Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate last confirmed a judicial nominee on May 17, almost 1 month ago. This is despite the fact that almost a score of

qualified nominees have been awaiting final consideration since that date. Last month, the Senate recessed for Memorial Day with 19 judicial nominees pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. Of those, 16 are by anyone's definition consensus nominees. All 16 were unanimously approved by every Republican and every Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee after thorough review. They are all supported by their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. These are the kind of nominees who in past years would be confirmed within days of being reported to the Senate and without the extended delays that now burden every nomination.

With judicial vacancies continuing at crisis levels, affecting the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, I have been urging the Senate to vote on the judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. My efforts have not yielded much success or sense of urgency. Nor have the statements by the Chief Justice of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, the White House counsel, the Federal Bar Association and a number of Federal judges across the country.

Those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must understand that they are delaying and preventing the administration of justice. We can pass all the bills we want to protect American taxpayers from fraud and other crimes, but you cannot lock up criminals or recover ill-gotten gains if you do not have judges. The mounting backlogs of civil and criminal cases are growing larger.

We should have regular votes on President Obama's highly qualified nominees, instead of more delays. With vacancies still totaling more than 90 on Federal courts throughout the country, and with nearly two dozen future vacancies on the horizon, there is no time to delay consideration of these nominations. Had we taken positive action on the consensus nominees, vacancies would have been reduced to below 80 for the first time since the beginning of President Obama's administration.

All of the nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar have been through the committee's fair and thorough process. We review extensive background material on each nominee. All Senators on the committee, Democratic and Republican, have the opportunity to ask the nominees questions at a live hearing. Senators also have the opportunity to ask questions in writing following the hearing and to meet with the nominees. All of these nominees which the committee reported to the Senate have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. All have the support of their home state Senators, both Republican and Democratic. They should not be delayed for weeks and months needlessly after being so thoroughly and fairly considered by the Judiciary Committee.

Today, the Senate is being allowed to vote on two more of President Obama's outstanding judicial nominees, Esther Salas and Claire Cecchi-- both currently Federal magistrate judges for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the court to which they are nominated. Judge Salas previously served as a Federal public defender and in private practice. She is a graduate of Rutgers University and Rutgers University School of Law. Judge Cecchi previously worked in private practice and for the city of New York. She graduated from Barnard College of Columbia University and Fordham University School of Law. Judge Salas and Judge Cecchi both have the strong support of their home state Senators, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.

After today's votes on the two New Jersey nominees, there will remain more than a dozen other judicial nominations that were reported unanimously and that are being stalled for no good reason and without justification. They include several nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies, including Paul Engelmayer and William Kuntz of New York, Richard Brooke Jackson of Colorado, Kathleen Williams of Florida, and Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Texas, as well as Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit.

Other nominations reported unanimously and without any opposition are Paul Oetken of New York, Romana Manglona of the Mariana Islands, Sara Lynn Darrow of Illinois, John Andrew Ross of Missouri, Timothy M. Cain of South Carolina, Nanette Jolivette Brown of Louisiana and Nancy Torreson of Maine. Some have been needlessly stalled before the Senate for months. Those with home state Republican Senators in support include Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Sara Lynn Darrow of Illinois, Kathleen Williams of Florida, Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Texas, John Andrew Ross of Missouri, Timothy Cain of South Carolina, Nannette Jolivette Brown of Louisiana, and Nancy Torresen of Maine. In spite of all this, we continue to be unable to secure consent from the Republican leadership for the Senate to consider and vote on these nominations. They will all be confirmed if allowed to be considered.

We could have made significant progress helping Americans seeking justice in our Federal courts before the Memorial Day recess. I hope Senators across the aisle can join together with us and work with the President to provide needed judicial resources before our Fourth of July recess.

I congratulate both of the outstanding nominees we will confirm today, and their families on what I expect will be their unanimous confirmations today.

Mr. President, I was pleased that the Chamber of Commerce today wrote to Members of the House of Representatives in support of the America Invents Act. The Senate-passed companion legislation was approved in March in a 95-5 vote. This bill will create jobs and grow the economy without adding a penny to the deficit. Today's announcement by the Chamber of Commerce is a strong indication of a growing consensus that this legislation is what America needs to win the future through innovation. I applaud the work that Chairman Smith, Mr. Watt, and others have done to move the legislation forward in the House, and I encourage the full House to act swiftly.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a full copy of the Chamber's letter.

Mr. President, it is a delight to call the attention of the Senate to the generosity and vision of Wolf Kahn and Emily Mason, whose longstanding commitment to the communities of southern Vermont is being commemorated with the dedication of the Wolf Kahn and Emily Mason Gallery at the Brattleboro Museum and Art Center. While nationally and internationally recognized as accomplished artists, it is Wolf's and Emily's selfless contributions to their neighbors and their community that makes me the most proud to call them Vermonters.

The works of local painters, sculptors, musicians, photographers, and authors enrich Vermont's culture throughout the beautiful Green Mountain State. Displaying their creations in community venues, from libraries to coffee shops, artists working in all mediums enrich our lives, deepen our pride in our communities and strengthen our bond with Vermont, its landscape, its beauty and its cultural heritage. Anyone who has contemplated a painting in a museum or examined an original manuscript or composition, 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.

Since 1968, Wolf and Emily have spent the summers and autumns in West Brattleboro, VT, where the landscape provides them inspiration for countless paintings and drawings. Wolf and Emily's love of Vermont, however, does not end with the environment our State offers to create their work. They carry their passion into the community, to create equally rich experiences for other artists and the general public. Forty years ago, Wolf and Emily were instrumental in the formation of the Brattleboro Museum and Art Center. Over the ensuing decades, they have offered invaluable guidance and advice, and helped the Museum and Art Center establish important connections with the broader art world. They have also played a crucial role and offered the same unwavering support in the creation of the Vermont Studio Center--a working studio space where artists and writers from across the country and the world descend upon Johnson, VT, to immerse themselves in their work. Today these two organizations are not only flourishing, but they are also firmly embedded in Vermont's rich participation in the arts. The success of these programs is a true credit to Wolf and Emily's continued support throughout the years. They truly are energy givers, infusing all around them with their enthusiasm and sense of possibility.

Wolf and Emily have lived in Vermont, but they also have enriched the quality of life for all Vermonters by generously lending their hands and their talent to a number of institutions in Vermont--from cultural experiences, to supporting the basic needs of our most vulnerable community members. Their positive impact will be felt in Vermont for generations to come.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing 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 the military, or traveling. From the moment they are detained, their safety and well- being depends, often entirely, on the ability of United States 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.

Unfortunately, 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. There are many other foreigners in U.S. prisons awaiting trial for non- capital crimes, some facing life sentences, who were similarly denied consular access. 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 not perfect. 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. That message puts American lives at risk. The Government of Great Britain has expressed similar concerns about a case involving a British citizen facing the death penalty here, who was denied consular access.

The bill I am introducing would allow foreign nationals who have been convicted and sentenced to death to ask a court to review their cases and determine if the failure to provide consular notification led to an unfair conviction or sentence.

The bill also recognizes that law enforcement and the courts must do a better job in the future to promptly notify individuals of their right to consular assistance so the United States does not find itself in this precarious position again. To that end, the bill reaffirms that the obligations under the treaty are Federal law and apply to all foreign nationals arrested or detained in the United States. For individuals arrested on charges that carry a possible punishment of death, the bill ensures adequate opportunity for consular assistance before a trial begins.

This bill offers very limited remedies to a very limited number of people. I am troubled that it has to be so narrow, as we demand far broader protection for American citizens abroad every day. However, carrying out a death sentence is an irreversible action, and I believe that we must act quickly. I understand that a limited bill has the best chance of achieving the bipartisan support needed to move forward on such an important issue at this time.

Compliance with our consular notification obligations is not a question of partisan interest. There should be unanimous support for this bill. The VCCR was negotiated under President Kennedy, ratified during the Nixon administration, and it has been fully supported by every President since. President George W. Bush understood the critical need to honor our obligations under this treaty. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, he vigorously worked to bring the United States into compliance, and he supported action along the lines of what I propose today. He understood the implications of non-compliance for our citizens, our businesses, and our military. I have no doubt President Obama shares the same commitment to resolving this issue.

I saw the need to resolve this issue first-hand this spring when a young, innocent Vermont college student was detained by Syrian police simply for taking photos of a demonstration. I worked hard with the U.S. consulate in Syria to obtain access to him. His safety depended on the ability of our consular officers to see him, provide assistance, and monitor his condition.

Similarly, the United States invoked the VCCR to seek access to the three American hikers detained in Iran after accidently crossing an unmarked border in 2009. In 2001, when a U.S. Navy surveillance plane made an emergency landing in Chinese territory, the State Department cited the VCCR in demanding immediate access to the plane's crew.

I doubt there are many Members of Congress who have not sought similar help from our consulates when their constituents have been arrested overseas. We know how critically important this access is, and we expect other governments to provide it. Those governments expect no less of us.

This bill has the support of the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State. I have heard from retired members of the military urging passage of the bill to protect service men and women and their families overseas, and from former diplomats of both political parties who know that compliance with our treaty obligations is critical for America's national security and commercial interests.

Given the long history of bipartisan support for the VCCR, there should be unanimous support for this legislation to uphold our treaty obligations. A failure to act places Americans at risk.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing 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 the military, or traveling. From the moment they are detained, their safety and well- being depends, often entirely, on the ability of United States 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.

Unfortunately, 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. There are many other foreigners in U.S. prisons awaiting trial for non- capital crimes, some facing life sentences, who were similarly denied consular access. 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 not perfect. 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. That message puts American lives at risk. The Government of Great Britain has expressed similar concerns about a case involving a British citizen facing the death penalty here, who was denied consular access.

The bill I am introducing would allow foreign nationals who have been convicted and sentenced to death to ask a court to review their cases and determine if the failure to provide consular notification led to an unfair conviction or sentence.

The bill also recognizes that law enforcement and the courts must do a better job in the future to promptly notify individuals of their right to consular assistance so the United States does not find itself in this precarious position again. To that end, the bill reaffirms that the obligations under the treaty are Federal law and apply to all foreign nationals arrested or detained in the United States. For individuals arrested on charges that carry a possible punishment of death, the bill ensures adequate opportunity for consular assistance before a trial begins.

This bill offers very limited remedies to a very limited number of people. I am troubled that it has to be so narrow, as we demand far broader protection for American citizens abroad every day. However, carrying out a death sentence is an irreversible action, and I believe that we must act quickly. I understand that a limited bill has the best chance of achieving the bipartisan support needed to move forward on such an important issue at this time.

Compliance with our consular notification obligations is not a question of partisan interest. There should be unanimous support for this bill. The VCCR was negotiated under President Kennedy, ratified during the Nixon administration, and it has been fully supported by every President since. President George W. Bush understood the critical need to honor our obligations under this treaty. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful, he vigorously worked to bring the United States into compliance, and he supported action along the lines of what I propose today. He understood the implications of non-compliance for our citizens, our businesses, and our military. I have no doubt President Obama shares the same commitment to resolving this issue.

I saw the need to resolve this issue first-hand this spring when a young, innocent Vermont college student was detained by Syrian police simply for taking photos of a demonstration. I worked hard with the U.S. consulate in Syria to obtain access to him. His safety depended on the ability of our consular officers to see him, provide assistance, and monitor his condition.

Similarly, the United States invoked the VCCR to seek access to the three American hikers detained in Iran after accidently crossing an unmarked border in 2009. In 2001, when a U.S. Navy surveillance plane made an emergency landing in Chinese territory, the State Department cited the VCCR in demanding immediate access to the plane's crew.

I doubt there are many Members of Congress who have not sought similar help from our consulates when their constituents have been arrested overseas. We know how critically important this access is, and we expect other governments to provide it. Those governments expect no less of us.

This bill has the support of the Obama administration, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State. I have heard from retired members of the military urging passage of the bill to protect service men and women and their families overseas, and from former diplomats of both political parties who know that compliance with our treaty obligations is critical for America's national security and commercial interests.

Given the long history of bipartisan support for the VCCR, there should be unanimous support for this legislation to uphold our treaty obligations. A failure to act places Americans at risk.

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

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the hard work, dedication, and perseverance of the Carbone Auto Group in Bennington, VT. The Carbone Auto Group is celebrating its recent showroom expansion, where they have merged their Ford, Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota dealerships.

From its first garage in 1933, to its 25 franchises currently running across Vermont and central New York, the Carbone Auto Group is an award-winning business that has garnered many regional and national accolades. Approaching eight decades in business, the Carbone Auto Group deserves recognition for its diligence in running such a prosperous family-owned business. The company's longevity and success is a testament to its dedicated staff members and management-- particularly the founding partners, Joe Carbone and Phil Sacco. The hub of the auto group, Don-Al Management Company, Inc., is now managed by third-generation family members Joe, Don, Jr., Enessa, and Alex.

The Carbone Auto Group has helped hundreds of Vermonters purchase vehicles over the years, and it has created numerous Vermont jobs. I am pleased to see this local business celebrate its recent expansion, and I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicholas Patterson, a detailee on the staff of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, last week Senator Cochran, Senator Grassley, Senator Shelby, and I travelled to Flanders Field, the American Cemetery and Memorial in Belgium. We visited the cemetery on the eve of Memorial Day to take part in a ceremony honoring Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

The U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Howard W. Gutman, shared an extraordinary poem he had written at the commemoration. ``Never to Forget'' is a tribute to those who gave their lives for our country and also a reminder that we must heed the lessons of our past to create a better future for our children.

I would like to share Ambassador Gutman's poem with my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that a copy be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my fellow Members of the U.S. Senate have heard me say this before, but today I have reason to say it again: Vermonters are some of the most innovative and hardworking people in this country. The U.S. Small Business Administration recently highlighted one of these great individuals when it named Rick Cochran of the Mobile Medical International Corporation in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, as the 2011

National Small Business Person of the Year.

Mr. Cochran deserves this recognition for his many years of hard work building a successful small business that provides mobile, combat-ready shelter systems both in the U.S. and abroad. In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Air Force, and others, Mr. Cochran and his team provide quality medical services to the many dedicated men and woman worldwide who put their lives at risk in the military. Mr. Cochran has also deployed mobile surgical units across the globe to developing countries, giving third world countries cost-effective mobile access to modern medical facilities.

From an otherwise nondescript industrial building in St. Johnsbury, Mobile Medical has touched the lives of thousands of people from across the globe. Whether the company is shipping units to the Middle East, deploying units with National Guard soldiers, or quickly delivering aid to communities devastated by natural disasters here at home, the men and women who have engineered and manufactured these mobile medical facilities have found a novel and cost-effective way to deliver state- of-the-art medical care in some of the world's most challenging environments. Just last week, I learned that Mobile Medical had already deployed mobile healthcare facilities to assist in the recovery efforts in Joplin, MO, following the catastrophic weather that left hundreds dead and thousands more injured.

Mr. Cochran and his staff have improved the lives of others both abroad and locally, as their business has created hundreds of job opportunities for Vermonters in our rural Northeast Kingdom. As a longtime supporter of Mobile Medical, I was pleased to see this locally owned business recognized for the great work it has done in Vermont and across the globe.

I continue to be proud of the many small businesses thriving across Vermont. And today I am especially proud of the work of one small business that has succeeded both financially and socially Mobile Medical International Corporation of St. Johnsbury, VT. I wish Rick and his business continued success in the future. I also ask that the May 20, 2011, U.S. Small Business Administration announcement of this award be printed in the Record.

The information follows:

Vermont Manufacturer of Mobile Health Care Units Is National Small

Business Person of the Year

[Friday, May 20, 2011]

Washington.--When Rick Cochran was working with five

employees in his basement in Walden, Vt., his dream was to

find a way to provide advanced medical care to underserved

areas, and build a company that could deliver it.

Today, the Vermont manufacturer of state-of-the-art mobile

healthcare and diagnostic units was named 2011 National Small

Business Person of the year by Karen Mills, Administrator of

the U.S. Small Business Administration. Mills made the

announcement during ceremonies at SBA's celebration of

National Small Business Week in Washington, D.C.

First runner-up is Deborah Carey, president and founder of

the New Glarus Brewing Company, in New Glarus in southwestern

Wisconsin. Second runner-up is Leigh Kamstra, owner and chef

of Roma's Ristorante in Spearfish, S.D., north of the Black

Hills.

``The innovation, inspiration and determination shown by

Rick Cochran and his employees have elevated his company,

Mobile Medical International, to a level that is above and

beyond the norm,'' said Mills. ``These are the qualities that

make small businesses such a powerful force for job creation

in the American economy and in their local communities. Rick

had a dream and he persisted--creating jobs, winning the

loyalty of his team, and filling a need in the marketplace

that has taken Mobile Medical from his basement to a

worldwide stage. We are especially proud that when Rick

Cochran's company needed financing, he turned to the U.S.

Small Business Administration, and the SBA was able to help

him.

``I applaud Rick and his team, and I applaud the runners-up

and their staffs, and all of the state small business persons

of the year who are here today,'' Mills said. ``We are all

grateful for their contributions to our economy. They are

magnificent examples of the character of America's most

successful entrepreneurs.''

The National Small Business Person of the Year and runners-

up were selected from among the state winners in 50 states,

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,

and Guam. All are being honored this week in Washington,

D.C., as part of National Small Business Week. The awards

were announced at today's National Awards Luncheon, sponsored

by Sam's Club at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

For Cochran the road began when he left a job at an

advanced medical equipment provider to establish his first

venture, Outpatient Services of America, a consulting firm

specializing in planning and developing ambulatory surgery

centers. His plan evolved in 1994, when he researched and

created an initial design for a mobile surgery unit and

established Mobile Medical International, working from his

basement with a staff of five. By 1995, he had the capital,

and by 1996, he had his prototype.

At first, he provided temporary solutions for hospitals

undergoing renovations, but he was able to expand the

business into broader commercial, military, and emergency

response applications worldwide. During one rough patch in

1999, much of his core team--inspired by Cochran's

perseverance, optimism and faith--worked without pay when

financing ran dry and the company nearly closed its doors.

They were reimbursed later, when the company rebounded. The

company also secured financing support from three SBA-backed

loans in 1997, 2005 and 2008.

MMI's products include mobile surgical hospitals built into

a semi-sized tractor-trailer and an inflatable hospital ward

that fits into a trailer pulled by a Humvee. To date, MMIC

has 22 mobile healthcare units in its product line, including

Mobile Breast Care Centers, Mobile Intensive Care, Mobile

Laboratory/Pharmacy, Mobile CT Scan/Dental/Ophthalmology,

Mobile Ophthalmology and Mobile Endoscopy Units.

Today, MMI's staff has grown to 54, and net income--just

$9,835 in 2008--rose in 2010 to $1.68 million on gross

revenues of more than $14 million.

First runner-up Carey developed her business plan for the

New Glarus Brewing Company while her husband Dan, a master

brewer, gathered the materials, grains and equipment needed

for start-up. In 1993 they negotiated to lease a warehouse in

New Glarus, exchanging the lease for stock in the company.

They sold their home and raised $40,000 in seed money, yet

still needed more cash to fund the startup. Carey pitched her

story to local newspapers, and the media attention brought in

$200,000 from investors.

In the early days, the couple worked hard to establish the

brewery's reputation for consistent quality beers. Carey

based her plan on developing a very loyal customer base. She

set up beer tasting classes along with offering brewery

tours, and the brewery started to take off, attracting notice

from distributors. New Glarus Brewing Company has grown to 50

full-time employees, has registered growth in profits of 123

percent from 2007 to 2009, and is Wisconsin's number one

micro-brewery relative to sales volume.

Kamstra, the second runner-up, had been eyeing an old,

dilapidated stone building that had stood empty while she was

a college student attending Black Hills State University. She

didn't know exactly at the time how or why, but she knew

somehow her future would be in that building.

After earning a degree in business and 10 years in banking,

Kamstra changed course and earned a degree in culinary arts

at the Colorado Institute of art. In 1999, with the help of

an SBA-guaranteed loan, Kamstra leased the old dilapidated

building, refurbished it and opened Roma's Ristorante. When

the old building proved too small, Kamstra adapted, securing

another SBA-backed loan in 2010 to finance construction of a

new building, with more space. Since then, sales have nearly

doubled and staff has increased from 11 to 35.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The recent and troubling data breaches at Sony, Epsilon and Lockheed Martin on U.S. Government computers is clear evidence that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and cybersecurity is one of the most challenging and important issues facing our Nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help to meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. I thank Senators Schumer and Cardin for cosponsoring this important privacy legislation.

When I first introduced this bill six years ago, I had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill three times--in 2005, 2007, and again in 2009--the legislation languished on the Senate calendar.

While the Congress has waited to act, the dangers to our privacy, economic prosperity and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 533 million records have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. Just last week, Google announced that the Gmail accounts for hundreds of its users, including senior U.S. Government officials, have been hacked in an apparent state-sponsored cyberattack. As The Washington Post editorial board recently observed, ``[n]ow there is a need for legislative action. As the recent high-profile leaks of personal data at Google, Sony and the data-collecting company Epsilon suggest, this issue is a ticking bomb.''

In May, the Obama administration released several proposals to enhance cybersecurity, including a data breach proposal that adopts the carefully balanced framework of this bill. I am pleased that many of the sound privacy principles in this bill have been embraced by the President and his administration.

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow individuals to correct inaccurate information. The bill also requires that companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs.

The bill would also establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification. The bill requires notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised.

This bill also provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. The bill also includes the administration's recent proposal to update the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, so that attempted computer hacking and conspiracy to commit computer hacking offenses are subject to the same criminal penalties, as the underlying offense.

Finally, the bill addresses the important issue of the Government's use of personal data by requiring that Federal agencies notify affected individuals when Government data breaches occur, and by placing privacy and security front and center when Federal agencies evaluate whether data brokers can be trusted with Government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people.

Of course, no one has a monopoly on good ideas to solve the serious problems of identity theft and lax cybersecurity. But, this bill puts forth some meaningful solutions to this vexing problem.

I have drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection and business communities. I have also consulted with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and with the Federal Trade Commission. I have worked closely with other Senators, including Senators Feinstein and Schumer.

This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Enacting this comprehensive data privacy legislation remains one of my legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

This bill has always garnered strong bipartisan support. Protecting privacy

rights is of critical importance to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this measure to better protect Americans' privacy.

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

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to reintroduce the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. The recent and troubling data breaches at Sony, Epsilon and Lockheed Martin on U.S. Government computers is clear evidence that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and cybersecurity is one of the most challenging and important issues facing our Nation. The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act will help to meet this challenge, by better protecting Americans from the growing threats of data breaches and identity theft. I thank Senators Schumer and Cardin for cosponsoring this important privacy legislation.

When I first introduced this bill six years ago, I had high hopes of bringing urgently needed data privacy reforms to the American people. Although the Judiciary Committee favorably reported this bill three times--in 2005, 2007, and again in 2009--the legislation languished on the Senate calendar.

While the Congress has waited to act, the dangers to our privacy, economic prosperity and national security posed by data breaches have not gone away. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, more than 533 million records have been involved in data security breaches since 2005. Just last week, Google announced that the Gmail accounts for hundreds of its users, including senior U.S. Government officials, have been hacked in an apparent state-sponsored cyberattack. As The Washington Post editorial board recently observed, ``[n]ow there is a need for legislative action. As the recent high-profile leaks of personal data at Google, Sony and the data-collecting company Epsilon suggest, this issue is a ticking bomb.''

In May, the Obama administration released several proposals to enhance cybersecurity, including a data breach proposal that adopts the carefully balanced framework of this bill. I am pleased that many of the sound privacy principles in this bill have been embraced by the President and his administration.

The Personal Data Privacy and Security Act requires that data brokers let consumers know what sensitive personal information they have about them, and to allow individuals to correct inaccurate information. The bill also requires that companies that have databases with sensitive personal information on Americans establish and implement data privacy and security programs.

The bill would also establish a single nationwide standard for data breach notification. The bill requires notice to consumers when their sensitive personal information has been compromised.

This bill also provides for tough criminal penalties for anyone who would intentionally and willfully conceal the fact that a data breach has occurred when the breach causes economic damage to consumers. The bill also includes the administration's recent proposal to update the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, so that attempted computer hacking and conspiracy to commit computer hacking offenses are subject to the same criminal penalties, as the underlying offense.

Finally, the bill addresses the important issue of the Government's use of personal data by requiring that Federal agencies notify affected individuals when Government data breaches occur, and by placing privacy and security front and center when Federal agencies evaluate whether data brokers can be trusted with Government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people.

Of course, no one has a monopoly on good ideas to solve the serious problems of identity theft and lax cybersecurity. But, this bill puts forth some meaningful solutions to this vexing problem.

I have drafted this bill after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the stakeholders on this issue, including the privacy, consumer protection and business communities. I have also consulted with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and with the Federal Trade Commission. I have worked closely with other Senators, including Senators Feinstein and Schumer.

This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place. Enacting this comprehensive data privacy legislation remains one of my legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

This bill has always garnered strong bipartisan support. Protecting privacy

rights is of critical importance to all of us, regardless of party or ideology. I hope that all Senators will support this measure to better protect Americans' privacy.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the Verrilli nomination be withdrawn, and at 5:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote, without intervening action or debate, on Calendar No. 118, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order with respect to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session, with the other provisions of the May 26 unanimous consent agreement remaining in effect.

Mr. President, on the first day of this millennium, January 1, 2000, the newest Federal judge, and the first of the millennium, was sworn in. Richard Linn became a member of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals at the stroke of midnight, standing in the Federal Circuit's courthouse, with a view of the Washington Monument lit behind him, and the oath being administered by Chief Judge H.R. Mayer.

President Clinton had been told of the hundreds of nominations he would make during his Presidency, one he would never regret would be that of Judge Linn. How true that prediction. Judge Linn has brought dignity, expertise, and judicial excellence that could set the model for all our Federal courts. His calm but brilliant analyses of our most complex intellectual property cases reflect the extensive experience he had before going on the bench. This experience now benefits all Americans.

My wife Marcelle and I and our children have been privileged to have known Dick and Patti Linn for over a generation, as well as their wonderful daughters, Debbie and Sandy, and all their family. This weekend, their children, son-in-law Erik, and grandchildren, Jaret and Dakota, as well as other members of their family, will gather to unveil a portrait of Judge Linn. I hope that as people visit the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals building or are there on business, that they will pause and look. It will give them a chance to see the face of justice and a man I admire greatly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back on the matter before us, with the time still being reserved to me.

I thank the majority leader and the Republican leader for reaching an agreement for the Senate to debate and vote on the nomination of Don Verrilli to be Solicitor General of the United States. By doing so, we were able to vitiate the cloture motion and avoid another unnecessary filibuster. Had agreement not been reached, this would have been the first filibuster in history of a Solicitor General nomination.

Mr. Verrilli is by all accounts one of the finest lawyers in the country, whose extensive experience as an advocate for a wide variety of clients will serve him well as Solicitor General, the top advocate for the United States. In a long and distinguished career, Mr. Verrilli has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal appeals courts and State appellate courts. He clerked for Judge J. Skelly Wright on the DC Circuit and for Justice William Brennan on the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Verrilli's impressive breadth of experience both in Government and in private practice led the Judiciary Committee to report his nomination by a vote of 17-1 nearly a month ago. Seven of the eight Republican members of the committee joined in supporting Mr. Verrilli's nomination.

The Judiciary Committee heard from many respected lawyers from across the political spectrum in support for Mr. Verrilli's nomination. Eight former Solicitors General from both Republican and Democratic administrations, among them Republicans Charles Fried, Kenneth Starr, Ted Olson, Paul Clement and Gregory Garre, concluded: ``Mr. Verrilli is ideally suited to carry out the crucial tasks assigned to the Solicitor General and to maintain the traditions of the Office of the Solicitor General.''

More than 50 prominent Supreme Court practitioners urged the Senate to confirm Mr. Verrilli's nomination, including conservatives like Maureen Mahoney, Peter Keisler, and Miguel Estrada. They wrote:

Don's approach to practicing law throughout his career--his

meticulousness in understanding and presenting facts

accurately and his insistence on coherently laying out

reasons for the positions he is urging--proves beyond

question that Don will protect and promote the rule of law.

I will ask that copies of the letters in support be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Don Verrilli is exactly the kind of superbly qualified, serious professional we should be encouraging to serve the American people in their government. I expect that he will be confirmed by a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate.

Like all of the nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar, Mr. Verrilli's nomination has been through the Judiciary Committee's fair and thorough process. We reviewed extensive background material on his nomination. All Senators on the committee, Democratic and Republican, had the opportunity to ask him questions at a live hearing. All Senators had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Verrilli individually, as well. Many also took advantage of the opportunity to ask him questions in writing following the hearing.

We then debated and voted on his nomination. I thank the members of the committee for their work, consideration and judgment. Many cited their meetings with Mr. Verrilli and his serious and thoughtful answers to hundreds of written questions for the record as a basis for their support of his nomination. The result of the process was that Senators, having raised whatever concerns they had and whatever differences they have with the policies of the Obama administration, voted nearly unanimously in favor of confirming Mr. Verrilli based on his qualifications, experience and appreciation for the responsibilities of the Solicitor General.

I appreciate the effort made by the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee in considering the Verrilli nomination on its merits and voting to support him, with one exception. I appreciated the thoughtful statement by the ranking Republican at our markup, nearly 1 month ago, in which he set forth his concerns and the painstaking process he followed to evaluate the nomination and his judgment to support him. Senator Grassley attended the hearing, met personally with the nominee, and engaged in extensive written questioning, as well. In his statement he commended Mr. Verrilli ``for his serious approach to the task of providing responses'' and for his ``thoughtful answers.'' After that rigorous process, Senator Grassley became more comfortable that Mr. Verrilli ``understands the duty of the Solicitor General.'' He emphasized that Mr. Verrilli had made clear to him that ``he would not lend his name or that of the office to carrying out any order which he believed to be based upon partisan political considerations or other illegitimate reasons'' and that rather than do so, he would resign from office. Senator Grassley concluded that he has ``every expectation that Mr. Verrilli, if confirmed, will honorably live up to his duties, obligations, and assurances.''

The committee process left no doubt that Mr. Verrilli has an extensive knowledge of the law and an understanding of the independence required to represent the interests of the government and the American people as the Solicitor General of the United States. He is well qualified and well suited to serve in the role of what is often called ``the tenth Justice.''

The Senate has a longstanding practice of giving deference to the President to make nominations for positions in the executive branch. However, as we have seen with more and more of President Obama's nominations, Senate Republicans have dramatically departed from our Senate standards. This does great harm to the interests of the American people, the ability of good people to serve, the capacity of the government to fulfill its responsibilities and the proper functioning of the Senate. Subjecting consensus nominees to unnecessary and damaging delays and unjustified and harmful filibusters is wrong. I am glad the Senate leaders have been able to come to agreement to avoid the threatened filibuster of this qualified nominee to serve as Solicitor General of the United States.

Before the Memorial Day recess, the Senate should have confirmed the nomination of Lisa Monaco to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division at the Justice Department. That is a key national security position. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Ms. Monaco's nomination in April and reported her nomination unanimously in early May. Her nomination has since been considered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at an additional hearing and was reported unanimously by that committee, as well, nearly 2 weeks ago. After such a thorough process, there is no doubt that President Obama has made a first-rate choice to fill this very critical national security position. The value of Ms. Monaco's wealth of experience and institutional knowledge has been supported by the many former Justice Department officials who have written in support of her nomination, including former Attorney General Mukasey, who served during the President George W. Bush administration. Without cause or explanation, the Republican leadership still has not consented to a vote on this important national security nomination.

Even more egregious is the unprecedented filibuster of the nomination of Jim Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, the No. 2 position at the Justice Department also with key national security responsibilities. There is no excuse or justification for the continued failure to act on Mr. Cole's nomination to fill this critical position. It was blocked last year when it was pending for 5 months in the Senate. The nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee again in March, and incredibly, has been filibustered for another 10 weeks 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, the Senate has not acted to ensure that President Obama has his full national security team in place. Instead, Senate Republicans have chosen to delay action on those nominations and to seek to use them as leverage against the administration.

I have urged Senate Republicans to reject this partisan approach and to come together to work with our President to keep America safe. In the aftermath of 9/11, we expedited law enforcement nominations, confirming an additional 58 officials to posts at the Justice Department before the end of 2001. We should have done the same with the nominations of Lisa Monaco and Jim Cole. We should treat Mr. Cole's nomination with the same urgency and seriousness with which we 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 has ever been subjected to a filibuster before. It is wrong and should end.

I am confident that Mr. Verrilli's qualifications, experience, ability, temperament and judgment will lead to an overwhelming bipartisan vote in support of his confirmation to serve as the next Solicitor General of the United States.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.