Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year, we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. I am pleased that today, June 20, the international community is celebrating World Refugee Day, an important opportunity to recognize the continuing plight of the millions of refugees around the world who deserve our protection. It is also a moment to celebrate the accomplishments of refugees who have been resettled and are building new lives in the countries that welcomed them. The theme of World Refugee Day 2011 is ``Real People, Real Needs.'' This theme reminds us that each individual refugee has a story to tell. Every refugee has experienced persecution, causing him or her to flee a home, a community, and a nation, because the circumstances are so dire that flight is the only option. Conflicts around the world are displacing persons, such that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees now counts over 43 million persons who have been forced from their homes, which include refugees, internally displaced, and stateless persons. For many of the world's 15.4 million refugees, resettlement is the only hope they have of rebuilding a stable life and home. The United States has long been committed to resettling refugees, but our resettlement program was strengthened by the enactment of the 1980 Refugee Act. Over the past 30 years, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have found safety in the United States. And since 1989, almost 5,600 refugees have been resettled in my home State of Vermont. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last 5 years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. Their culture is enriching my historically Anglo Saxon and French Canadian State. Throughout this challenging time, I have remained proud of the role that our Nation plays in protecting refugees abroad and in helping many resettle in the United States. In a time of tight budgets, I was pleased to be able to protect funding for refugee assistance and resettlement programs in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations continuing resolution, when many other programs were cut. The United States is a leader in international refugee protection. I am proud of that commitment and will work to ensure our government maintains this strong financial and political support. There is more that we can do, however. I regret that the United States is not in full compliance with its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Changes to the law and a handful of court opinions issued in recent years have eroded protections for some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers. Last week, I reintroduced the Refugee Protection Act, S. 1202, to restore the legal foundation of the United States for protection of refugees and asylum seekers. The Refugee Protection Act will correct serious shortcomings in current law, such as the overly broad definition of material support for terrorist groups. The Refugee Protection Act does not diminish the rigor of security and background checks of incoming refugees, but it recognizes that the current law sweeps in a large number of persons who were victims of persecution at the hands of terrorist organizations, not supporters of those terrorist groups. The Refugee Protection Act also repeals the 1-year filing deadline for asylum seekers in the United States. This deadline was unnecessary when it was added to the law in 1996 and remains unnecessary now. Under court decisions interpreting our law, certain groups of asylum seekers can face improperly high barriers to protection. For example, the Board of Immigration Appeals has required seekers who base a claim on persecution of their social group to show that the group is ``socially visible.'' This requirement is not a part of the statute or implementing regulations. Moreover, it is unnecessarily onerous for certain groups who take great pains to conceal their membership in the social group. For example, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered individuals from certain countries may have to hide their identity to avoid physical attacks or extreme social isolation. Women from certain cultures must conceal that they have not been forcibly circumcised or face the threat that tribal leaders will subject them to this violent and dangerous practice. Our law grants asylum to those who have experienced persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Therefore, courts should not require these individuals to risk serious harm by exposing their membership in the persecuted social group in the home nation. Social visibility may be a factor in some cases, but must not be a baseline requirement to prevail on an asylum claim. I thank Senators Levin, Akaka, and Durbin for their support of the Refugee Protection Act of 2011. I also thank Representative Zoe Lofgren for introducing a companion bill, H.R. 2185, in the House of Representatives. I hope that on World Refugee Day others will join us in helping to reform our domestic laws to help the victims of persecution worldwide.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Portman to introduce the bipartisan Second Reauthorization Act. This bill builds on recent successes and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison have the opportunity to turn their lives around, rather than returning to a life of crime. That saves taxpayer money and makes us all safer. This important legislation improves Federal reentry policy and authorizes assistance to collaborations between state and local corrections agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, service providers, and families to ensure that offenders released into society have the resources and support they need to become contributing members of the community. The reauthorization bill builds on the success of the Second Chance Act by continuing, improving, and consolidating its programs. Four years ago, I joined with then-Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of the Second Chance Act, and I was pleased to help move that legislation through the Senate. The Senate recognized the value of the Second Chance Act when, after a great deal of work and compromise, the bill passed unanimously. I hope this reauthorization bill receives the same bipartisan support. In the past few decades, Congress and the states have passed new criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more crimes. As a result, this country sends even more people to prison every year, costing millions and millions of dollars. There are currently over 2 million people in jail or prison, and more than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each year. Most of these people will at some point return to our communities. Last July, I chaired a hearing on the Second Chance Act, and the Committee heard about the great strides many states are making with innovative prisoner reentry programs. Commissioner Andrew Pallito from the Vermont Department of Corrections testified and shared with us his experience with reentry programs in Vermont. The Vermont Department of Corrections and many others in Vermont have strongly supported the Second Chance Act, which gives me confidence that it represents an important step in making our country safer. The Second Chance Act authorized grants for key reentry programs and required that these programs demonstrate measurable positive results, including a reduction in recidivism. Preliminary studies show that these programs are already working well. The reauthorization bill that we propose today improves, consolidates and reauthorizes the state and local government grant programs created by the Second Chance Act. It is intended to ensure that funding is available for planning and implementation of key reentry projects so that evidence-based methodology is employed to ensure meaningful reductions in recidivism rates. It is designed to ensure that all states have the opportunity to develop and benefit from these important programs. The bill also consolidates several programs that were underutilized into one grant program with multiple purposes. This will ensure that Federal dollars are effectively spent on programs that link probation with swift and certain enforcement, like the very successful HOPE program in Hawaii. The Second Chance Act authorized research into educational methods used in prisons and jails. This reauthorization bill asks the Attorney General to review that research and establish best practices for prison education. It then reallocates the authorized funds previously used for research into a grant program to implement these best practices in prisons and jails. The bill also adds nonprofit organizations as eligible grant recipients for programs promoting family-based substance abuse treatment. This legislation makes modest improvements to Federal reentry policy that have the added benefit of reducing Bureau of Prison costs. It continues the successful Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Non Violent Offenders Pilot Program and modestly expands the pool of inmates eligible to apply for the program. More than 60 inmates have now participated in this program, and not a single one has reoffended. The bill also creates an incentive for inmates to participate in rigorous recidivism reduction programming by awarding a credit of up 60 days per year toward completion of their sentence for participation in such programs. The incentive is modeled on that currently awarded for successful participation in residential drug abuse treatment programs. Finally, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act promotes accountability by requiring periodic audits of grantees to ensure that Federal dollars are responsibly spent. Grantees with problematic audits will not be eligible for funding in future years. As a former prosecutor, I believe strongly in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But it is also important that we do everything we can to ensure that when these people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycle of recidivism and violence. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act will help break this cycle. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one born in Montpelier, VT, I grew up listening to WDEV in Waterbury. My mother and father were friends of the owners of the station and I still remember days as a child going to visit. Living now in Middlesex, VT, I--like everyone else in our area listen to WDEV to find out what is happening throughout central Vermont. At a time when more and more radio stations nationwide go to a canned format, WDEV is one that has not forgotten over the decades that it is a mainstay of the community. Recently when we were facing horrible flooding and storms in Vermont, the lifeline for all of us was WDEV. Only there could we find out what was happening on the weather, what was happening on road conditions, and what we would face. Stefan Hard of the Times Argus wrote an excellent story about Chris Bouchard and Roger Hill and what they did to keep us all safe and informed. I talked with my friend Ken Sauier, about what they had done and said I intended to speak on the Senate Floor, and now, Mr. President, I ask that the article by Stephan Hard be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Times Argus, June 6, 2011] Storm-Centered (By Stefan Hard) For weather forecasters Chris Bouchard and Roger Hill, who were on duty May 27, the historic storms of that day quickly pushed their workdays into overdrive and overtime and gave them a first-hand taste of the crazy weather they were reporting on. Looking back, they are both in awe at the level of destruction caused by the storms' related flooding, but are grateful that no one was killed. Hill prepares forecasts for Radio Vermont, WDEV, for utility companies, and for his WeatheringHeights.com website; Bouchard is a staff meteorologist at the Fairbanks Museums Eye on the Sky forecast center. Both men knew from early in the day, May 27, that the weather could be turning severe. ``It was clear to us for several days that there was a possibility for severe weather on Thursday-Friday,'' said Bouchard. ``On the day of the event in the morning, it looked pretty clear that we were going to get supercell thunderstorms, large hail, damaging winds and possibly even tornadoes.'' Bouchard reported as such during his 12:55 p.m. weather report on Vermont Public Radio. The first supercell of the day passed just north of Burlington at about 3p.m. and left large hail on the ground as it passed over Lowell. Bouchard continued his warnings through the afternoon. By 6:30 p.m., storms were beginning to hit central Vermont, and power was knocked out at Hill's home and forecast center in Worcester. Hearing tornado warnings on the radio for Caledonia County and without power to run his phalanx of computers, Hill decided to head to the WDEV studios in Waterbury, where the station had back-up power and where Hill could get his own evaluations and warnings directly on the air in the midst of what he had already determined could be life-threatening conditions due to the continued risk of tornadoes, dangerous lightning, and with already-saturated ground from recent rains, a real possibility of catastrophic flash floods. He hopped in his car and headed for Waterbury. ``I felt a need and a responsibility to do this,'' said Hill. ``I've haven't had anybody die on my watch and I didn't want that to happen this time,'' he said. Hill forgot to take his cell phone charger and didn't leave a note for his wife, Michelle, as to where he was going. ``My wife is very upset with me,'' he said. ``She didn't know where I was until she heard me on the air.'' Driving through Middlesex, Hill encountered a downed tree across the road and had to reroute and rain and hail fell and tornado warnings continued come across on the crackling radio. When he got to the station offices in Waterbury, the door was locked (after business hours) and his cell battery was dead, so he couldn't call on-air host Lee Kittell to let him inside, and Kittell was unable to check and see emails that Hill was sending from his netbook, which still had a charge. Kittell was very busy and lightning temporarily knocked out the station's computer system. Hill resorted to running down the street to use the phone at a convenience store to call Kittell to let him in. Once inside, Hill and Kittell reported on the storm continuously, except for a half-hour break for the audio track of WCAX-TV news at 11, until 1:45 a.m. Callers kept the phone lines lit up all evening with reports of continuous lightning, ball lightning, hail the size of golf balls, trees down, power outages, and worst of all, flash flooding in Barre and Montpelier. Hill, stunned, kept seeing a line of ``training echo'' thunderstorms streaming into central Vermont all night and his on-air voice became increasingly ominous. ``I felt stupid, but I got to the point where I was just saying, Oh, my God!'' Meanwhile, Bouchard had finished his forecasting shift at the Fairbanks Museum in St. Johnsbury, and had taken to the road, storm chasing, and didn't have the need to let anyone know where he was going. ``I went to Barnet, because that's where it looked like the action was going to be,'' he said. Bouchard stopped in several locations, setting up his tripod just outside his car to get pictures of clouds that might produce tornadoes, and lots of lightning. Bouchard said at one point, he grabbed his tripod and camera and jumped in his car just as lightning bolts crashed to the ground uncomfortably close. Bouchard never saw a tornado, and none were confirmed from that storm outbreak, but he got some striking lighting photos, some of those will part of a show of 32 of his best lightning images at the Fairbanks Museum at the end of the month. Hill, his cell battery dead, his netbook battery now dead, and his own batteries running low, headed home from WDEV at about 2 a.m. after receiving, along with Kittell, countless calls from listeners praising the duo for staying on the air with information. Of course, on his way home, Hill couldn't update his wife on his progress through the continuing storms, so, when he finally made it home, he faced a storm of another kind. Happily, Hill and his wife, Michelle on Sunday were beginning a belated celebration of their 25th wedding anniversary, taking a few days off, including a little travel. Hill has planned a small detour in their travels to see, first-hand, the level of destruction in Springfield, Mass., where, last week, two tornadoes struck in another example of powerful, training echo thunderstorms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with Senator Portman to introduce the bipartisan Second Reauthorization Act. This bill builds on recent successes and takes important new steps to ensure that people coming out of prison have the opportunity to turn their lives around, rather than returning to a life of crime. That saves taxpayer money and makes us all safer. This important legislation improves Federal reentry policy and authorizes assistance to collaborations between state and local corrections agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, service providers, and families to ensure that offenders released into society have the resources and support they need to become contributing members of the community. The reauthorization bill builds on the success of the Second Chance Act by continuing, improving, and consolidating its programs. Four years ago, I joined with then-Senators Biden, Specter, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of the Second Chance Act, and I was pleased to help move that legislation through the Senate. The Senate recognized the value of the Second Chance Act when, after a great deal of work and compromise, the bill passed unanimously. I hope this reauthorization bill receives the same bipartisan support. In the past few decades, Congress and the states have passed new criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more crimes. As a result, this country sends even more people to prison every year, costing millions and millions of dollars. There are currently over 2 million people in jail or prison, and more than 13 million people spend some time in jail or prison each year. Most of these people will at some point return to our communities. Last July, I chaired a hearing on the Second Chance Act, and the Committee heard about the great strides many states are making with innovative prisoner reentry programs. Commissioner Andrew Pallito from the Vermont Department of Corrections testified and shared with us his experience with reentry programs in Vermont. The Vermont Department of Corrections and many others in Vermont have strongly supported the Second Chance Act, which gives me confidence that it represents an important step in making our country safer. The Second Chance Act authorized grants for key reentry programs and required that these programs demonstrate measurable positive results, including a reduction in recidivism. Preliminary studies show that these programs are already working well. The reauthorization bill that we propose today improves, consolidates and reauthorizes the state and local government grant programs created by the Second Chance Act. It is intended to ensure that funding is available for planning and implementation of key reentry projects so that evidence-based methodology is employed to ensure meaningful reductions in recidivism rates. It is designed to ensure that all states have the opportunity to develop and benefit from these important programs. The bill also consolidates several programs that were underutilized into one grant program with multiple purposes. This will ensure that Federal dollars are effectively spent on programs that link probation with swift and certain enforcement, like the very successful HOPE program in Hawaii. The Second Chance Act authorized research into educational methods used in prisons and jails. This reauthorization bill asks the Attorney General to review that research and establish best practices for prison education. It then reallocates the authorized funds previously used for research into a grant program to implement these best practices in prisons and jails. The bill also adds nonprofit organizations as eligible grant recipients for programs promoting family-based substance abuse treatment. This legislation makes modest improvements to Federal reentry policy that have the added benefit of reducing Bureau of Prison costs. It continues the successful Elderly and Family Reunification for Certain Non Violent Offenders Pilot Program and modestly expands the pool of inmates eligible to apply for the program. More than 60 inmates have now participated in this program, and not a single one has reoffended. The bill also creates an incentive for inmates to participate in rigorous recidivism reduction programming by awarding a credit of up 60 days per year toward completion of their sentence for participation in such programs. The incentive is modeled on that currently awarded for successful participation in residential drug abuse treatment programs. Finally, the Second Chance Reauthorization Act promotes accountability by requiring periodic audits of grantees to ensure that Federal dollars are responsibly spent. Grantees with problematic audits will not be eligible for funding in future years. As a former prosecutor, I believe strongly in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But it is also important that we do everything we can to ensure that when these people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycle of recidivism and violence. The Second Chance Reauthorization Act will help break this cycle. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in April, the Senate unanimously passed the Food Safety Accountability Act. If enacted, this important bill will hold criminals who poison our food supply accountable for their crimes. Now more than ever, it is critical that the House pass this noncontroversial legislation. A recent E. coli outbreak in Germany--identified by scientists as a new, deadly strain of the bacteria--has killed at least 35 people and spread to 10 countries. Thankfully, this particular outbreak has not yet hit the United States, but this tragedy, on the heels of several major outbreaks in the United States in recent years, highlights the importance of ensuring that we take every step to protect our food supply. The Food Safety Accountability Act promotes more accountability for food suppliers by increasing the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. Knowingly distributing adulterated food is already illegal, but it is in most cases merely a misdemeanor right now, and the Sentencing Commission has found that it generally does not result in jail time. The fines and recalls that usually result from criminal violations under current law fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our American citizens in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. Last summer, a salmonella outbreak caused hundreds of people to fall ill and triggered a national egg recall. Salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable, knowing conduct like that carefully targeted by the Food Safety Accountability Act. The company responsible for the eggs at the root of the last summer's salmonella crisis had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. This bill will significantly increase the chances that those who commit serious food safety crimes will face jail time, rather than merely a slap on the wrist. Food safety received considerable attention last year, and I was pleased that Congress finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms, but our work is not done. A provision almost identical to the Food Safety Accountability Act was passed by the House with strong, bipartisan support but failed to make it into the final legislation that ultimately passed because of Republican objections in the Senate. Now that the Senate has unanimously passed this bill, it is again time for the House to act. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. The uncertainty and fear caused by the current E. coli outbreak in Europe only reinforces the need to pass the common sense Food Safety Accountability Act to protect our own food supply. I urge the House to quickly pass the Senate bill and join us in taking this important step toward protecting our food supply.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Refugee Protection Act. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Akaka, and Durbin, will reaffirm the commitments our Nation made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This bill would repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world. During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. However, this bill is necessary now more than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. The ``Arab Spring'' is helping to move governments of the Middle East toward democracy, but some governments have responded to peaceful demonstrations with violence. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in need of protection. I was pleased to be able to protect funding for refugee assistance and resettlement programs in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations continuing resolution, when many other programs were cut. In my home state of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of refugees and asylum seekers has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. Since Senator Ted Kennedy authored the 1980 Refugee Act, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. And since 1989, almost 5,600 refugees have been resettled in Vermont. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-wining volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last five years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. Their culture is enriching my historically Anglo Saxon and French Canadian state. Once resettled, these refugees have become nursing assistants, soccer coaches, and small business owners. In Burlington's Old North End, there are two thriving halal markets, side by side. The Nadia International Halal Market is run by an Iraqi refugee. Next door is the Banadir Market, run by a Somali Bantu refugee. Vermonters enjoy these new additions to the culture, and these thriving small businesses create local jobs in a historically disadvantaged neighborhood. Equally important are the family- and community-based values of these new Vermonters. The Burlington Chief of Police has commented that refugees have reduced crime in some historically troubled areas, creating more family oriented neighborhoods. Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylees to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. The Ohavi Zedek Synagogue has made an effort to help all refugee families, regardless of their faith. The synagogue offers free English language classes so that refugees can improve their English skills. In this year's Passover service, refugees were encouraged to share their own personal tales of exodus. The synagogue also runs a thrift shop where refugees who have been in the country for less than a year are allowed to take whatever they need without charge. Yet, a refugee from Bhutan has offered to help make physical improvements to the building's foundation, a testament to his desire to give back to the communities that have helped refugees build new lives. Many other places of worships have also reached out to these new Vermonters. The Association for Africans Living in Vermont, AALV, which now assists any refugee in Vermont regardless of the country of origin, helps refugees access social services, organizes community cultural events, and provides cross-cultural training to Vermont service providers. The organization offers workforce development programs to ensure refugees can find meaningful work that sustains their families. The AALV New Farms for New Americans program enables refugees, many of whom farmed in their home countries, to learn to grow crops well suited to the Vermont climate. This program can connect such refugees to their heritage, and invites them to become part of Vermont's longstanding and vibrant agricultural tradition. In cooperation with Vermont Adult Learning, AALV offers the Personal Care Assistant Workforce Training Program, which trains refugees to serve as personal care assistants, the first level of service in the nursing profession. Graduates are able to pursue additional training as a licensed nursing assistant. Vermont's resettlement program and the community support are not without their challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. The Refugee Protection Act of 2011 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Lugar who has investigated the resettlement program and called for a GAO study to obtain recommendations for improvement. I also appreciate the efforts of Representative Gary Peters of Michigan, who introduced a resettlement bill in the House of Representatives to improve communication among all stakeholders. In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill addresses several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we learned in a May 18, 2011, hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the immigration courts are overburdened, under- resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads. The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid and torture treatment provider, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts on national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain groups of particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States. Finally, the bill addresses the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identity and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at a distance from urban centers, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards so that reforms are meaningful and enforceable. There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis and a list of support organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Refugee Protection Act. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Akaka, and Durbin, will reaffirm the commitments our Nation made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This bill would repeal the most harsh and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world. During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. However, this bill is necessary now more than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. The ``Arab Spring'' is helping to move governments of the Middle East toward democracy, but some governments have responded to peaceful demonstrations with violence. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in need of protection. I was pleased to be able to protect funding for refugee assistance and resettlement programs in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations continuing resolution, when many other programs were cut. In my home state of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of refugees and asylum seekers has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. Since Senator Ted Kennedy authored the 1980 Refugee Act, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. And since 1989, almost 5,600 refugees have been resettled in Vermont. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-wining volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last five years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. Their culture is enriching my historically Anglo Saxon and French Canadian state. Once resettled, these refugees have become nursing assistants, soccer coaches, and small business owners. In Burlington's Old North End, there are two thriving halal markets, side by side. The Nadia International Halal Market is run by an Iraqi refugee. Next door is the Banadir Market, run by a Somali Bantu refugee. Vermonters enjoy these new additions to the culture, and these thriving small businesses create local jobs in a historically disadvantaged neighborhood. Equally important are the family- and community-based values of these new Vermonters. The Burlington Chief of Police has commented that refugees have reduced crime in some historically troubled areas, creating more family oriented neighborhoods. Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylees to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. The Ohavi Zedek Synagogue has made an effort to help all refugee families, regardless of their faith. The synagogue offers free English language classes so that refugees can improve their English skills. In this year's Passover service, refugees were encouraged to share their own personal tales of exodus. The synagogue also runs a thrift shop where refugees who have been in the country for less than a year are allowed to take whatever they need without charge. Yet, a refugee from Bhutan has offered to help make physical improvements to the building's foundation, a testament to his desire to give back to the communities that have helped refugees build new lives. Many other places of worships have also reached out to these new Vermonters. The Association for Africans Living in Vermont, AALV, which now assists any refugee in Vermont regardless of the country of origin, helps refugees access social services, organizes community cultural events, and provides cross-cultural training to Vermont service providers. The organization offers workforce development programs to ensure refugees can find meaningful work that sustains their families. The AALV New Farms for New Americans program enables refugees, many of whom farmed in their home countries, to learn to grow crops well suited to the Vermont climate. This program can connect such refugees to their heritage, and invites them to become part of Vermont's longstanding and vibrant agricultural tradition. In cooperation with Vermont Adult Learning, AALV offers the Personal Care Assistant Workforce Training Program, which trains refugees to serve as personal care assistants, the first level of service in the nursing profession. Graduates are able to pursue additional training as a licensed nursing assistant. Vermont's resettlement program and the community support are not without their challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. The Refugee Protection Act of 2011 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Senator Lugar who has investigated the resettlement program and called for a GAO study to obtain recommendations for improvement. I also appreciate the efforts of Representative Gary Peters of Michigan, who introduced a resettlement bill in the House of Representatives to improve communication among all stakeholders. In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill addresses several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we learned in a May 18, 2011, hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the immigration courts are overburdened, under- resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads. The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid and torture treatment provider, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts on national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain groups of particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States. Finally, the bill addresses the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identity and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at a distance from urban centers, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards so that reforms are meaningful and enforceable. There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2011. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis and a list of support organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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.

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA. The United States has dramatically more Government employees and contractors working overseas than ever before, but the legal framework governing them is unclear and outdated. To promote accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by American Government employees and contractors wherever they act. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act accomplishes this important and common sense goal by allowing United States contractors and employees working overseas who commit specific crimes to be tried and sentenced under U.S. law. Tragic events in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American Government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing a rift in our relations with the Iraqi government. Efforts to prosecute those responsible for these shootings have been fraught with difficulties, and our ability to hold the wrongdoers in this case accountable remains in doubt. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then, again, to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany them, and to contractors who work with the military. That law provides criminal jurisdiction over Defense Department employees and contractors, but it does not explicitly cover people working for other Federal agencies, like the Blackwater security contractors. Had jurisdiction in the tragic Blackwater incident been clear, FBI agents likely would have been on the scene immediately, which could well have prevented some of the problems that have plagued the case. Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents and serious misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. As the military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, MEJA will no longer cover the thousands of contractors and employees who stay on. The legislation I introduce today fills this gap. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from the Justice Department and from experts in the area of contractor accountability about the many diplomatic and national security benefits of expanding criminal jurisdiction over American employees and contractors overseas. The hearing also explored how best to ensure that our Nation's intelligence activities would not be impaired by CEJA. The legislation I propose today has been carefully crafted to ensure that the intelligence community can continue its activities unimpeded. This bill would also provide greater protection to Americans, as it would lead to more accountability for crimes committed by U.S. government contractors and employees against Americans working abroad. In the last Congress, the Committee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in Iraq in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by coworkers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and freed only when the State Department intervened. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Criminal jurisdiction over these kinds of atrocious crimes abroad, however, remains complicated and depends too greatly on the specific location of the crime, which makes prosecutions inconsistent and sometimes impossible. We must fix the law to help avoid arbitrary injustice and ensure that victims will not see their attackers escape accountability. Ensuring criminal accountability will also improve our national security and protect Americans overseas. Importantly, in those instances where the local justice system may be less than fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the United States, rather than leaving them subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts. Our allies, including those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and national security efforts, work best with us when we hold our own accountable. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope Senators of both parties will work together to pass this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, CEJA. The United States has dramatically more Government employees and contractors working overseas than ever before, but the legal framework governing them is unclear and outdated. To promote accountability, Congress must make sure that our criminal laws reach serious misconduct by American Government employees and contractors wherever they act. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act accomplishes this important and common sense goal by allowing United States contractors and employees working overseas who commit specific crimes to be tried and sentenced under U.S. law. Tragic events in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the need to strengthen the laws providing for jurisdiction over American Government employees and contractors working abroad. In September 2007, Blackwater security contractors working for the State Department shot more than 20 unarmed civilians on the streets of Baghdad, killing at least 14 of them, and causing a rift in our relations with the Iraqi government. Efforts to prosecute those responsible for these shootings have been fraught with difficulties, and our ability to hold the wrongdoers in this case accountable remains in doubt. I worked with Senator Sessions and others in 2000 to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, and then, again, to amend it in 2004, so that U.S. criminal laws would extend to all members of the U.S. military, to those who accompany them, and to contractors who work with the military. That law provides criminal jurisdiction over Defense Department employees and contractors, but it does not explicitly cover people working for other Federal agencies, like the Blackwater security contractors. Had jurisdiction in the tragic Blackwater incident been clear, FBI agents likely would have been on the scene immediately, which could well have prevented some of the problems that have plagued the case. Other incidents have made all too clear that the Blackwater case was not an isolated incident. Private security contractors have been involved in violent incidents and serious misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, including other shooting incidents in which civilians have been seriously injured or killed. As the military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, MEJA will no longer cover the thousands of contractors and employees who stay on. The legislation I introduce today fills this gap. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from the Justice Department and from experts in the area of contractor accountability about the many diplomatic and national security benefits of expanding criminal jurisdiction over American employees and contractors overseas. The hearing also explored how best to ensure that our Nation's intelligence activities would not be impaired by CEJA. The legislation I propose today has been carefully crafted to ensure that the intelligence community can continue its activities unimpeded. This bill would also provide greater protection to Americans, as it would lead to more accountability for crimes committed by U.S. government contractors and employees against Americans working abroad. In the last Congress, the Committee heard testimony from Jamie Leigh Jones, a young woman from Texas who took a job with Halliburton in Iraq in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and gang-raped by coworkers. When she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and freed only when the State Department intervened. Ms. Jones testified about the arbitration clause in her contract that prevented her from suing Halliburton for this outrageous conduct, and Congress has moved to change the civil law to prevent that kind of injustice. Criminal jurisdiction over these kinds of atrocious crimes abroad, however, remains complicated and depends too greatly on the specific location of the crime, which makes prosecutions inconsistent and sometimes impossible. We must fix the law to help avoid arbitrary injustice and ensure that victims will not see their attackers escape accountability. Ensuring criminal accountability will also improve our national security and protect Americans overseas. Importantly, in those instances where the local justice system may be less than fair, this explicit jurisdiction will also protect Americans by providing the option of prosecuting them in the United States, rather than leaving them subject to hostile and unpredictable local courts. Our allies, including those countries most essential to our counter-terrorism and national security efforts, work best with us when we hold our own accountable. In the past, legislation in this area has been bipartisan. I hope Senators of both parties will work together to pass this important reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.