Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important piece of legislation.

As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately, and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.

The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress, H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment.

Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other emergencies.''

The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently obtain emergency disaster funds.

After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events. Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.

I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem. Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was astonishing.

One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved ones in that terrible storm.

Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly 1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the storm. People in jail were being sent checks.

You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.

In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also, in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross. One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13 different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.

As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged 525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these

crooks, but they have asked us for this additional tool. They have asked us to pass this legislation so that the Federal statute adequately addresses and deters fraud in connection with emergency disaster assistance.

The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality. We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the American people who intended to help those in need.

The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.

Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm, and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line, and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:

Senator, all I have is what is on my back.

Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail claiming they deserve displaced housing money.

So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer. Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their generosity.

In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit-- including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though, changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial institutions.

My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.

I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10 minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they suffered.

Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it is a despicable crime, to me.

The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as victims.

I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.

It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising. I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.

Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and to protect American taxpayers.

By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.

I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking forward to an analysis of it.

We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move forward with.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007. The bill creates a specific crime of fraud in connection with major disasters or emergency benefits and increases the penalties currently available for such acts. I am happy my good friends and colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Vitter, Cornyn, and Grassley have joined me in this important effort. I commend them for their leadership on this issue and look forward to working with them to pass this important piece of legislation.

As a former Federal prosecutor myself for 12 years on the gulf coast of Alabama, and one who has been involved in prosecuting fraud in the aftermath of hurricanes, I can tell you that it goes on, unfortunately, and there are some weaknesses in our laws that we can fix.

The ideas in my bill have received strong congressional support. In fact, the House of Representatives passed this same bill last Congress, H.R. 4356. Last March, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act because both Democrats and Republicans wanted to move as quickly as possible against disaster assistance fraud. The committee submitted a report expressing its favor for the bill and recommended it be passed without amendment.

Last June, the Department of Justice sent a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in strong support of the bill, noting that it would ``provide important prosecutorial tools in the government's efforts to combat fraud associated with natural disasters and other emergencies.''

The goal of my bill is to protect the real victims of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by specifically making it a crime, under the existing fraud chapter of title 18, USC chapter 47, to fraudulently obtain emergency disaster funds.

After an emergency or disaster, such as the recent tornadoes that devastated the city of Enterprise in my home State, we should do everything we can to make sure 100 percent of the relief funds gets into the hands of real victims. Taxpayers should not sustain a financial loss at the hands of scam artists, and these wrongdoers should not profit from exploiting the victims of horrific events. Common sense requires that those who deceive the government and obtain emergency disaster funds by fraud be subject to criminal punishment.

I want to share some thoughts about the scope of the problem. Hurricane Katrina produced one of the most extraordinary displays of loss, pain, and suffering, and of scams and schemes that we have ever seen. The scope of the fraud and the audacity of the schemers was astonishing.

One of the most heinous examples is a woman who tried to collect Federal benefits by claiming she watched her two daughters drown in the rising New Orleans waters. In truth, she did not even have children and she was living in Illinois at the time of the hurricane. Her outrageous claims are an affront to the many people who actually did lose loved ones in that terrible storm.

Another example of blatant and widespread fraud after Katrina include, in Texas, a hotel owner who submitted bills for phantom victims who never stayed at his hotel. Across the gulf coast, roughly 1,100 prison inmates collected more than $10 million in rental and disaster relief assistance by claiming they were displaced by the storm. People in jail were being sent checks.

You say: How can that happen? Well, they are trying to get money out to people in a hurry. I think they could do a better job, frankly. I think FEMA could do a better job in analyzing these claims. But the truth is, in the rush to make sure that people who have lost everything have money to find a room to stay in so they are not out on the streets, it does require them to take more risk than normally would be the case. People who take advantage of that to defraud the taxpayers and to rip off the system ought to go to jail for it.

In California, a couple posed as Red Cross workers and fraudulently obtained donations, saying they were working for the Red Cross. Also, in California, 75 workers at a Red Cross call center were charged in a scheme to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Red Cross. One individual received 26 Federal disaster relief payments by using 13 different Social Security numbers. In my home State of Alabama, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid $2,748 to an individual who listed a P.O. box as his damaged property.

As of January 3, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has charged 525 individuals in 445 indictments brought in 35 judicial districts around the country. These numbers continue to grow every day. The Justice Department is aggressively prosecuting these

crooks, but they have asked us for this additional tool. They have asked us to pass this legislation so that the Federal statute adequately addresses and deters fraud in connection with emergency disaster assistance.

The fact is, some people think in a disaster they can run in and make any kind of bogus claim they desire--that money will be given to them and people will be too busy to check. And if they do, nothing is ever going to happen to them. We need to completely reverse that mentality. We need to create a mindset on the part of everybody that these disaster relief funds are sacred; that they are for the benefit of people who have suffered loss, and only people who have suffered loss should gain benefit of it. We need to make it clear that those who steal that money are going to be prosecuted more vigorously and punished more severely than somebody who commits some other kind of crime because I think it is worse to steal from the generosity of the American people who intended to help those in need.

The total price tag for the fraud committed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is not yet known, but the Government Accountability Office investigators have testified that it will, at the very least, be in the billions of dollars. I am not talking about millions. This is the GAO saying it will be, at the very least, in the billions of dollars.

Now I have seen people, I have been down to Bayou La Batre and Coden and areas in my home area of Alabama who were devastated by this storm, and it is heartbreaking to see people who have lost everything. The day after the storm, my wife and I were there. The Salvation Army showed up and it was the only group there providing meals. There was a long line, and we walked down the line and just talked to the people about what had happened to them. Repeatedly, we were told:

Senator, all I have is what is on my back.

Now we want to help people like that, but we don't want to help people who are somewhere unaffected in Illinois or somewhere in jail claiming they deserve displaced housing money.

So it is an insult to the victims of these natural disasters and an insult to the ultimate victim in this fraud, the American taxpayer. Natural disasters and emergency situations often create an opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of both the immediate victims of the disaster or emergency, as well as those who offer financial and other assistance to the victims. The American people are extremely generous in responding to disasters, but they should not be expected to tolerate the fraud of those who deceitfully exploit their generosity.

In addition to creating a new Federal crime that specifically prohibits fraud in connection with any emergency or disaster benefit-- including Federal assistance or private charitable contributions--my bill would also update the current mail and wire fraud statutes found in chapter 63 of title 18--title 18 sections 1341, 1343. Those are the bread-and-butter criminal statutes for most frauds. My bill, though, changes the Federal mail and wire fraud statutes by adding emergency or disaster benefits fraud to the 30-year maximum penalties that are currently reserved for cases involving fraud against banks or financial institutions.

My bill is timely. Just this month we have seen tornadoes that killed at least 20 people in the Southeast and Midwest and damaged or destroyed hundreds of homes from Minnesota to the gulf coast. I recently toured many of the areas hit by the storms, and I was shocked by the devastation. The loss of eight Alabama schoolchildren at Enterprise High School was especially heartbreaking.

I had the opportunity to be with President Bush on the second day I was there. He came down and met with the families of those eight young people who were killed. He spent almost an hour with them--almost 10 minutes a person. It was a moving experience to be a part of that. I talked with each one of those families and felt the pain and loss they suffered.

Of course, money is not an answer to their pain. But I would say this: People do want to help. If people take advantage and steal from those who want to help families like that, who are in pain and loss, it is a despicable crime, to me.

The President has declared Enterprise and several other Alabama localities Federal disaster areas, including Millers Ferry, AL, in my home county, where one individual was killed. I knew him and his family, and saw the people there who I knew who suffered a total loss of their homes, caused by this incredibly powerful tornado. Being declared a disaster area means victims will be eligible to receive Federal financial aid. It is my responsibility to make sure the money goes to the right people and is not scammed off by criminals posing as victims.

I know my colleagues share my deep sympathy for the families who lost loved ones and suffered injuries last week, but it is simply not enough to have sympathy. We must ensure the full resources of the Federal Government are quickly deployed to the affected States, and we must ensure these resources are protected and distributed only to real victims, not individuals seeking to take advantage of the disaster.

It is disheartening that there was so much fraud associated with the relief following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is not surprising. I have been there in the aftermath of hurricanes as a prosecutor. I have seen such fraud and abuse firsthand.

Our resources are not unlimited, and it is critical that we ensure that every relief dollar goes to legitimate victims. It is important we give prosecutors the tools they need to protect legitimate victims and to protect American taxpayers.

By passing this legislation, the Senate will send a strong signal that exploiting the kindness of the American people in times of crisis is a serious crime that will be treated with appropriate severity. We will not tolerate criminals stealing from the pockets of disaster victims. A vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that victims and the generous members of the American public are not preyed upon by criminals attempting to profit from these disasters and emergencies.

I think it is a reasonable piece of legislation. We worked hard, on a bipartisan basis, with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice. Senator Leahy has indicated he will bring the bill up in the Judiciary Committee this week. We are looking forward to an analysis of it.

We will be glad to listen to any suggestions for improvements that may be made, and I think it is a piece of legislation we should move forward with.

Mr. President, I wish to finish the discussion I started earlier today about the tax gap and efforts to close it. As I said this morning, the tax gap is the difference between what is paid in taxes and what is actually owed. While more reliable and timely data on the tax gap is greatly needed, the tax gap was thought to be $345 billion for the tax year 2001, which seemed to be the year that the IRS had the latest information where they could put together something that was fairly solid for that year.

I also pointed out this morning that many of my colleagues in the Senate see the tax gap as a sort of magical tonic that can be used to cure all sorts of ailments. Some people see $345 billion in AMT relief or health care spending or national debt reduction without thinking about what would be involved in actually collecting the money. So I am raising the question: Do people think through whether every dollar will be brought into the Federal Treasury?

The IRS is already making some progress in closing the tax gap. This morning I mentioned the Internal Revenue Service told the Budget Committee it could reduce the tax gap by nearly $70 billion, of that $345 billion, in the year 2007.

So where does that leave us? Can we do more in enforcement? The administration has proposed an increase in funding for the Internal Revenue Service. That increase looks toward the tax gap with funds directed toward increased data matching, improved research, as well as more auditors--auditors to make sure that more money comes in. I suggest my colleagues might also want to make certain that if we consider adding more Internal Revenue Service employees, we have greater confidence that the Internal Revenue Service is utilizing current resources effectively. In other words, before we hire more people, we ought to make sure the existing employees at the Internal Revenue Service are being used in the most efficient way to bring in the most money possible.

That doesn't preclude more money, but that is a necessary first step before we automatically think of more money and more employees.

For instance, the IRS has hundreds of employees, according to a Treasury inspector general for tax administration report, that do part- or full-time union work. This is thousands and thousands of work hours that could be spent going after the tax gap. What could we gain if we directed all those union hours to actually working on the tax gap before we appropriate more money to hire more employees?

So we have proposals then for increased enforcement. Let me remind my colleagues, though, that the Joint Committee on Taxation--that is a congressional committee that specializes in watching the Tax Code and making estimates and studying all ways to make the Tax Code more efficient and bring in more money--that committee will not give us a score for additional dollars based on increased enforcement. So we can talk all we want about hiring more people to bring in more revenue, but until that revenue is in the bank, the Joint Committee on Taxation isn't going to give us any credit for it.

As we are looking at budget debates over this week and next week, keep that in mind. That isn't going to get Senators anywhere in terms of reducing projected deficits or paying for tax cuts or bringing in more money to spend someplace else.

It is important to emphasize the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue

Service made it clear to the Budget Committee a few days ago at a hearing that we cannot audit our way out of the tax gap. The Commissioner also warned about increasing the IRS budget too quickly if we decide to go the route of hiring more people by giving more money because he said a big increase in staffing would harm taxpayers' rights if the IRS was not able to grow in a managed way to control the outcome.

We can look at what we can possibly do legislatively beyond greater enforcement. The Democratic leadership hasn't proposed anything new, but the administration has put forward some proposals in the budget--in its own budget, meaning the budget of the executive branch. Many of the administration's proposals deal with information reporting. Information reporting is an important way to improve tax compliance. This is very clear from all the work that has been done so far on the tax gap.

However, information reporting places additional burdens on taxpayers, and it is very frustrating that we often find the Internal Revenue Service is not doing enough to match or review the documents taxpayers are already providing the IRS as a paper trail to make sure all taxes are paid. Needless to say, this greatly limits the benefit information reporting provides.

Setting these concerns aside, the administration in their budget has proposed, one, information reporting on payment to corporations; two, basis reporting on securities sales; three, broker reporting; four, reporting of merchant payment card reimbursement; five, increase information return penalties; six, taxpayer identification number verification for independent contractors; and seven, information reporting on certain Government payments.

The administration has proposed other proposals, including increased penalties, expanded IRS access to information, and required electronic filing as some of the other new proposals.

This is a very comprehensive list of proposals coming from the administration. Is it everything? No, but it seems to me this is a serious start and shows that people within Treasury, within the Office of Management and Budget, and maybe even within the White House, are very concerned about closing the tax gap.

If Senators who have attacked the Secretary of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service believe more can be done, I suggest they should come forward with their own proposals and add to the multitude I read coming from the executive branch of Government.

I think Senators will find that while it is easy to complain about what is coming out of the Treasury's kitchen, it is a lot harder to get in there and do it themselves. I think Senators need to be careful-- very careful--at putting out pie-in-the-sky numbers for what can be achieved by reducing the tax gap without at the same time putting forward their own detailed, concrete, Joint Tax Committee-scored proposals that show how it can be done.

That brings me to a chart. This chart shows there is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the tax gap, in other words, all the people who are saying they are going to use the tax gap to reduce the deficit, to fund tax cuts or even to take the money and spend it on some new program or increase spending on existing programs. There are a lot of ideas out there.

What I want this chart to demonstrate to us is that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to the tax gap. We can't use smoke and mirrors to pay for tax cuts or to decrease the deficit; we have to have proposals that are in detail, black and white, and are scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation, our experts who are on top of the Tax Code and how much money will come in or how much money we lose if we cut taxes.

Tax gap proposals shouldn't be used for spending. The tax gap is appropriately viewed as unfairly placing a heavier burden on compliant taxpayers, 85 percent of the people who pay what they owe and file accordingly.

If we enact tax-gap closers, they should be used to reduce taxes or reduce the deficit, not to increase spending.

Let me conclude my discussion of the tax gap by saying you can have a blue Moon, you can have blue cheese, you can have blue-suede shoes, but when it comes to balancing the budget, you can't do it with blue smoke and mirrors. That, unfortunately, is what so much of the tax gap is right now: blue smoke.

I strongly encourage the Budget Committee chairman and other Senators not to use blue smoke during the upcoming budget resolution debates. That is going to happen Wednesday and Thursday in the Budget Committee this week. It is going to happen all next week on the floor of the Senate.

Now I will review some of the issues we must consider as the Senate works on its budget resolution. In an earlier visit with my colleagues in the Senate, I discussed the importance of preventing a tax hike on the American people. Anyone who considers themselves a deficit hawk needs to do more than raise taxes. So I challenge the new Democratic majority to also examine the spending side of the ledger; that is, if they are truly serious about deficit reduction.

In another visit with my colleagues from the floor of the Senate, I highlighted a study prepared by Goldman Sachs. That study shows that the likely result of letting tax relief expire could lead to a recession. Since tax relief was enacted, Federal revenues have increased, employment has increased, household wealth has increased--in fact, household wealth has increased to the highest level it has ever been in the history of our country--and the S&P 500 index has consistently moved upward. Again, a failure to extend tax relief or make it permanent puts all this at risk, and at risk for nothing.

Anyone serious about deficit reduction needs to also look, then, at the spending side of the ledger. In a third visit that I had with my colleagues from the Senate floor, I pointed out that Democratic revenue raisers did not come close to covering new spending contained in Democratic amendments when we had the budget up exactly 12 months ago this month. In many cases, I showed the same offset was used in multiple amendments to pay for multiple projects, just like every dollar coming into the Federal Treasury could be spent two, three, four times, and somehow just multiply and, like blue smoke, solve all of our problems.

If the Democratic leadership is serious about pay-go, and that is short for pay as you go, and if they are serious about deficit reduction, they need to be realistic about where the money is going to come from to cover any new spending proposals. The budget plan advocated by the other side last year would have either increased the deficit or gutted tax relief that was passed in 2001 and 2003, including items such as the alternative minimum tax fix that we did, and all of these things the other side of the aisle claims to support and yet have proposals that would gut them or increase the deficit.

I want to state my intention to fully cooperate with my colleagues of both parties to produce a budget that preserves our growing economy while addressing the needs of our government. I am particularly looking forward to exploring ways to use the Tax Code to help more Americans acquire health insurance. I am also looking forward to using the budget resolution to ensure, on a revenue-neutral basis, that we continue to pursue tax simplification and tax reform. In order to produce the best possible budget, we must be careful not to endanger our growing economy. We must be willing to examine spending. We must not just focus on revenues, and in the whole process, we have to be intellectually honest about how far we can push revenue raisers and other offsets. In other words, avoid the smoke and mirrors.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a series of bills that are important to economic development along our long coastline. Most of these bills were either included in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006 or has passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill. Unfortunately, much to my great disappointment, the larger Corps of Engineers reauthorization legislation did not see action before the Senate adjourned the 109th Congress. My hope is that all of these noncontroversial bills will be included in the WRDA legislation in the 110th Congress.

Importantly, all of my bills are supported by the various townspeople and their officials, and State officials, who view these harbor deauthorizations and river improvements as engines for economic development. The bills also have the support of the New England District of the Corps of Engineers.

The first bill pertains to Tenants Harbor, St. George, ME. Deauthorizing the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC) would be of great help to the town in appropriately managing the Harbor to maximize mooring areas. Over the years there have been mounting problems with the Army Corps of Engineers' mooring permit process as people seeking permits for moorings that have existed for 30 years continue to be notified that the mooring locations are prohibited because they fall within the federal navigational channel.

My second bill concerns Northeast Harbor in Mt. Desert, ME. The language will not only allow for more recreational moorages and commercial activities, it will also be an economic boost to Northeast Harbor, which is surrounded by Acadia National Park, one of the Nation's most visited parks--both by land and by water. The removal of the harbor from the FNC will allow the town to adapt to the high demand for moorings and will allow residents to obtain moorings in a more timely manner. The Harbor has now reached capacity for both moorings and shoreline facilities and has a waiting list of over sixty people, along with commercial operators who have been waiting for years to obtain a mooring for their commercial vessels.

My third bill addresses the Union River in Ellsworth, ME. The bill supports the city of Ellsworth's efforts to revitalize the Union River navigation channel, harbor, and shoreline. The modification called for in my legislation will redesignate a portion of the Union River as an anchorage area. This redesignation will allow for a greater number of moorings in the harbor without interfering with navigation and will further improve the City's revitalization efforts for the harbor area.

My fourth bill, that passed the Senate as a stand-alone bill last year, will make the mooring of an historic windjammer fleet in Rockland Harbor a reality. Originally a strong fishing port, Rockland retains its rich marine heritage, and it is one of the fastest growing cities in the Mid-coast area. Like many of the port cities on the eastern seaboard, Rockland has been forced to confront an assortment of financial and environmental changes, but happily, the city has been able to respond to these challenges in positive and productive ways.

The City of Rockland has hosted the Windjammer fleet since 1955, earning a well-deserved reputation as the Windjammer Capital of the World. Rockland's Windjammers are now National Historic Landmarks, and as such, are vitally important to both the city and the State. The image of The Victory Chimes, one of five vessels slated to be berthed at the new wharf and a vessel whose historical designation I supported, graces the Maine quarter. This beautiful fleet of windjammers symbolizes the great seagoing history of Maine as well as the sense of adventure that we have come to associate so closely with the American experience.

Lermond Cove is perfectly situated in the Rockland Harbor to be the new and permanent home for these cherished vessels. The proposed Windjammer Wharf will also provide a safe harbor from storms, as it is tucked nicely near the Maine State Ferry and Department of Marine Resources piers.

The State of Maine capitalizes on the visual impact of the Windjammers to promote tourism, working waterfronts and the natural beauty that distinguishes our landscape. Over $300,000 is spent yearly by the Maine Windjammer Association to advertise and promote these businesses. Deauthorizing that part of the Federal navigational channel will clearly trigger significant and unrealized economic benefits for the region, providing many beneficial dollars to the local area and the State of Maine. According to the Longwood study, which uses a multiplier of 1.5, the economic impact of this spending is 3.8 million dollars a year. Conservatively, the Windjammers spend over 2.5 million dollars a year in the state.

I want to thank the New England Corps of Engineers for their help in drafting the language and working with the Maine Department of Transportation, which runs the ferry line, and also the Rockland city officials, the Rockland Port District, and the Captains of the Windjammer vessels--Mainers and business people with the vision and commitment needed to complete Windjammer Wharf and create a permanent home for this historic fleet of windjammers in Rockland Harbor.

I am reintroducing my fifth bill for the Town of Rockport--this request came in after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed out the WRDA bill in the last Congress. It would deauthorize a part of the Federal Navigation Channel in Rockport Harbor. The town, located on the active Mid-Coast of Maine, has requested that Congress decommission a 35 foot by 275 foot area directly adjacent to the bulkhead at Marine Park. With this deauthorization, the Town will be able to install permanent pilings to secure a set of new municipal floats, which would replace the current temporary float system.

My sixth bill for reintroduction today is a bill for the City of Saco, Maine that concerns the town's ability to allow the mooring of boats on the Saco River. The bill changes the turning basin into an anchorage while managing a 50-foot channel within the anchorage. The town was not aware that it was in violation because of 21 moorings located in the Saco River Federal Navigational Project. In an effort to eliminate this encroachment, city officials have requested a modification or de-authorization of the Federal Navigational Project to resolve the issue.

The US Army Corps of Engineers suggested language that re-designates the maneuvering basin into an anchorage area that will meet the needs of the community. The language will allow for the legal moorage of boats, the fairway for which would be maintained by the city of Saco as is customary for towns with Federal anchorages. The two mayors of the cities involved along with the Saco Yacht Club have agreed to the Corps' language.

It is my hope that all of these non-controversial provisions will be included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and I am writing Senator Boxer, the new Chairwoman of the EPW Committee requesting inclusion of my bills in the upcoming WRDA bill. I am pleased to hear that she is also anxious for the WRDA bill to move forward just as quickly as possible. It has been six long years since our last WRDA bill was signed into law--much too long even for the patient people in Maine who want to urgently move forward on economic development for their coastal communities.

Also, I am pleased to be cosponsoring a bill with Senator Collins that addresses the project for the mitigation of shore damage at Camp Ellis, ME. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out the project, under the River and Harbor Act of 1968, to mitigate shore damage attributable to the Saco River navigational project, waiving the funding cap requirement for congressional authorization set forth in that Act. The legislation is needed to complete the project as it will cost more than authorized under current law, and is the preferred project by non-Federal interests.

Studies have shown that the Army Corps jetty, built over 100 years ago, has contributed to beach erosion and the loss of more than thirty houses to the sea. The houses in danger currently were once six rows back from the water. When the mitigation project is completed, it is hoped that it will protect the residents, households, and businesses along the shoreline adjacent to the Army Corps jetty in Saco.

Mr. President, I would like to outline some of the legislative activities of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Some would rather pick fights about controversial judicial nominees. The disappointing decisions from this year's Supreme Court term remind us that this President has been quite successful in moving the Federal courts to the right. This President has not only appointed two members of the Supreme Court but has also already appointed almost one-third of the 871-member Federal judiciary. When the appointments of his father and other Republican Presidents are considered, more than two-thirds of all current Federal judges were appointed by Republican Presidents.

Of course, the Judiciary Committee has been engaged in oversight efforts this year with regard to the U.S. attorney scandal and other examples of White House interference with Federal law enforcement. Despite the attitude of the current administration, our Constitution does not include the phrase ``unitary executive'' or ``executive privilege.'' What the U.S. Constitution does provide in the oath of office is that the President must swear to ``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States'' and ``preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' His essential duties require him to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' I have great concern with regard to how this administration is fulfilling those essential duties. The political intrusion into the law enforcement functions of the Government through the scheme to fire and replace our U.S. attorneys is most troubling.

The recent decision to override a prosecution, jury trial, conviction and prison sentence for one of his aides, to excuse his lying to Federal investigators and a grand jury and his perjury, and to reward his silence and purportedly bad memory seems an abuse of the constitutional pardon power. The lack of accountability for anyone in the Bush administration has reached new heights--or depths.

The secret determination to ignore our surveillance laws and engage in years of warrantless wiretapping of Americans is another instance we are investigating that appears at odds with the Constitution's directive to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed'' and that the liberties of the American people secured by the Constitution be protected.

While our oversight efforts have taken a good deal of time and effort, we have simultaneously succeeded in an ambitious legislative agenda. That is what I would like to focus on for a few minutes. While the committee has been productive in reporting a number of bipartisan measures to the Senate, Republican holds have to date been blocking Senate action on these measures.

Republican holds and filibusters have not been limited to obstructing our efforts to support our troops, rebuild our National Guard, and bring an end to the failed policies that have led to the deaths of so many in a civil war in Iraq.

Let me mention a few examples of beneficial legislation that are being stalled, as well:

We just observed the 41st anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act ``FOIA'' on July 4. An important bipartisan FOIA reform measure-- the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act, the OPEN Government Act, S. 849,--was favorably reported in April. Its consideration has been blocked by a Republican objection.

The OPEN Government Act promotes and enhances the public disclosure of government information pursuant to FOIA. This legislation will also provide much-needed reforms to strengthen FOIA by, among other things, helping Americans to obtain timely responses to their FOIA requests and improving transparency in the Federal Government's FOIA process.

This bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 14 Senators, including my lead Republican cosponsor Senator Cornyn. The OPEN Government Act is also supported by more than 115 open government, business and news media organizations from across the political and ideological spectrum, including, the American Library Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the Vermont Press Association.

The passage and enactment of this important FOIA reform legislation will improve government transparency and openness for all Americans. The bill has now been stalled by Republican objection for several weeks.

A second measure the committee reported months ago that has been stalled by unspecified objection from the other side of the aisle is The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, S. 119. This bill provides a significant new tool for Federal law enforcement to combat the scourge of war profiteering, which is needed now more than ever given the ongoing reports of rampant fraud, waste, and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill now has the support of Senator Sessions, after being modified to eliminate potential objections to specific language in the bill and we have circulated an amendment to combine it with the Sessions-Landrieu Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007, S. 863, to be a legislative package that should win overwhelming bipartisan Senate support. Passage of this measure is long overdue and is being blocked by unspecified Republican objection.

A third measure that the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported was the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act, S. 535. This is a good bill, authored by Senator Dodd and Representative John Lewis in the House. The Senate bill and Senate consideration of the House-passed companion measure have been blocked by yet another Republican objection.

These are just three examples of matters currently being delayed and obstructed by unspecified objection from the other side of the aisle. The American people may begin to see a pattern.

Each of these measures should command majority support in the Senate. They may be able to command supermajority support on their merits. If we could only get to their merits. So while the Judiciary Committee has remained productive, its efforts to enact helpful, remedial legislation continue to be thwarted by Republican objections.