was going to be,'' he said.

Bouchard stopped in several locations, setting up his tripod

just outside his car to get pictures of clouds that might

produce tornadoes, and lots of lightning. Bouchard said at

one point, he grabbed his tripod and camera and jumped in his

car just as lightning bolts crashed to the ground

uncomfortably close. Bouchard never saw a tornado, and none

were confirmed from that storm outbreak, but he got some

striking lighting photos, some of those will part of a show

of 32 of his best lightning images at the Fairbanks Museum at

the end of the month.

Hill, his cell battery dead, his netbook battery now dead,

and his own batteries running low, headed home from WDEV at

about 2 a.m. after receiving, along with Kittell, countless

calls from listeners praising the duo for staying on the air

with information. Of course, on his way home, Hill couldn't

update his wife on his progress through the continuing

storms, so, when he finally made it home, he faced a storm of

another kind.

Happily, Hill and his wife, Michelle on Sunday were

beginning a belated celebration of their 25th wedding

anniversary, taking a few days off, including a little

travel. Hill has planned a small detour in their travels to

see, first-hand, the level of destruction in Springfield,

Mass., where, last week, two tornadoes struck in another

example of powerful, training echo thunderstorms.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Portman to introduce the bipartisan Second Reauthorization Act. This bill builds on recent successes and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison have the opportunity to turn their lives around, rather than returning to a life of crime. That saves taxpayer money and makes us all safer.

This important legislation improves Federal reentry policy and authorizes assistance to collaborations between state and local corrections agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, service providers, and families to ensure that offenders released into society have the resources and support they need to become contributing members of the community. The reauthorization bill builds on the success of the Second Chance Act by continuing, improving, and consolidating its programs.

Four years ago, I joined with then-Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of the Second Chance Act, and I was pleased to help move that legislation through the Senate. The Senate recognized the value of the Second Chance Act when, after a great deal of work and compromise, the bill passed unanimously. I hope this reauthorization bill receives the same bipartisan support.

In the past few decades, Congress and the states have passed new criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more crimes. As a result, this country sends even more people to prison every year, costing millions and millions of dollars. There are currently over 2 million people in jail or prison, and more than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each year. Most of these people will at some point return to our communities.

Last July, I chaired a hearing on the Second Chance Act, and the Committee heard about the great strides many states are making with innovative prisoner reentry programs. Commissioner Andrew Pallito from the Vermont Department of Corrections testified and shared with us his experience with reentry programs in Vermont. The Vermont Department of Corrections and many others in Vermont have strongly supported the Second Chance Act, which gives me confidence that it represents an important step in making our country safer.

The Second Chance Act authorized grants for key reentry programs and required that these programs demonstrate measurable positive results, including a reduction in recidivism. Preliminary studies show that these programs are already working well.

The reauthorization bill that we propose today improves, consolidates and reauthorizes the state and local government grant programs created by the Second Chance Act. It is intended to ensure that funding is available for planning and implementation of key reentry projects so that evidence-based methodology is employed to ensure meaningful reductions in recidivism rates. It is designed to ensure that all states have the opportunity to develop and benefit from these important programs.

The bill also consolidates several programs that were underutilized into one grant program with multiple purposes. This will ensure that Federal dollars are effectively spent on programs that link probation with swift and certain enforcement, like the very successful HOPE program in Hawaii.

The Second Chance Act authorized research into educational methods used in prisons and jails. This reauthorization bill asks the Attorney General to review that research and establish best practices for prison education. It then reallocates the authorized funds previously used for research into a grant program to implement these best practices in prisons and jails. The bill also adds nonprofit organizations as eligible grant recipients for programs promoting family-based substance abuse treatment.

This legislation makes modest improvements to Federal reentry policy that have the added benefit of reducing Bureau of Prison costs. It continues the successful Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Non Violent Offenders Pilot Program and modestly expands the pool of inmates eligible to apply for the program. More than 60 inmates have now participated in this program, and not a single one has reoffended.

The bill also creates an incentive for inmates to participate in rigorous recidivism reduction programming by awarding a credit of up 60 days per year toward completion of their sentence for participation in such programs. The incentive is modeled on that currently awarded for successful participation in residential drug abuse treatment programs.

Finally, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act promotes accountability by requiring periodic audits of grantees to ensure that Federal dollars are responsibly spent. Grantees with problematic audits will not be eligible for funding in future years.

As a former prosecutor, I believe strongly in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But it is also important that we do everything we can to ensure that when these people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycle of recidivism and violence. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act will help break this cycle.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Portman to introduce the bipartisan Second Reauthorization Act. This bill builds on recent successes and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison have the opportunity to turn their lives around, rather than returning to a life of crime. That saves taxpayer money and makes us all safer.

This important legislation improves Federal reentry policy and authorizes assistance to collaborations between state and local corrections agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, service providers, and families to ensure that offenders released into society have the resources and support they need to become contributing members of the community. The reauthorization bill builds on the success of the Second Chance Act by continuing, improving, and consolidating its programs.

Four years ago, I joined with then-Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of the Second Chance Act, and I was pleased to help move that legislation through the Senate. The Senate recognized the value of the Second Chance Act when, after a great deal of work and compromise, the bill passed unanimously. I hope this reauthorization bill receives the same bipartisan support.

In the past few decades, Congress and the states have passed new criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more crimes. As a result, this country sends even more people to prison every year, costing millions and millions of dollars. There are currently over 2 million people in jail or prison, and more than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each year. Most of these people will at some point return to our communities.

Last July, I chaired a hearing on the Second Chance Act, and the Committee heard about the great strides many states are making with innovative prisoner reentry programs. Commissioner Andrew Pallito from the Vermont Department of Corrections testified and shared with us his experience with reentry programs in Vermont. The Vermont Department of Corrections and many others in Vermont have strongly supported the Second Chance Act, which gives me confidence that it represents an important step in making our country safer.

The Second Chance Act authorized grants for key reentry programs and required that these programs demonstrate measurable positive results, including a reduction in recidivism. Preliminary studies show that these programs are already working well.

The reauthorization bill that we propose today improves, consolidates and reauthorizes the state and local government grant programs created by the Second Chance Act. It is intended to ensure that funding is available for planning and implementation of key reentry projects so that evidence-based methodology is employed to ensure meaningful reductions in recidivism rates. It is designed to ensure that all states have the opportunity to develop and benefit from these important programs.

The bill also consolidates several programs that were underutilized into one grant program with multiple purposes. This will ensure that Federal dollars are effectively spent on programs that link probation with swift and certain enforcement, like the very successful HOPE program in Hawaii.

The Second Chance Act authorized research into educational methods used in prisons and jails. This reauthorization bill asks the Attorney General to review that research and establish best practices for prison education. It then reallocates the authorized funds previously used for research into a grant program to implement these best practices in prisons and jails. The bill also adds nonprofit organizations as eligible grant recipients for programs promoting family-based substance abuse treatment.

This legislation makes modest improvements to Federal reentry policy that have the added benefit of reducing Bureau of Prison costs. It continues the successful Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Non Violent Offenders Pilot Program and modestly expands the pool of inmates eligible to apply for the program. More than 60 inmates have now participated in this program, and not a single one has reoffended.

The bill also creates an incentive for inmates to participate in rigorous recidivism reduction programming by awarding a credit of up 60 days per year toward completion of their sentence for participation in such programs. The incentive is modeled on that currently awarded for successful participation in residential drug abuse treatment programs.

Finally, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act promotes accountability by requiring periodic audits of grantees to ensure that Federal dollars are responsibly spent. Grantees with problematic audits will not be eligible for funding in future years.

As a former prosecutor, I believe strongly in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But it is also important that we do everything we can to ensure that when these people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycle of recidivism and violence. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act will help break this cycle.

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

Mr. President, in April, the Senate unanimously passed the Food Safety Accountability Act. If enacted, this important bill will hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. Now more than ever, it is critical that the House pass this noncontroversial legislation.

A recent E. coli outbreak in Germany--identified by scientists as a new, deadly strain of the bacteria--has killed at least 35 people and spread to 10 countries. Thankfully, this particular outbreak has not yet hit the United States, but this tragedy, on the heels of several major outbreaks in the United States in recent years, highlights the importance of ensuring that we take every step to protect our food supply. The Food Safety Accountability Act promotes more accountability for food suppliers by increasing the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. Knowingly distributing adulterated food is already illegal, but it is in most cases merely a misdemeanor right now, and the Sentencing Commission has found that it generally does not result in jail time. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our American citizens in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business.

Last summer, a salmonella outbreak caused hundreds of people to fall ill and triggered a national egg recall. Salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable, knowing conduct like that carefully targeted by the Food Safety Accountability Act. The company responsible for the eggs at the root of the last summer's salmonella crisis had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. This bill will significantly increase the chances that those who commit serious food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than merely a slap on the wrist.

Food safety received considerable attention last year, and I was pleased that Congress finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms, but our work is not done. A provision almost identical to the Food Safety Accountability Act was passed by the House with strong, bipartisan support but failed to make it into the final legislation that ultimately passed because of Republican objections in the Senate. Now that the Senate has unanimously passed this bill, it is again time for the House to act.

The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. The uncertainty and fear caused by the current E. coli outbreak in Europe only reinforces the

need to pass the common sense Food Safety Accountability Act to protect our own food supply. I urge the House to quickly pass the Senate bill and join us in taking this important step toward protecting our food supply.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Refugee Protection Act. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Akaka, and Durbin, will reaffirm the commitments our Nation made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This bill would repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world.

During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. However, this bill is necessary now more than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. The ``Arab Spring'' is helping to move governments of the Middle East toward democracy, but some governments have responded to peaceful demonstrations with violence. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in need of protection. I was pleased to be able to protect funding for refugee assistance and resettlement programs in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations continuing resolution, when many other programs were cut.

In my home state of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of refugees and asylum seekers has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. Since Senator Ted Kennedy authored the 1980 Refugee Act, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. And since 1989, almost 5,600 refugees have been resettled in Vermont. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-wining volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last five years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. Their culture is enriching my historically Anglo Saxon and French Canadian state.

Once resettled, these refugees have become nursing assistants, soccer coaches, and small business owners. In Burlington's Old North End, there are two thriving halal markets, side by side. The Nadia International Halal Market is run by an Iraqi refugee. Next door is the Banadir Market, run by a Somali Bantu refugee. Vermonters enjoy these new additions to the culture, and these thriving small businesses create local jobs in a historically disadvantaged neighborhood.

Equally important are the family- and community-based values of these new Vermonters. The Burlington Chief of Police has commented that refugees have reduced crime in some historically troubled areas, creating more family oriented neighborhoods.

Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylees to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. The Ohavi Zedek Synagogue has made an effort to help all refugee families, regardless of their faith. The synagogue offers free English language classes so that refugees can improve their English skills. In this year's Passover service, refugees were encouraged to share their own personal tales of exodus.

The synagogue also runs a thrift shop where refugees who have been in the country for less than a year are allowed to take whatever they need without charge. Yet, a refugee from Bhutan has offered to help make physical improvements to the building's foundation, a testament to his desire to give back to the communities that have helped refugees build new lives. Many other places of worships have also reached out to these new Vermonters.

The Association for Africans Living in Vermont, AALV, which now assists any refugee in Vermont regardless of the country of origin, helps refugees access social services, organizes community cultural events, and provides cross-cultural training to Vermont service providers. The organization offers workforce development programs to ensure refugees can find meaningful work that sustains their families. The AALV New Farms for New Americans program enables refugees, many of whom farmed in their home countries, to learn to grow crops well suited to the Vermont climate. This program can connect such refugees to their heritage, and invites them to become part of Vermont's longstanding and vibrant agricultural tradition.

In cooperation with Vermont Adult Learning, AALV offers the Personal

Care Assistant Workforce Training Program, which trains refugees to serve as personal care assistants, the first level of service in the nursing profession. Graduates are able to pursue additional training as a licensed nursing assistant.

Vermont's resettlement program and the community support are not without their challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. The Refugee Protection Act of 2011 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Lugar who has investigated the resettlement program and called for a GAO study to obtain recommendations for improvement. I also appreciate the efforts of Representative Gary Peters of Michigan, who introduced a resettlement bill in the House of Representatives to improve communication among all stakeholders.

In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill addresses several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we learned in a May 18, 2011, hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the immigration courts are overburdened, under- resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads.

The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid and torture treatment provider, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts on national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain groups of particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States.

Finally, the bill addresses the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identity and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at a distance from urban centers, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards so that reforms are meaningful and enforceable.

There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis and a list of support organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Refugee Protection Act. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Akaka, and Durbin, will reaffirm the commitments our Nation made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This bill would repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world.

During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. However, this bill is necessary now more than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. The ``Arab Spring'' is helping to move governments of the Middle East toward democracy, but some governments have responded to peaceful demonstrations with violence. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in need of protection. I was pleased to be able to protect funding for refugee assistance and resettlement programs in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations continuing resolution, when many other programs were cut.

In my home state of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of refugees and asylum seekers has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. Since Senator Ted Kennedy authored the 1980 Refugee Act, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. And since 1989, almost 5,600 refugees have been resettled in Vermont. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-wining volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last five years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. Their culture is enriching my historically Anglo Saxon and French Canadian state.

Once resettled, these refugees have become nursing assistants, soccer coaches, and small business owners. In Burlington's Old North End, there are two thriving halal markets, side by side. The Nadia International Halal Market is run by an Iraqi refugee. Next door is the Banadir Market, run by a Somali Bantu refugee. Vermonters enjoy these new additions to the culture, and these thriving small businesses create local jobs in a historically disadvantaged neighborhood.

Equally important are the family- and community-based values of these new Vermonters. The Burlington Chief of Police has commented that refugees have reduced crime in some historically troubled areas, creating more family oriented neighborhoods.

Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylees to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. The Ohavi Zedek Synagogue has made an effort to help all refugee families, regardless of their faith. The synagogue offers free English language classes so that refugees can improve their English skills. In this year's Passover service, refugees were encouraged to share their own personal tales of exodus.

The synagogue also runs a thrift shop where refugees who have been in the country for less than a year are allowed to take whatever they need without charge. Yet, a refugee from Bhutan has offered to help make physical improvements to the building's foundation, a testament to his desire to give back to the communities that have helped refugees build new lives. Many other places of worships have also reached out to these new Vermonters.

The Association for Africans Living in Vermont, AALV, which now assists any refugee in Vermont regardless of the country of origin, helps refugees access social services, organizes community cultural events, and provides cross-cultural training to Vermont service providers. The organization offers workforce development programs to ensure refugees can find meaningful work that sustains their families. The AALV New Farms for New Americans program enables refugees, many of whom farmed in their home countries, to learn to grow crops well suited to the Vermont climate. This program can connect such refugees to their heritage, and invites them to become part of Vermont's longstanding and vibrant agricultural tradition.

In cooperation with Vermont Adult Learning, AALV offers the Personal

Care Assistant Workforce Training Program, which trains refugees to serve as personal care assistants, the first level of service in the nursing profession. Graduates are able to pursue additional training as a licensed nursing assistant.

Vermont's resettlement program and the community support are not without their challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. The Refugee Protection Act of 2011 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Lugar who has investigated the resettlement program and called for a GAO study to obtain recommendations for improvement. I also appreciate the efforts of Representative Gary Peters of Michigan, who introduced a resettlement bill in the House of Representatives to improve communication among all stakeholders.

In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill addresses several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we learned in a May 18, 2011, hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the immigration courts are overburdened, under- resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads.

The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid and torture treatment provider, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts on national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain groups of particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States.

Finally, the bill addresses the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identity and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at a distance from urban centers, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards so that reforms are meaningful and enforceable.

There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2011.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis and a list of support organizations be printed in the Record.