Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2011, a bill to bring our Federal electronic privacy laws into the digital age. Since the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, was first enacted in 1986, the ECPA has been one of our Nation's premiere privacy laws. But, today, this law is significantly outdated and out-paced by rapid changes in technology and the changing mission of our law enforcement agencies after September 11.

In the digital age, American consumers and businesses face threats to privacy like no time in history. With the explosion of new technologies, including social networking sites, smartphones and other mobile applications, there are many new benefits to consumers. But, there are also many new risks to their privacy.

Just in the past few weeks, we have witnessed significant data breaches involving Sony and Epsilon that impact the privacy of millions of American consumers. We are also learning that smartphones and other new mobile technologies may be using and storing our location and other sensitive information posing other new risks to privacy.

When I led the effort to write the ECPA 25 years ago, no one could have contemplated these and other emerging threats to our digital privacy. Updating this law to reflect the realities of our time is essential to ensuring that our Federal privacy laws keep pace with new technologies and the new threats to our security.

This bill takes several steps to protect Americans' privacy in the digital age. First, the bill makes common sense changes to the law regarding the privacy protections afforded to consumers' electronic communications. Under the current law, a single e-mail could be subject to as many a four different levels of privacy protections, depending upon where it is stored and when it was sent. The bill gets rid of the so-called ``180-day rule'' and replaces this confusing mosaic with one clear legal standard for the protection of the content of e-mails and other electronic communications. Under my bill, service providers are expressly prohibited from disclosing customer content and the government must obtain a search warrant, based on probable cause, to compel a service provider to disclose the content of a customer's electronic communications to the government.

This bill also provides important new consumer privacy protections for location information that is collected, used, or stored by service providers, smartphones, or other mobile technologies. To protect consumer privacy, my bill requires that the government obtain either a search warrant, or a court order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in order to access or use an individual's smartphone or other electronic communications device to obtain geolocation information. There are well-balanced exceptions to the warrant requirement if the government needs to obtain location information to address an immediate threat to safety or national security, or when there is user consent or a call for emergency services. The bill also requires that the government obtain a search warrant in order to obtain contemporaneous, real-time, location information from a provider. There is an exception to the warrant requirement for emergency calls for service.

To address the role of new technologies in the changing mission of law enforcement, the bill also provides important new tools to law enforcement to fight crime and keep us safe. The bill clarifies the authority under the ECPA for the government to temporarily delay notifying an individual of that fact that the government has accessed the contents of their electronic communications, to protect the integrity of a government investigation. The bill also gives new authority to the government to delay notification in order to protect national security.

Lastly, the ECPA Amendments Act strengthens the tools available in ECPA to protect our national security and the security of our computer networks. The legislation creates a new limited exception to the nondisclosure requirements under the ECPA, so that a service provider can voluntarily disclose content to the government that is pertinent to addressing a cyberattack. To protect privacy and civil liberties, the bill also requires that, among other things, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security submit an annual report to Congress detailing the number of accounts from which their departments received voluntary disclosures under this new cybersecurity exception.

In addition, the bill clarifies the kinds of subscriber records that the Federal Bureau of Investigations may obtain from a provider in connection with a counterintelligence investigation. This reform will help to make the process for obtaining this information more certain and efficient for both the government and providers.

I drafted this bill with one key principle in mind, that updates to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act must carefully balance the interests and needs of consumers, law enforcement, and our Nation's thriving technology sector. I also drafted this bill in careful consultation with many government and private sector stakeholders, including the Departments of Justice and Commerce, State and local law enforcement, and members of the technology and privacy communities.

I thank the Digital Due Process Coalition and the many other stakeholders who support this bill. I also thank the Departments of Commerce and Justice for their guidance on how the ECPA impacts the needs of our law enforcement community and our national economy. I look forward to continuing to work with all of these stakeholders as this bill moves forward.

Two decades before Congress first enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Chief Justice Earl Warren wisely opined that ``the fantastic advances in the field of electronic communications constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual.'' This aptly describes the state of our digital privacy rights today. The balanced reforms in this bill will help ensure that our Federal privacy laws address the many dangers to personal privacy posed by the rapid advances in electronic communications technologies. Accomplishing this challenging task will not be easy. But, with the introduction of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2011, we take a significant step towards this very important goal.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2011, a bill to bring our Federal electronic privacy laws into the digital age. Since the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, was first enacted in 1986, the ECPA has been one of our Nation's premiere privacy laws. But, today, this law is significantly outdated and out-paced by rapid changes in technology and the changing mission of our law enforcement agencies after September 11.

In the digital age, American consumers and businesses face threats to privacy like no time in history. With the explosion of new technologies, including social networking sites, smartphones and other mobile applications, there are many new benefits to consumers. But, there are also many new risks to their privacy.

Just in the past few weeks, we have witnessed significant data breaches involving Sony and Epsilon that impact the privacy of millions of American consumers. We are also learning that smartphones and other new mobile technologies may be using and storing our location and other sensitive information posing other new risks to privacy.

When I led the effort to write the ECPA 25 years ago, no one could have contemplated these and other emerging threats to our digital privacy. Updating this law to reflect the realities of our time is essential to ensuring that our Federal privacy laws keep pace with new technologies and the new threats to our security.

This bill takes several steps to protect Americans' privacy in the digital age. First, the bill makes common sense changes to the law regarding the privacy protections afforded to consumers' electronic communications. Under the current law, a single e-mail could be subject to as many a four different levels of privacy protections, depending upon where it is stored and when it was sent. The bill gets rid of the so-called ``180-day rule'' and replaces this confusing mosaic with one clear legal standard for the protection of the content of e-mails and other electronic communications. Under my bill, service providers are expressly prohibited from disclosing customer content and the government must obtain a search warrant, based on probable cause, to compel a service provider to disclose the content of a customer's electronic communications to the government.

This bill also provides important new consumer privacy protections for location information that is collected, used, or stored by service providers, smartphones, or other mobile technologies. To protect consumer privacy, my bill requires that the government obtain either a search warrant, or a court order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in order to access or use an individual's smartphone or other electronic communications device to obtain geolocation information. There are well-balanced exceptions to the warrant requirement if the government needs to obtain location information to address an immediate threat to safety or national security, or when there is user consent or a call for emergency services. The bill also requires that the government obtain a search warrant in order to obtain contemporaneous, real-time, location information from a provider. There is an exception to the warrant requirement for emergency calls for service.

To address the role of new technologies in the changing mission of law enforcement, the bill also provides important new tools to law enforcement to fight crime and keep us safe. The bill clarifies the authority under the ECPA for the government to temporarily delay notifying an individual of that fact that the government has accessed the contents of their electronic communications, to protect the integrity of a government investigation. The bill also gives new authority to the government to delay notification in order to protect national security.

Lastly, the ECPA Amendments Act strengthens the tools available in ECPA to protect our national security and the security of our computer networks. The legislation creates a new limited exception to the nondisclosure requirements under the ECPA, so that a service provider can voluntarily disclose content to the government that is pertinent to addressing a cyberattack. To protect privacy and civil liberties, the bill also requires that, among other things, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security submit an annual report to Congress detailing the number of accounts from which their departments received voluntary disclosures under this new cybersecurity exception.

In addition, the bill clarifies the kinds of subscriber records that the Federal Bureau of Investigations may obtain from a provider in connection with a counterintelligence investigation. This reform will help to make the process for obtaining this information more certain and efficient for both the government and providers.

I drafted this bill with one key principle in mind, that updates to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act must carefully balance the interests and needs of consumers, law enforcement, and our Nation's thriving technology sector. I also drafted this bill in careful consultation with many government and private sector stakeholders, including the Departments of Justice and Commerce, State and local law enforcement, and members of the technology and privacy communities.

I thank the Digital Due Process Coalition and the many other stakeholders who support this bill. I also thank the Departments of Commerce and Justice for their guidance on how the ECPA impacts the needs of our law enforcement community and our national economy. I look forward to continuing to work with all of these stakeholders as this bill moves forward.

Two decades before Congress first enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Chief Justice Earl Warren wisely opined that ``the fantastic advances in the field of electronic communications constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual.'' This aptly describes the state of our digital privacy rights today. The balanced reforms in this bill will help ensure that our Federal privacy laws address the many dangers to personal privacy posed by the rapid advances in electronic communications technologies. Accomplishing this challenging task will not be easy. But, with the introduction of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2011, we take a significant step towards this very important goal.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to bring the attention of the Senate to a small business in Vermont, the Outdoor Gear Exchange, which is moving to a new location near and dear to my heart--the Church Street Marketplace in Burlington.

A large, national retailer recently chose to depart the Marketplace. This left a big hole on one of our nation's most successful pedestrian malls. The local owners of the Outdoor Gear Exchange, Marc Sherman and Mike Donahue, quickly took the opportunity to move their successful venture from a nearby side street onto Church Street.

As a longtime supporter of the Church Street Marketplace, I was pleased to see this locally owned and much-beloved fixture in the Vermont business scene fill one of the most high-profile store fronts on Church Street.

I hope Americans interested in good news during this difficult economy might take a moment to read about this great business, and I ask unanimous consent to have the May 16, 2011, Burlington Free Press article written by Dan D'Ambrosio entitled ``Outdoor Gear Exchange takes its store, and philosophy, into a bigger space'' printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the nomination of Michael Francis Urbanski to fill a judicial vacancy on the District Court for the Western District of Virginia. I thank the majority leader for scheduling the vote today on this nomination, as well as the vote yesterday on another nomination to fill a vacancy in Virginia. With vacancies at 90 in Federal courts throughout the country, I hope that we can continue to work together in the remaining weeks of this work period to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the resources it needs to fulfill its constitutional role.

Our action to take up and vote on these nominations from Virginia, and to come to a time agreement to debate and vote on the long-delayed nomination of Ed Chen to the Northern District of California earlier this week, show that the delays that have slowed our progress on nominations are unnecessary.

Judge Urbanski has been a magistrate judge for 7 years on the court to which has now been nominated. Previously, he was in private practice in Roanoke, VA, and Washington, DC, and was a law clerk to the Western District of Virginia Judge James C. Turk. Judge Urbanski's nomination has the support of both of his home State Senators, Senator Webb and Senator Warner. His nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over a month ago. I expect that it will be unanimously confirmed today.

In addition to Judge Urbanski, there remain another 10 judicial nominations on the Executive Calendar that have been ready for final Senate action for weeks and, in some cases, many months. Today we reported another five of President Obama's judicial nominations favorably. They are now, also, ready to be considered by the Senate. All of these nominees have a strong commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution. They should have an up- or-down vote after being considered by the Judiciary Committee, and without additional weeks and months of needless delay.

Our ability to make this kind of progress regarding nominations has been hampered by the creation of what I consider to be misplaced controversies about many nominees' records. Recently, Republican Senators have tried to twist nominees' litigation experience against them. Their partisan attacks are not consistent. Republicans oppose some nominees by saying that they do not have sufficient litigation experience. When a nominee has extensive experience and is a successful trial lawyer, they reverse themselves and complain that the nominee has too much experience and will be biased by it.

It is difficult to satisfy people whose standards change in order to explain their opposition. Republicans seem to react this way to President Obama, his actions and his nominees. Republicans were for a deficit commission until President Obama was for it; then they voted against it. They were for action in Libya until President Obama took action; then they were against it.

They opposed Judge McConnell of Rhode Island supposedly because he was an excellent trial lawyer. They opposed Judge Chen of California despite his 10 years as a fair and impartial Federal judge magistrate, because he was a staff attorney litigating to protect civil rights. Both of these nominees have assured us that they understand the difference between being an advocate for a client and serving as a judge. I have no doubt that they do. Judge Chen demonstrated his impartiality in 10 years of work as a Federal magistrate judge. Republicans chose to ignore his demonstrated qualifications and experience. They likewise ignore the sworn testimony of the nominees at our hearings and their answers to Republicans own questions. When they do that, it makes you wonder what is driving their decisions to oppose these qualified nominees.

These are Republican Senators who demanded that President Bush's nominees be confirmed despite their ideological commitment to conservative activism. In those years, Republicans argued that nominees' careers devoted

to serving corporate interests and conservative causes were irrelevant to the Senate's inquiry and that all nominees should be confirmed if they met basic qualifications. In President Bush's first term, the Senate regularly considered nominations, confirming 205 to lifetime appointments. We remain well behind that pace, having been allowed to consider only 83 of President Obama's nominations in nearly 28 months of his term.

Senate Republicans are now adopting a much different standard--and a shifting one at that. It almost seems like whatever might be claimed to justify strenuous opposition and voting no on an Obama nominee is justified by the end--opposing the President. That is wrong. That is wrong because this President has worked hard to consult with Republican home State Senators. Yet they still oppose them, including President Obama's first nomination that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana. Despite Senator Lugar's support, Republicans filibustered that nomination and delayed it for months. They have filibustered five of President Obama's judicial nominations to date.

It is wrong because their actions have created a judicial vacancies crisis that persists to this day. If the 22 judicial nominees Republicans point to as being confirmed this year, 15 should have been confirmed last year and were needlessly delayed. One even required cloture to end an unprecedented filibuster against a Federal trial court nominee.

With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be debating and voting on each of the 15 other judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. The progress we have started to make these last 2 weeks is a sign that the Senate can do better to ensure that the Federal judiciary has the judges it needs to provide justice to Americans in courts throughout the country.

I congratulate Judge Urbanski and his family on his confirmation today.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this afternoon I had the honor of attending the Top Cops event hosted by President Obama at the White House. I will be honored Sunday to attend the National Peace Officers Memorial ceremony. I appreciate the support the President is showing for our law enforcement officers not just this week but every week. Local law enforcement is critical to the peace and security of our families and communities in Vermont and across the country.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation to designate May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as Police Week. Every year during Police Week, thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country converge on Washington, DC, to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice keeping all of us safe. I want to mark this week by recognizing the heroic women and men in law enforcement who are dedicated to just that. More than 900,000 law enforcement officers guard our communities at great

risk to their safety every day. National Peace Officers Memorial Day provides the people of theUnited States, in their communities, in their state capitals, and in the Nation's Capital, with the opportunity to honor and reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice given year after year by the women and men who serve in police forces, as peace officers and in all branches of law enforcement.

This week we honor those who lost their lives in the line of duty, and their families. In 2010, 153 law enforcement officers died while serving in the line of duty. Their bravery and sacrifice should not be forgotten. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 19,000 law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty.

Late last week, the Senate passed a resolution I introduced to recognize those officers who lost their lives last year. I thank Senator Grassley for joining me in sponsoring that resolution. I am glad the Senate came together unanimously to show its strong support and appreciation of America's law enforcement officers.

Keeping our communities safe is vitally important work and will always be dangerous, but we must work to keep those who protect us as safe as possible. The officers who lost their lives in 2010 are a stark reminder that we must not let up in our support of those who work day in and day out in the service of all of us and our communities.

I was proud to champion bipartisan legislation first passed more than a decade ago which has authorized Federal funding to assist in the purchase of lifesaving bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers. I have worked hard to ensure that legislation is funded each year. From 1999 through 2009, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program has helped provide more than 800,000 vests. Just last year, the program paid for 95 new vests across Vermont. These vests have saved the lives of police officers across America.

In these tough economic times, when towns and cities have had to tighten their belts and make tough decisions about their budgets, these grants are even more important to protect law enforcement officers. Congress must continue to support this initiative to increase the safety of those in the line of duty.

Congress must also continue to support Federal assistance to state and local law enforcement. Consistent support for key Federal support initiatives like the COPS program, the Byrne/JAG program, and rural law enforcement grants are an important reason why crime rates have continued to decline even as the economy struggled and State budgets tightened. We were able to secure funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and renewed commitments in the appropriations process, which allowed police departments throughout the country to hire and maintain officers, buy needed equipment, and provide training.

In the current budget environment, everyone has had to make sacrifices. Even the President, who has been a strong supporter of law enforcement, has called for modest cuts in Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. What we cannot afford are the draconian cuts in law enforcement assistance that others are proposing. We owe it to our law enforcement professionals and to our communities to continue our much-needed support.

Mr. President, few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property. At a time where our country is beginning to regain its economic footing, businesses face an additional hurdle, the severity of which is increasing by the day--digital theft.

Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Further, the Institute for Policy Innovation estimates that copyright piracy online alone costs Federal, state and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue. In today's business and fiscal climate, the harm that intellectual property infringement causes to the U.S. economy is unacceptable.

While the growth of the digital marketplace has been extraordinary, and benefits businesses by enabling new opportunities to reach consumers, it also brings with it the threat of copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Internet purchases have become so commonplace that consumers are less wary of online shopping and therefore more easily victimized by online counterfeit products that may have health, safety or other quality concerns when they are counterfeit.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan PROTECT IP Act, which is based on last year's Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act. It will provide the Justice Department

and rights holders with important new tools to crack down on rogue websites dedicated to infringing activities. This legislation will protect the investment American companies make in developing brands and creating content and will protect the jobs associated with those investments. It will also protect American consumers, who should feel confident that the goods they purchase are of the type and quality they expect.

Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products. These rogue websites are often foreign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar. American consumers are too often deceived into thinking the products they are purchasing at these websites are legitimate because they are easily accessed through their home's Internet service provider, found through well known search engines, and are complete with corporate advertising, credit card acceptance, and advertising links that make them appear legitimate.

The PROTECT IP Act authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign rogue website, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the site is dedicated to infringing activities. The court is authorized to issue a cease and desist order against a rogue website. If the court issues that order, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order, with permission of the court, on specified U.S. based third-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site, in the case of an Internet service provider or search engine, or cease doing business with the Internet site, in the case of a payment processor or advertising network.

The act authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement from a rogue website to bring a similar action against the rogue site, whether domestic or foreign. If the court issues a cease and desist order, the rights holder is authorized to serve that order, if authorized by the court, on payment processors and online advertising networks, to cut off the financial viability of the criminal activity.

The legislation will also encourage voluntary action by Internet partners that have credible evidence a rogue website is threatening the public health by trafficking in counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded prescription medication.

Finally, the PROTECT IP Act will help law enforcement identify and prevent counterfeit products from being imported into the United States by ensuring law enforcement can share samples of packaging or labels of suspected counterfeits with the relevant rights holders to determine whether the shipment should be seized at the border. Similarly, it ensures that law enforcement can share anti-circumvention devices that have been seized with affected parties.

This legislation will provide law enforcement and rights holders with an increased ability to protect American intellectual property. This will benefit American consumers, American businesses, and American jobs. We should not expect that enactment of the legislation will completely solve the problem of online infringement, but it will make it more difficult for foreign entities to profit off American hard work and ingenuity. This bill targets the most egregious actors, and is an important first step to putting a stop to online piracy and sale of counterfeit goods.

Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority it is a bipartisan priority. I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property. At a time where our country is beginning to regain its economic footing, businesses face an additional hurdle, the severity of which is increasing by the day--digital theft.

Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods are reported to cost American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Further, the Institute for Policy Innovation estimates that copyright piracy online alone costs Federal, state and local governments $2.6 billion in tax revenue. In today's business and fiscal climate, the harm that intellectual property infringement causes to the U.S. economy is unacceptable.

While the growth of the digital marketplace has been extraordinary, and benefits businesses by enabling new opportunities to reach consumers, it also brings with it the threat of copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Internet purchases have become so commonplace that consumers are less wary of online shopping and therefore more easily victimized by online counterfeit products that may have health, safety or other quality concerns when they are counterfeit.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan PROTECT IP Act, which is based on last year's Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act. It will provide the Justice Department

and rights holders with important new tools to crack down on rogue websites dedicated to infringing activities. This legislation will protect the investment American companies make in developing brands and creating content and will protect the jobs associated with those investments. It will also protect American consumers, who should feel confident that the goods they purchase are of the type and quality they expect.

Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products. These rogue websites are often foreign-owned and operated, or reside at domain names that are not registered through a U.S.-based registry or registrar. American consumers are too often deceived into thinking the products they are purchasing at these websites are legitimate because they are easily accessed through their home's Internet service provider, found through well known search engines, and are complete with corporate advertising, credit card acceptance, and advertising links that make them appear legitimate.

The PROTECT IP Act authorizes the Justice Department to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign rogue website, or the foreign-registered domain name itself, and to seek a preliminary order from the court that the site is dedicated to infringing activities. The court is authorized to issue a cease and desist order against a rogue website. If the court issues that order, the Attorney General is authorized to serve that order, with permission of the court, on specified U.S. based third-parties, including Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines. These third parties would then be required to take appropriate action to either prevent access to the Internet site, in the case of an Internet service provider or search engine, or cease doing business with the Internet site, in the case of a payment processor or advertising network.

The act authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement from a rogue website to bring a similar action against the rogue site, whether domestic or foreign. If the court issues a cease and desist order, the rights holder is authorized to serve that order, if authorized by the court, on payment processors and online advertising networks, to cut off the financial viability of the criminal activity.

The legislation will also encourage voluntary action by Internet partners that have credible evidence a rogue website is threatening the public health by trafficking in counterfeit, adulterated, or misbranded prescription medication.

Finally, the PROTECT IP Act will help law enforcement identify and prevent counterfeit products from being imported into the United States by ensuring law enforcement can share samples of packaging or labels of suspected counterfeits with the relevant rights holders to determine whether the shipment should be seized at the border. Similarly, it ensures that law enforcement can share anti-circumvention devices that have been seized with affected parties.

This legislation will provide law enforcement and rights holders with an increased ability to protect American intellectual property. This will benefit American consumers, American businesses, and American jobs. We should not expect that enactment of the legislation will completely solve the problem of online infringement, but it will make it more difficult for foreign entities to profit off American hard work and ingenuity. This bill targets the most egregious actors, and is an important first step to putting a stop to online piracy and sale of counterfeit goods.

Protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority it is a bipartisan priority. I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan legislation.

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

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

Madam President, am I correct that we are now on the nomination of Ed Chen to the District Court for the Northern District of California?

Madam President, today the Senate will finally consider the nomination of Judge Edward Chen to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District Court for the Northern District of California. Since 2001, Judge Chen has been a well-respected Federal Magistrate Judge on the court to which he is now nominated to serve as a Federal District Judge. His nomination has received the strong and consistent support of his home state Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, since he was first nominated over 21 months ago. When he is confirmed, Judge Chen will be only the second Asian Pacific American to serve on the district court bench in the 150-year history of the Northern District of California. The debate and vote we have today are long overdue.

We are finally able to consider Judge Chen's nomination because of the vote the Senate took last week toward restoring a longstanding tradition of deference to home state Senators with regard to Federal District Court nominations. The Senate turned away from a precipice when 11 Republican Senators joined in voting to end a filibuster of the nomination of Jack McConnell to the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In doing so, a super majority of the Senate came together to reject a new standard, which I believe is being unfairly applied to President Obama's district court nominees. Now, nearly 20 months after his confirmation hearing, and after having had his nomination reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee four times, Judge Chen's nomination will at last have an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

We should have taken up and confirmed his nomination when it was first reported favorably by the committee nearly 19 months ago. The supposed ``controversy'' that has delayed and obstructed this nomination is in my view entirely misplaced, the result of applying a partisan litmus test. This should be an easy nomination to confirm. It is no surprise that Judge Chen's nomination received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, unanimously ``well qualified,'' since he has had a distinguished legal career and has issued over 350 judicial opinions in his decade as a Federal magistrate judge.

Judge Chen's nomination has received broad, bipartisan support from the judicial and legal community in California and from numerous bar associations, including the National Asian Pacific Bar Association, which has been a vocal proponent of this nomination. Judge Chen's nomination also has significant support from local law enforcement in the district he currently serves and would continue to serve if confirmed. Michael Hennessey, sheriff for the city and county of San Francisco, wrote: ``Judge Chen's solid record as a U.S. Magistrate Judge speaks for itself. He has published over three-hundred judicial opinions which are indicative of his work ethic and his thoughtful intellect as a respected magistrate judge.'' This praise is representative of the scores of letters of support we have received.

I thank Senator Feinstein for her strong advocacy for Judge Chen's nomination the four times it has been considered and favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. Any fair minded person who listened to the impassioned speeches Senator Feinstein has made about Ed Chen in the committee would have to be impressed. Senator Feinstein is right to be proud of her recommendation of Ed Chen to President Obama. As Senator Feinstein has explained, Judge Chen was the recommendation of her bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee in California, putting the lie to the caricature from the far right that this was a partisan nomination. This is a fine man with sterling legal credentials and all the qualifications needed to be an outstanding Federal judge.

The approach taken by opponents of Judge Chen's nomination threatens to take the Senate down a dangerous path of imposing partisan litmus tests in place of our constitutional duty to offer advice and consent on nominations. The debate in our committee on Judge Chen's nomination was ugly. One Republican Senator in explaining his opposition said that Judge Chen has the ``ACLU gene.'' I hope that we do not hear such a preposterous notion repeated today on the floor of the Senate. This is a distinguished Federal magistrate judge who has demonstrated that he knows how to be a fair and impartial judge.

Our legal system is an adversary system, predicated upon legal advocacy for both sides. Certainly defending civil liberties is no vice. The other side appears to be suggesting that Judge Chen's work as a staff attorney at the ACLU many years ago, primarily representing individuals in discrimination and civil rights matters, somehow renders him unfit to be a judge. Since when do we impose a litmus test for nominees that they can never have been legal advocates? If we were to do that, we would have no judges. Almost every nominee who had been a practicing lawyer would be disqualified by one side or the other.

Surely Judge Chen's work while in private practice as a member of the legal team that represented Fred Korematsu in a lawsuit that successfully overturned his prior conviction for violating the Japanese Internment Order during World War II does not render Judge Chen unfit to be a judge. In my view, that important advocacy to right a wrong from one of the dark chapters in our history serves as proof that President Obama made a wise choice in nominating Judge Chen for the Federal bench. Indeed, just a few years ago this Senate passed a resolution acknowledging that wrong and seeking to help right it.

The question for me about this nominee is the same question I have asked about every judicial nominee, whether

nominated by a Democratic or a Republican president whether he or she will have judicial independence. Does the nominee understand the role of a judge, and how it differs from the role of an advocate?

With this nominee, Judge Chen, that is not a hard question to answer. We know that he understands the role of a judge because he has been doing it for 10 years on the court to which he has now been nominated. As Judge Chen said in response to a question from Senator Sessions: ``The role of a judge is to be fair, neutral, and evenhanded in applying the law and finding facts . . . without regard to personal preferences.'' His 10 years as a Federal magistrate judge resoundingly have answered any concerns about bias or partisanship on his part. His testimony before the Judiciary Committee reflects his understanding of the proper role of a judge.

There was no need for the delays that plagued this nomination. There were no ``extraordinary circumstances'' that held up this nomination for nearly 2 years. With judicial vacancies at crisis levels, affecting the ability of courts to provide justice to Americans around the country, we should be debating and voting on each of the 12 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar, in addition to Judge Chen. No one should be playing partisan games and obstructing while vacancies remain above 90 in the Federal courts around the country.

Judge Chen, born and raised in Oakland, CA, as the son of two Chinese immigrants, spent much of his childhood helping his mother and siblings support a small family business after his father passed away. After earning his A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1975, and his law degree from Boalt Hall School of Law in 1979, Judge Chen clerked for Judge Charles Renfrew on the court to which he has now been nominated, the Northern District of California, and then for Judge James Browning on the Ninth Circuit. After a distinguished career in private practice and as a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Judge Chen was selected to serve as a Federal Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California, having since been reappointed upon the recommendation of the nonpartisan Merit Selection Review Panel. His story is a moving reminder of what it is possible to achieve in this great Nation through hard work.

I congratulate Judge Edward Chen and his family on his confirmation today. I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for their steadfast support of his nomination.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Is time being divided?

I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided during the quorum call.

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

Madam President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from California on the floor. I will yield, of course, to her. She has been indefatigable in her support of Judge Chen in the committee, in the Halls of the Senate, and in her steadfast work with the leadership to get this nominee before us. I can brag about all the work she has done easier than she might, but I hope Judge Chen and his family know they had as strong and as stalwart a supporter on the Senate Judiciary Committee as they could possibly have with Senator Feinstein.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to share a business success story from my home State of Vermont.

For years Vermont has been branded as the State of milk, apples, and maple syrup. But along the ridgelines of the Green Mountains and in the valleys along the many rivers that find their way to Lake Champlain, a new high-tech and green-tech sector is quickly emerging as an economic driver for both Vermont and the entire country. The Burlington Free Press recently highlighted one such company--Logic Supply in South Burlington, VT.

I have heard many great things about Logic Supply's work and their commitment to Vermont. Company owners Lisa and Roland Groeneveld have kept Logic Supply extremely active in our State's high-tech business networking community both as members of the Vermont Software Developers Alliance and as regular participants in the Vermont 3.0 Creative Tech Jam. In 2010, KeyBank and Vermont Business Magazine recognized Logic Supply as one of Vermont's fastest growing companies.

As Logic Supply has grown, they have helped brand Vermont as a place where businesses can succeed, and where people looking to work in the economy of tomorrow can find a job today. I commend them for their hard work and success.

I ask unanimous consent that the May 9, 2011, Burlington Free Press article entitled ``Logic Dictates, Couple Prove Tech Has Place On Vt. Buz Scene'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate Dr. Matthew Friedman, a finalist for the 2011 Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals. Dr. Friedman is the executive director of the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, headquartered in White River Junction, VT. He was a finalist for the Career Achievement Medal given annually to a federal employee for significant accomplishments over a lifetime of achievement in public service.

Dr. Friedman is a pioneer in the field of traumatic stress disorders. For nearly 40 years now he has been working to identify the causes of and treatments for PTSD and advocating for those afflicted with the disorder. It is the cause of his career.

While PTSD is now recognized as a serious affliction associated with the stresses and violence of war, this was not always the case. In the early days of his work, Dr. Friedman had to convince skeptics both inside and outside of the Veterans Administration that many returning troops were suffering from PTSD. His efforts eventually persuaded veterans to accept the disease within their own communities. He was among the first Veterans Administration clinicians to recognize the depth and breadth of the disorder among returning Vietnam veterans. In 1973, he established one of the earliest groups to provide mental health assistance to former soldiers.

In 1989, after years of distinguished work in the field, Dr. Friedman was named as the first executive director of the then-new National Center for PTSD based in Vermont, in White River Junction. Since then, the center has grown into a group of seven centers located at VA medical centers and in connection with university medical research programs around the country. These seven centers have conducted unprecedented research, leading to critical advancements in the understanding, treatment, and prevention of traumatic disorders.

The Service to America Medals are some of the most prestigious awards given to celebrate America's civil servants. The medals will be presented on September 15 in Washington, DC.

Dr. Friedman has spent years studying, treating and advocated for our brave veterans who have been psychologically affected by war or other tragedies. Whether or not he is ultimately selected for it, Dr. Friedman is certainly deserving of the Samuel J. Heyman Career Achievement Medal, I commend him on his selection as a finalist, and I thank him for a lifetime of public service to America's veterans.

Dr. Friedman was mentioned in an article entitled Finalists for government's ``Oscars,'' recently published in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that a copy be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I assume we are on the nomination of Jim Cole.

Mr. President, to make a parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct that time runs to 5:30?

Time has been consumed by this quorum call, and so I ask unanimous consent that any time consumed in further quorum calls be equally divided on both sides.

Mr. President, the majority leader has been required to file cloture in this extraordinary case in an attempt to overcome a Republican filibuster on the nomination of Jim Cole to be Deputy Attorney General. This is a key national security position and the No. 2 position at the Department of Justice. Certainly, with what has happened in the past week or so, it is important for this President or any President to have a full national security team.

I thought back, and I could not remember a time in my 37 years here where the Senate has filibustered a President's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. I asked Senate Judiciary Committee staff to check that and they found that the Senate has never filibustered a President's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. In fact, during the time I was chairman of the committee, we quickly moved on President Bush's Deputy Attorneys General, even on those who would not have been my choice. We knew it was a national security position and it is important at a time when we face the threats we do here and abroad that we have that position filled. In fact, I thought it would be unconscionable, whether it was President Bush, President Reagan or any other President, to stall a Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Cole's nomination to fill this critical national security position was blocked last year, when it was pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar for 155 days after it was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee. The nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee again in March, and incredibly, it is again being filibustered. People have asked me how this could be happening. It is hard to believe that one week after the successful operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the world's number one terrorist, we cannot take this step to ensure that President Obama has his full national security team in place. It is similar to ``Alice in Wonderland.''

Now that a measure of justice has been secured for the victims of September 11, I have expressed hope that we could come together, as we did in the weeks and months following September 11. We should be ensuring that we are extra vigilant these days. There are widespread reports that experts are concerned about this being a time in which al- Qaida will seek reprisals. Most Americans believe we should be concerned about them trying to strike back. This is not a time for further delay or obstruction. Let us join together and confirm this qualified nominee. We also ought to show the rest of the world that no matter what our political labels might be, we believe in the President of the United States having his national security team in place.

This weekend, the Washington Post editorial board called this delay ``ridiculous,'' referring to the Deputy Attorney General as ``essentially the chief operating officer of the Justice Department, including its national security operations.'' This delay is ridiculous and dangerous to every single American. I hope other Senators will see it as such and help end it.

We have the opportunity to set aside partisanship and join with our President to keep America safe. I recall in the aftermath of 9/11 we took immediate steps--Republicans and Democrats together--to do what we could to make sure the President's entire law enforcement team was in place.

We expedited the nominations of 14 U.S. attorneys that had been received in the Senate only 1 week before, reporting them from the Judiciary Committee on September 13 and confirming them by voice vote the very next day. Those nominations included the nomination of Paul McNulty to the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the key districts where terrorism defendants like Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the conspirators in the 9/11 attacks, are tried. We continued to expedite nominations in the weeks and months that followed, confirming an additional 58 officials to posts at the Justice Department in those weeks and before the end of 2001.

Republican Senators helped a Republican President to get his security team in place to protect the Nation, but now are not going to help a Democratic President to get his security team in place. It is the same Nation and the security threats are the same against Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. We ought to come together as Americans first on this important issue.

Last week at the Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing on the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States reiterated the need for final Senate action on the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General. He urged the Senate to confirm Jim Cole to help the Department fulfill all of its critical tasks, including protecting national security, in a time of heightened concern about retaliatory attacks stemming from Osama bin Laden's death. Yet, rather than take action to end the unnecessary and unexplained delays and finally confirm the nomination of Jim Cole, the unprecedented Republican filibuster continues. This is wrong. It should end.

I hope that Senators on the other side of the aisle will listen to former Deputy Attorneys General of the United States who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Last December, they wrote to the leaders of the Senate and urged the Senate to consider Mr. Cole's nomination without delay. These former officials who served with distinction in that post wrote that the Deputy 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 and their advice rings true today.

As the former Deputies, 3 of whom served under President George W. Bush, noted in their letter, ``Because of the responsibilities of the position of Deputy Attorney General, votes on nomination for this position usually proceed quickly.'' I wish the Senate had heeded their advice and voted to confirm Mr. Cole last year. Now another 5 months have passed.

When we first reported Jim Cole's nomination last July, I said that I hoped the Senate would treat his nomination to this critical national security and law enforcement position 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. In fact, we confirmed President Bush's first nomination to be Deputy Attorney General the day it was reported by the committee. That is not the treatment that Deputy Attorney General Cole has received.

The Senate's treatment of the Cole nomination represents a sharp break from the Senate's longstanding practice of deference to the administration and timely consideration of critical national and law enforcement nominations. In their letter last December, the 8 former Deputy Attorneys General noted that, of the 11 nominations to fill this position over the last 20 years from Democratic and Republican Presidents, ``none remained pending for longer than 32 days.'' I remember some of President Bush's nominations to this position remained pending even less than that.

Jim Cole's nomination has been pending on the floor for 222 days combined, nearly seven times longer than any nominee in the last 20 years. In fact, dating back to 1981, 15 of the 16 Deputy Attorney General nominations pending on the Executive Calendar were confirmed unanimously, the only exception being President Obama's first Deputy Attorney General nomination, of David Ogden, which was confirmed 65-28 after cloture was filed and a time agreement was reached. All of the nominees of Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George Bush were confirmed unanimously by the Senate, in an average of less than 2 weeks.

Last December, after the nomination had already been delayed for over 4 months without explanation, I came to the floor and asked unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority and minority leaders, the Senate consent to a time agreement for a debate and a vote on the Cole nomination. I asked that Senators have the courage to step forward, not hide behind the filibuster, and to either vote yes or no on this critical national security position. Republicans objected to that request in December and have still, 5 months later, refused to agree to a time to debate and vote on the nomination. It is time finally for the Senate to vote. The American people expect us to vote. The security of this country is threatened.

Jim Cole's nomination was pending last year for 5 months while Republican Senators objected time and time again to calling it up for a vote. I believe that Mr. Cole would have been confirmed by the Senate had his nomination been given an up-or-down vote. I believe he should be confirmed. As it was, after the Senate did not take final action on the nomination, President Obama exercised his authority after the Senate had recessed for the year to appoint him in order to make sure this critical national security and law enforcement post was filled. The President promptly renominated him when Congress returned this year. Recess appointments have not prevented Republican Senators from voting to confirm nominations by Republican Presidents. Given the history of obstruction of this nomination, it is time for the Senate to vote.

This is not a nomination that should have been controversial. It is a nomination supported by former Republican Senator Jack Danforth, who worked with Jim Cole for more than 15 years. When he introduced Mr. Cole at his confirmation hearing, Senator Danforth described Mr. Cole as someone without an ideological or political agenda. He also wrote to the committee that ``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 a 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 will be anything other than a steadfast defender of America's safety.

We have received numerous letters of support for the nomination of Jim Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, including letters from many former Republican public officials. I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Among these is a letter from Michael Toner, former Chief Counsel of the Republican National Committee and former General Counsel to the Bush-Cheney 2000 Campaign, who wrote ``[i]n light of his extensive experience, legal acumen, professionalism and integrity, I can think of no better person than Mr. Cole to serve as Deputy Attorney General.''

Chuck Rosenberg, former Chief of Staff for Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who served under President George W. Bush, wrote, ``I know how important it is for this crucial position to be filled by the right person. Jim is the right person. He is smart, experienced, thoughtful and has the proper skills and temperament to help Attorney General Eric Holder lead the Justice Department.''

In his letter recommending Mr. Cole, Michael J. Madigan, a Republican counsel on many high-level Senate investigations, described Mr. Cole as ``one of those somewhat rare individuals in this city about whom you will never hear even the mildest of criticism.'' He concluded that Mr. Cole ``is a good man and perfectly suited for the challenging position for which the President has wisely nominated him.''

Mr. Cole's critics have been wrong to try to blame him for the actions of AIG. His limited role was as an outside monitor of other corporate functions and there is no evidence showing he did not perform his assignment well. Let us hold those responsible at AIG accountable. Not a single person at AIG has been. There is no basis for making Mr. Cole the scapegoat for the action of AIG. Blame the AIG agents and employees, blame its officers, blame its board, or even criticize the lack of oversight by state and Federal regulators and law enforcement officials if you like. But scapegoating this good man is wrong. As The Washington Post observed in an editorial last year when Mr. Cole's nomination was being blocked on the Senate floor, ``There is no suggestion that Mr. Cole suffers from the kind of ethical or legal problems that would disqualify a nominee.''

There is no justification for the failure to act on this critical national security nomination, and for failing to make sure that the administration has its full national security team in place. During the time when I was chairman we moved very quickly on President Bush's nominees for Deputy Attorney General because of the importance of the security of the United States. It is important for every President to succeed, no matter their party.

I hope that the Senate will reject this destructive and unprecedented filibuster so that we can finally consider and confirm Jim Cole after many months of unnecessary delays. As I said, I could not remember a time in my 37 years here where we had filibustered a nominee to be Deputy Attorney General and that proved to be true.

Exhibit 1

Bryan Cave,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Sessions,

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions: I write in strong

support of Jim Cole's nomination to serve as Deputy Attorney

General of the United States.

By way of background, I am a Partner at Bryan Cave LLP in

Washington, DC. Prior to joining Bryan Cave, I was Chairman

of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and was a

Commissioner on the FEC from 2002-2007. Prior to being

appointed to the FEC, I served as Chief Counsel of the

Republican National Committee, General Counsel of the Bush-

Cheney 2000 Campaign, and General Counsel of the 2000 Bush-

Cheney Transition Team.

I have known Jim Cole for approximately 15 years and have

had the privilege of being a colleague of Mr. Cole's at Bryan

Cave for the last three years. I first met Mr. Cole when he

served as Special Counsel for the House Ethics Committee's

inquiry concerning Speaker Gingrich and I was an attorney

representing Speaker Gingrich in the

matter. Although Mr. Cole and I obviously had conflicting

interests in the Gingrich matter, I was tremendously

impressed with the thoroughness and professionalism by which

Mr. Cole conducted himself in the Gingrich matter, and that

has been a hallmark of all of my experiences with Mr. Cole

over the last 15 years.

Mr. Cole is superbly qualified to serve as Deputy Attorney

General of the United States. Mr. Cole is one of the smartest

and most able criminal lawyers in the country, and Mr. Cole's

prior service at the Justice Department will be invaluable

experience in working with Attorney General Holder in

managing and leading the Justice Department. In light of his

extensive experience, legal acumen, professionalism and

integrity, I can think of no better person that Mr. Cole to

serve as Deputy Attorney General.

Jim Cole has my highest recommendation to serve as Deputy

Attorney General of the United States and it is an honor to

have the opportunity to write on Mr. Cole's behalf. If

confirmed, I believe that Mr. Cole would serve the Department

of Justice and the country with great distinction in the

years ahead.

Sincerely,

Michael E. Toner.

I see the distinguished Senator from Texas is here, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 9, 2011, at 5:30 p.m., in S-216 of the Capitol, to continue an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I would like share the good work being done by my friend and colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Peter Welch.

As Democrats and Republicans continue their discussions, I am proud that Peter is bringing a Vermont perspective and Vermont values to the debate. He understands the dangers the United States faces if we default on our debt, but the burden of addressing our mounting national debt must be shared fairly. Budgets are a reflection of our national priorities, and we simply cannot balance our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable alone.

I applaud Peter for bringing his reasoned and responsible message to the debate. I ask unanimous consent that an article on Congressman Welch from today's The Hill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with Senator Grassley to introduce the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act of 2011. Combating fraud is a vital issue on which Senator Grassley and I have a long track record of working together, and with great success. In these trying economic times, cracking down on the fraud which has harmed so many hardworking Americans is more important than ever. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley, and with Senators from both parties, to quickly pass this crucial legislation.

In the last Congress, one of the first major bills the Senate Judiciary Committee considered, and one of the first bills President Obama signed into law, was the Leahy-Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. That bill gave fraud investigators and prosecutors additional tools and resources to better hold those who commit fraud accountable. We heard about the significant success that has already resulted from the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and other key fraud fighting provisions we championed in a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, but it is clear that our work is not done.

In the past two years, we have learned much more about the scourges of financial fraud, mortgage fraud, government contracting fraud, health care fraud, and oil and gas fraud. I have also been very disturbed by the ongoing reports about inaccurate, forged, or fraudulent documents in the housing foreclosure process. Today's bill reflects the ongoing need to invest in enforcement to better protect hard-working taxpayers from all of these insidious types of fraud.

In the last fiscal year alone, the Department of Justice recovered well over $6 billion through fines, penalties, and recoveries from fraud cases--far more than it costs to investigate and prosecute these matters. The recovery of these vast sums of money demonstrates that investment in fraud enforcement pays for itself many times over.

The Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act capitalizes on this rate of return by ensuring that a percentage of money recovered by the Government through fines and penalties in fraud cases and other criminal cases is reinvested in the investigation and prosecution of fraud cases. That means that we can ensure more fraud enforcement, more returns to the government, and more savings to taxpayers, all without spending new taxpayer money.

The bill also makes other modest changes to ensure that prosecutors and investigators have the tools they need to combat fraud. It extends the international money laundering bill statute to tax evasion crimes. This will deter individuals from evading our tax laws by hiding their money overseas. It also protects American consumers from identity theft by strengthening the prohibition against trafficking in passwords and the federal identity theft statute. As more and more business is conducted online, we must ensure that consumers' personal information remains protected.

The Secret Service has responsibility for investigating a variety of complex financial fraud crimes, including identity theft. This bill gives the Secret Service additional tools to conduct critical undercover investigations. Fraud cases are often complex and difficult to prove, so undercover investigations can be a key way to ferret out criminal activity.

In the last Congress, Senator Grassley and I worked together to strengthen the False Claims Act, which empowers whistleblowers to shine a light on fraud and recover stolen tax dollars that would otherwise go undiscovered. These new laws are already paying off. Since January 2009, the Department of Justice has recovered more than $6.8 billion in False Claims Act cases, far more than any other 2-year period. Today's legislation asks the Attorney General to report to Congress on False Claims Act settlements, which will help ensure that the False Claims Act remains a valuable tool for fighting fraud.

Finally, the bill promotes accountability within Government. Along with requiring reporting, it takes modest steps to ensure that the resources already entrusted to the Justice Department are used responsibly by strengthening oversight of the Department's Working Capital Fund.

Major fraud cases take time to investigate and prosecute. The renewed focus on fraud enforcement we have seen from this administration and from Congress will continue to yield significant results. But we must continue to give law enforcement agencies the tools and resources necessary to root out fraud so that they can continue to recoup losses and protect taxpayer funds. Everyday, taxpaying Americans deserve to know that their Government is doing all it can to hold responsible those who commit fraud and to prevent future fraud.

Americans are worried about their budgets at home. We need to protect their investment in their government. Fighting fraud and protecting taxpayer dollars are issues Democrats and Republicans have worked together to address in the past, and in these difficult economic times, we need to continue in that spirit of bipartisanship. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley, the administration, and Senators of both parties to crack down on fraud by passing the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act.

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

Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with Senator Grassley to introduce the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act of 2011. Combating fraud is a vital issue on which Senator Grassley and I have a long track record of working together, and with great success. In these trying economic times, cracking down on the fraud which has harmed so many hardworking Americans is more important than ever. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley, and with Senators from both parties, to quickly pass this crucial legislation.

In the last Congress, one of the first major bills the Senate Judiciary Committee considered, and one of the first bills President Obama signed into law, was the Leahy-Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. That bill gave fraud investigators and prosecutors additional tools and resources to better hold those who commit fraud accountable. We heard about the significant success that has already resulted from the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and other key fraud fighting provisions we championed in a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, but it is clear that our work is not done.

In the past two years, we have learned much more about the scourges of financial fraud, mortgage fraud, government contracting fraud, health care fraud, and oil and gas fraud. I have also been very disturbed by the ongoing reports about inaccurate, forged, or fraudulent documents in the housing foreclosure process. Today's bill reflects the ongoing need to invest in enforcement to better protect hard-working taxpayers from all of these insidious types of fraud.

In the last fiscal year alone, the Department of Justice recovered well over $6 billion through fines, penalties, and recoveries from fraud cases--far more than it costs to investigate and prosecute these matters. The recovery of these vast sums of money demonstrates that investment in fraud enforcement pays for itself many times over.

The Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act capitalizes on this rate of return by ensuring that a percentage of money recovered by the Government through fines and penalties in fraud cases and other criminal cases is reinvested in the investigation and prosecution of fraud cases. That means that we can ensure more fraud enforcement, more returns to the government, and more savings to taxpayers, all without spending new taxpayer money.

The bill also makes other modest changes to ensure that prosecutors and investigators have the tools they need to combat fraud. It extends the international money laundering bill statute to tax evasion crimes. This will deter individuals from evading our tax laws by hiding their money overseas. It also protects American consumers from identity theft by strengthening the prohibition against trafficking in passwords and the federal identity theft statute. As more and more business is conducted online, we must ensure that consumers' personal information remains protected.

The Secret Service has responsibility for investigating a variety of complex financial fraud crimes, including identity theft. This bill gives the Secret Service additional tools to conduct critical undercover investigations. Fraud cases are often complex and difficult to prove, so undercover investigations can be a key way to ferret out criminal activity.

In the last Congress, Senator Grassley and I worked together to strengthen the False Claims Act, which empowers whistleblowers to shine a light on fraud and recover stolen tax dollars that would otherwise go undiscovered. These new laws are already paying off. Since January 2009, the Department of Justice has recovered more than $6.8 billion in False Claims Act cases, far more than any other 2-year period. Today's legislation asks the Attorney General to report to Congress on False Claims Act settlements, which will help ensure that the False Claims Act remains a valuable tool for fighting fraud.

Finally, the bill promotes accountability within Government. Along with requiring reporting, it takes modest steps to ensure that the resources already entrusted to the Justice Department are used responsibly by strengthening oversight of the Department's Working Capital Fund.

Major fraud cases take time to investigate and prosecute. The renewed focus on fraud enforcement we have seen from this administration and from Congress will continue to yield significant results. But we must continue to give law enforcement agencies the tools and resources necessary to root out fraud so that they can continue to recoup losses and protect taxpayer funds. Everyday, taxpaying Americans deserve to know that their Government is doing all it can to hold responsible those who commit fraud and to prevent future fraud.

Americans are worried about their budgets at home. We need to protect their investment in their government. Fighting fraud and protecting taxpayer dollars are issues Democrats and Republicans have worked together to address in the past, and in these difficult economic times, we need to continue in that spirit of bipartisanship. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley, the administration, and Senators of both parties to crack down on fraud by passing the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act.

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