Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009

Mr. President, I could not agree more with my colleague from Rhode Island. There are a lot of things we need in this country right now. We need jobs. We need something to stimulate our economy. We need certainty in the credit market. But probably more than anything what we need in this country right now is confidence, confidence that we can face down these problems and move forward like America has always done.

What do we have instead of confidence? Raw anger. I am mad. Everyone I work for is mad. Anger can be constructive. It can be channeling. I am here today to say it is time we channel this anger and change the law. We do not need anger. We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street who are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer. My colleague talked about some of them. Let me review. These financial institutions, on the brink of extinction, come to the American taxpayer for hundreds of billions of dollars at the very same time they think they are going to buy a $50 million corporate jet. They are going to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. They paid an average of $2.6 million to every executive at the first 116 banks that got taxpayer money under TARP. Let me say that again: An average of $2.6 million in executive pay to the folks at the first 116 banks that got money from the taxpayers.

They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses. Merrill Lynch is unbelievable. They saved $3 billion to $4 billion from the pot of money that was going to Bank of America, the sale that was going to close the first week in January. They always gave bonuses in January. Do you know what these sneaky guys did? They decided to give their bonuses in December before the Bank of America took over. They paid out $3 billion to $4 billion in bonuses in December, and that quarter, Merrill Lynch lost $21 billion. What planet are these people on? What could they be thinking about?

So here is what this bill is going to do. This is called the Cap Executive Officer Pay Act of 2009, and it is very simple. Going forward, you want taxpayers to help you survive? You want the people at your financial institution to have a job tomorrow? Then you are going to have to limit everyone's pay at your company to the same salary the President of the United States makes. Is that so unreasonable? It is eight times the median household income in the United States of America--$400,000 a year. I don't think that sounds like a bad deal. Should these people be making more than the President of the United States? Now, really, should they? They should not be making more than the President of the United States. So every executive going forward could not make more than $400,000 a year, and they have to limit that executive compensation for everyone in their company until they pay back every dime to the taxpayers.

Now, once they are off the public dole, once the taxpayers aren't footing the bill, then it is not as much our business what they get paid. But right now, they are on the hook to us, and they owe us something other than a fancy wastebasket and a $50 million jet. They owe us some common sense. If any of them think it is a hardship to take the salary of the President of the United States, I dare them to say so out loud right now because that is not going to instill confidence.

What is going to instill confidence is for the men and women in these companies to realize it is time for everyone in this country to tighten their belt. It is time for everyone to realize we must have our financial institutions survive but not with a culture that thinks it is OK to kick the taxpayer in the shins while they drink champagne and fly in fancy jets. It doesn't work; not in the United States of America.

I ask my colleagues to sign on to this bill. I think it makes sense. We should have done it in the first place, but I don't think any of us thought these guys were this stupid. I don't think any of us believed they would take billions of dollars of bonuses while their institutions were literally days from being wiped out, but they did, and we have learned our lesson.

So I hope all my colleagues will sign on this bill. I hope we can get it passed quickly so that from this day forward, the President of the United States will make the same amount of money as the executives of these companies who owe the taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Specter and Feingold in introducing the Equal Justice for U.S. Service Members Act. The Act would eliminate an inequity in current law by allowing all court-martialed U.S. servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to petition the United States Supreme Court for discretionary review through a writ of certiorari.

The bill is a simple one, and would do the following: allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review; and allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied a petition for extraordinary relief.

In our civilian courts today, all person convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel can apply to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. That only happens about 10 percent of the time.

In other words, in 90 percent of their case, our U.S. servicemembers are prevented from ever seeking or obtaining direct review from the Supreme Court.

This disparity is not limited to our civilian and military court systems. A similar disparity exists within our military court system relief. The Government routinely has the chance to petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But our military personnel do not share the same rights to petition the Supreme Court as the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle.

This is wrong, and this inequity was recently noted by the American Bar Association, which passed a resolution calling on Congress on fix this long-standing ``disparity in our laws governing procedural due process.''

Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform one of those rights--the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals.

The bill is supported by the American Bar Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Institute of Military Justice. Robinson Everett, the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, also supports the bill.

It's long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Specter and Feingold in introducing the Equal Justice for U.S. Service Members Act. The Act would eliminate an inequity in current law by allowing all court-martialed U.S. servicemembers who face dismissal, discharge or confinement for a year or more to petition the United States Supreme Court for discretionary review through a writ of certiorari.

The bill is a simple one, and would do the following: allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has denied review; and allow a writ of certiorari to be filed in any case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied a petition for extraordinary relief.

In our civilian courts today, all person convicted of a crime, if they lose on appeal, have a right to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for discretionary review. Even enemy combatants have the right to direct appellate review in the Supreme Court.

In contrast, however, our men and women in uniform do not share this same right. Our military personnel can apply to the U.S. Supreme Court only if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces actually conducts a review of their case or grants a petition for extraordinary relief. That only happens about 10 percent of the time.

In other words, in 90 percent of their case, our U.S. servicemembers are prevented from ever seeking or obtaining direct review from the Supreme Court.

This disparity is not limited to our civilian and military court systems. A similar disparity exists within our military court system relief. The Government routinely has the chance to petition the Supreme Court for review of adverse court-martial rulings in any case where the charges are severe enough to make a punitive discharge possible. But our military personnel do not share the same rights to petition the Supreme Court as the military prosecutors on the other side of the aisle.

This is wrong, and this inequity was recently noted by the American Bar Association, which passed a resolution calling on Congress on fix this long-standing ``disparity in our laws governing procedural due process.''

Every day, our U.S. service personnel place their lives on the line in defense of American rights. It is unacceptable for us to continue to routinely deprive our men and women in uniform one of those rights--the ability to petition their Nation's highest court for direct relief. It is a right given to common criminals in our civilian courts, to the Government, and even to some of the terrorists who we hope to prosecute as war criminals.

The bill is supported by the American Bar Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the National Institute of Military Justice. Robinson Everett, the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, also supports the bill.

It's long past time we give them the same rights as the American citizens they fight, and sometimes die, to protect.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to give equal justice to our U.S. servicemembers.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation designed to fix the personnel laws that

cover the Department of Veterans Affairs health care professionals, including registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and dental assistants. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues, Senators Webb, Brown, Mikulski, and Sanders.

Whenever I visit VA Medical Centers and meet with veterans, I hear wonderful stories about nurses and other VA health care professionals who work long and hard to provide care to our veterans. Too often, our health care professionals are working under real stress due to lack of funds or staff shortages. Almost 22,000 of the registered nurses caring for our veterans will be eligible to retire by 2010. Even more stunning is that 77 percent of all resignations of nurses occur within the first 5 years. This is a clear signal that more must be done to retain VA nurses and quality health care staff. Anyone involved in health care understands the important role that nurses play in the quality of care and patient satisfaction.

The goal of this bill is to support the VA health care professionals who work hard to provide quality care to our veterans. The bill seeks to return to the partnership agreement of the 1990s between VA management and workforce. Flexible scheduling and basic fairness from management are key issues that must be addressed to recruit and retain a strong workforce. Morale is important in every workplace, and particularly in a VA Medical Center.

West Virginia has four VA Medical Centers, each with a dedicated team of health care professionals. I have met with the nurses and other professionals to hear their requests for flexible scheduling. I believe that we should restore the management partnership and work hard to retain our dedicated team of health professionals for our aging veterans, and those newly returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, with both physical and mental wounds of war, that deserve experienced VA care.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will establish the Hawaii Capital National Heritage Area.

National Heritage Areas allow residents, government agencies, nonprofit groups and private partners to collaboratively plan and implement programs that recognize and preserve America's defining landscapes. Of the 40 National Heritage Areas established, only a few are west of the Mississippi River. This will be Hawaii's first official Heritage Area.

I believe that Hawaii's unique cultural make up coupled with its historical significance will surely attract both residents and visitors to this special place. The proposed area is rich with cultural sites, museums, historic buildings, art galleries, performing arts venues, ethnic markets, and restaurants that will surely provide the average person with an experience of a lifetime.

This makes Hawaii Capital Cultural district an ideal candidate for a Heritage Area designation.