Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthening and Updating Resources and Equipment, SURE, Act, a bill that will enable our country's first responders to maintain important equipment to protect our communities. I thank Senator Voinovich for his support of this important legislation. First responders across the country provide critical protection from attacks on our Nation, and we should ensure they have the tools they need to keep our communities safe and prepared.

On September 22, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a considerable change in their policy regarding the use of preparedness grants. The new guidelines state that recipients of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program SHSGP, funds may no longer use the funds for maintenance of equipment beyond the period of performance for the grant. This shifts the burden of maintenance costs for important homeland security equipment to States and communities, many of which are already struggling in the current economic downturn.

Much of the equipment purchased with these grants is complex and costly to maintain, and disallowing the use of grants to cover expensive maintenance costs means that many communities will have to forego the use of systems in which they have already invested precious resources. Also, many State and local governments may be unable to purchase essential equipment because they would be unable to cover the maintenance costs in future years.

A plan to implement a statewide communications system for first responders in my home state of Vermont is severely hampered by this policy change. State and local officials have been developing this system, known as the Lifeline System, for years and have planned for implementation by combining portions of 4 years of SHSGP grants with additional law enforcement funding. Upon completion of this important system for statewide coordination, considerable funds will be required to ensure that the system remains effective. If Vermont is unable to use preparedness grants for future maintenance, the Lifeline System may become inoperable, severely diminishing statewide coordination for homeland security and emergency management. I have heard from law enforcement officials in Vermont like Lieutenant Michael Manning of the Vermont State Police about how changes in these grant programs will affect state emergency law enforcement services.

The SURE Act would make changes to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that the administrator of these grants may not place limitations on the use of preparedness grants for maintenance costs. This important clarification means that State and local law enforcement will be able to apply funds they receive to sustain the vital systems and equipment that have been put in place to keep our communities safe.

Our Nation's law enforcement officers deserve our commitment to provide them with the tools they need to carry out their duties. I support and respect our State and local police officers and all of our first responders, and am proud to recognize their role in upholding the rule of law and keeping our Nation safe and secure.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the amendment sponsored by Senator Inhofe is one of a series of amendments that have recently been offered in the Senate that would put political interests ahead of our national interests. This amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to construct or modify any facility in the United States to hold any individual who is currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

This goal of this amendment is to ensure that the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, some for years without charge, cannot be tried in our Federal courts and that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay cannot close. This is harmful to our national security and devastating to our reputation as a model justice system throughout the world. As a former prosecutor, I find it deeply troubling that the Senate would be asked to prohibit the administration from trying even dangerous terrorists in our Federal courts. As a Senator, I find it shameful that Congress is being asked to help keep open a facility that has been a stain on our reputation throughout the world and has given ammunition to our enemies. GEN Colin Powell was correct when he said, ``Guantanamo has become a major problem for America's perception as it's seen; the way the world perceives America.''

President Obama addressed that problem in the first days of his Presidency by announcing that he would close Guantanamo Bay, and he has affirmed that commitment by announcing that the administration will have a preference for trying detainees in our proven Federal courts. Just last week, the Attorney General announced that, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Government will begin to move toward federal criminal trials against five of these detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I have supported President Obama and the Attorney General in these steps, and I will continue to do so. That is why I have voted against amendments that would withhold funding to close the Guantanamo detention facility and prohibit any Guantanamo detainees from being brought to the United States. These amendments undermine the good work the President is doing, and they make us less safe, not safer.

Two weeks ago, the Senate defeated another amendment that would have restricted the authority and the options of our military and law enforcement. Secretary Gates and Attorney General Holder sent us a joint letter opposing that amendment. They reminded us that we should not prohibit the Government from being able to ``use every lawful instrument of national power . . . to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives.'' That is exactly what this amendment would do by tying the administration's hands in the event that they need to upgrade any facility in order to securely house these detainees. I will ask that a copy of the administration's letter be printed in the Record.

Again, this week, joined by Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder and Secretary Gates wrote to the Senate in opposition, this time to the Inhofe amendment we consider today. I will ask that the administration's letter be printed in the Record.

Instead of closing Guantanamo and moving toward a lawful and effective national security policy, this amendment would say to the world that we refuse to face what we did at Guantanamo and instead would continue the legacy of a place that was created in an effort to lock people up for years without charge and not face the consequences. This amendment would say to the world that we are not strong enough, that our over 200-year-old superior legal tradition is not flexible enough, to allow us to deal with those who attack us. Refusing to close Guantanamo also means we lose our ability to respond with moral authority if other countries should mistreat American soldiers or civilians.

Much debate has focused on keeping Guantanamo detainees out of the United States. In this debate, political rhetoric has entirely drowned out reason and reality. Our criminal justice system handles extremely dangerous criminals, and more than a few terrorists, and it does so safely and effectively. We try very dangerous people in our courts and hold very dangerous people in our jails throughout the country. I know; I put some of them there. We do it every day in ways that keep the American people safe and secure, and I have absolute confidence that we can do it for even the most dangerous terrorism suspects.

The facts speak for themselves. The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how to best handle detainees, and experts and judges from across the political spectrum have agreed that our courts and our criminal justice system can handle this challenge and indeed has handled it many times already. Since January of this year alone over 30 terrorism cases have been either successfully tried or sentenced using our Federal courts. No one has ever escaped from a Supermax facility. In fact terrorists are routinely and securely held at our prisons, including Zacharias Moussaoi, one of the plotters behind the September 11 attacks and Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade Center bomber.

Why would the Senate pass an amendment that suggests that our country and the brave men and women who staff these prisons cannot handle these prisoners, or that they are not up to the task? And why would we pass an amendment that simultaneously makes it harder for the government to securely detain terrorism suspects in our prisons by making any necessary adjustments to hold them? This amendment would ironically

make us less safe by making our prisons less secure. This is playing games with national security.

It is not only President Obama who believes that closing Guantanamo will make us a more secure and honorable nation. I agree with the conviction expressed by Senator Graham and Senator McCain who said, ``[w]e support President Obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees.''

It is time to act on our principles and our constitutional system. It is time to close Guantanamo and try and convict those who seek to do us harm. Where the administration decides to try them in Federal courts, our courts and our prisons are more than up to the task.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the administration's letter to which I referred.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Hatch to introduce a bill that will take steps to enhance the retirement benefits granted to Assistant U.S. Attorneys who serve all Americans in a critical law enforcement role. Representative Delahunt is introducing companion legislation in the House. I would like to acknowledge the significant efforts made by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys in developing this legislation.

There are approximately 5,500 Assistant U.S. Attorneys in 93 offices throughout the U.S. all of whom are serving on the front lines to uphold the rule of law. Having served as a prosecutor for many years in Vermont, I know well the integral role prosecutors play in the administration of justice and keeping our communities safe. Federal prosecutors are a crucial component of our justice system, and this legislation recognizes the important contributions these men and women make in the enforcement of our Federal laws.

Probation officers, deputy marshals, corrections officers, and even corrections employees not serving in a law enforcement role receive benefits greater than those received by Assistant U.S. Attorneys. This is a disparity that should be remedied. By making the appropriate adjustments provided in this legislation, Congress would also help the Federal justice system retain experienced prosecutors. Of all the prosecutors who leave the government for the private sector, 60 to 70 percent do so with experience of between 6 and 15 years. With the Department of Justice's rapidly expanding role in combating terrorism, financial fraud, and other pressing national law enforcement challenges, we cannot afford to lose the experienced men and women who serve in this vital position. And by enhancing the retirement benefits for these prosecutors, we make service as an Assistant U.S Attorney a more attractive path for talented young lawyers who are considering public service.

This legislation also makes substantial efforts to defray the cost to the Federal Government of providing enhanced retirement benefits to Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to make our justice system operate more efficiently. The bill includes important provisions that would assist the Department of Justice in recovering money owed to the Federal Government as a result of judgments and other fines. By bolstering the Department's ability to collect the funds it is rightfully owed, resources would be made more available to provide the parity in retirement benefits sought by Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The result of this innovative effort to fund these benefits in an alternative manner is that the Department of Justice will, through its duties as the Nation's law enforcement agency, be able to provide the benefits its employees deserve at little or no cost to the taxpayer.

With the introduction of this legislation, we signal that prosecutors in our society fulfill a critical and valuable role. By enacting it, Congress can send the message that the service of these prosecutors is an indispensable component of our Federal justice system. I hope all Senators will join us in supporting this legislation.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Motion to Commit

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn in introducing the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009. This important bipartisan legislation would help jurisdictions control the increased costs facing correctional systems across the country, while also improving public safety and reducing recidivism.

In recent years, Federal and State governments have passed many new criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more and more crimes. As a former prosecutor, I strongly believe in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But while it is important to ensure that serious crimes result in significant sentences, we must also work to make our criminal justice system as effective and efficient as possible. That is why I have long championed legislation like the Second Chance Act, which helps ensure that when people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycles of recidivism and violence.

We have an obligation to help states cope with overburdened criminal justice systems and rising recidivism rates. Over the last twenty years, state spending on corrections has risen from $10 billion to $45 billion a year by some reports, and that number is expected to rise. Despite mounting expenditures, recidivism rates remain high, and by some measures have actually worsened. The fastest growing category of admissions to prison is people already under some form of community supervision, such as probation or parole. We must learn how to break this cycle. Fixing this problem will make our communities safer, and we must act quickly because states simply cannot continue to spend these enormous sums on corrections, especially in these very difficult economic times.

The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act provides states with the needed technical and financial resources to help them take key steps to break the cycle of recidivism. By helping states implement data-driven strategies to more effectively manage their correctional systems and to reinvest the saving in programs to reduce crime, the bill serves the dual purpose of cutting costs and improving public safety. I look forward to working with Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn and others to ensure the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn in introducing the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act of 2009. This important bipartisan legislation would help jurisdictions control the increased costs facing correctional systems across the country, while also improving public safety and reducing recidivism.

In recent years, Federal and State governments have passed many new criminal laws creating more and longer sentences for more and more crimes. As a former prosecutor, I strongly believe in securing tough and appropriate prison sentences for people who break our laws. But while it is important to ensure that serious crimes result in significant sentences, we must also work to make our criminal justice system as effective and efficient as possible. That is why I have long championed legislation like the Second Chance Act, which helps ensure that when people get out of prison, they enter our communities as productive members of society, so we can start to reverse the dangerous cycles of recidivism and violence.

We have an obligation to help states cope with overburdened criminal justice systems and rising recidivism rates. Over the last twenty years, state spending on corrections has risen from $10 billion to $45 billion a year by some reports, and that number is expected to rise. Despite mounting expenditures, recidivism rates remain high, and by some measures have actually worsened. The fastest growing category of admissions to prison is people already under some form of community supervision, such as probation or parole. We must learn how to break this cycle. Fixing this problem will make our communities safer, and we must act quickly because states simply cannot continue to spend these enormous sums on corrections, especially in these very difficult economic times.

The Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act provides states with the needed technical and financial resources to help them take key steps to break the cycle of recidivism. By helping states implement data-driven strategies to more effectively manage their correctional systems and to reinvest the saving in programs to reduce crime, the bill serves the dual purpose of cutting costs and improving public safety. I look forward to working with Senators Whitehouse and Cornyn and others to ensure the passage of this important legislation.

Madam President, a voice familiar to thousands of Vermonters was singled out for special recognition this past weekend.

Tim Johnson, a broadcaster who has long made Brattleboro's WTSA Radio

his home, was honored by the town of Brattleboro and the Vermont Association of Broadcasters.

Tim's love of radio and community affairs brought him to radio in 1974, and he has faithfully provided local news to listeners in Brattleboro and in Springfield, MA, ever since then. I have enjoyed knowing him and his work for several decades as we often meet at community meetings, conferences and press conferences in the Brattleboro region and across Vermont.

Brattleboro proclaimed Saturday, November 7, 2009, as ``Tim Johnson Day'' and celebrated with a cake. The same day, at their annual meeting the Vermont Association of Broadcasters heralded Tim for his distinguished service. Distinguished service helps sum up Tim's importance to southern Vermont. His contributions to his community and to Vermont broadcasting have been of the highest quality, and they have been steady. His many hours in the studio each week ensure that residents in Brattleboro receive news that is important, relevant and timely. It is regrettable that today's broadcasting environment sustains less of that kind of community service and community presence.

I know Tim will continue on this path of excellence, and I know that all Vermonters join me in expressing appreciation and admiration for his good work on WTSA.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article from The Rutland Herald be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I came over here and listened to the debate, and I was wondering just who was being considered. It is not the description I would have of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland. I will, in a moment, go to that.

But, first, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 185, the Senate remain in executive session and vote immediately on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 471, the nomination of Charlene Edwards Honeywell to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Florida; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; no further motions be in order, and any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Now, Madam President, let me tell you who Judge Andre Davis is because listening to this description, you would not recognize the person. This is a nomination that should not have taken the Senate 5 months to consider--5 months--after it was reported by the Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 16 to 3. The Republicans who voted for him: Senator Hatch, Senator Kyl, Senator Graham, and Senator Cornyn--are not people who are apt to give an easy pass to somebody who is not qualified.

In fact, he is a well-respected judge who has served for 14 years on the Federal bench as a district court judge; and before that, 8 years as a Maryland State court judge.

Then, for an impartial review of who this person is--not a partisan review but an impartial review--the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated his nomination ``well- qualified.'' That is the highest rating they can give to anybody. So there is no surprise Judge Davis enjoys the strong support of his home State Senators: Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. In fact, Senator Cardin chaired his confirmation hearing back on April 21, and he has been a strong advocate for Senate action on his nomination.

While it is not surprising, it is nonetheless disappointing the Senate has been prevented from considering this nomination for 5 months by Republican objections. I am not surprised because Senate Republicans began this year threatening to filibuster President Obama's judicial nominations before he had made a single one. They have followed through with that threat by obstructing and stalling the process, delaying for months the confirmation of well-qualified, consensus nominees. Last week, the Senate was finally allowed to consider the nomination of Judge Irene Berger, who has now been confirmed as the first African- American Federal judge in the history of West Virginia. The Republican minority delayed consideration of her nomination for more than 3 weeks after it was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. When her nomination finally came to a vote, it was approved by an overwhelming vote of 97-0. That follows the pattern that Republicans have followed all year with respect to President Obama's nominations. I expect Judge Davis to be confirmed by a bipartisan majority, but only after a 5- month stall.

Last year, with a Democratic majority, the Senate reduced circuit court vacancies to as low as 9 and judicial vacancies overall to as low as 34, even though it was the last year of President Bush's second term and a presidential election year. That was the lowest number of circuit court vacancies in decades, since before Senate Republicans began stalling Clinton nominees and grinding confirmations to a halt. In the 1996 session, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed only 17 judges and not a single circuit court nominee. Because of those delays and pocket filibusters, judicial vacancies grew to over 100, and circuit vacancies rose into the mid-thirties.

When I served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, I did my best to stop this downward spiral that had affected judicial confirmations. Throughout my chairmanship, I made sure to treat President Bush's judicial nominees better than Republicans had treated President Clinton's nominees. In fact, during the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary Committee in President Bush's first term, we confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. At the end of his Presidency, although Republicans had run the Judiciary Committee for more than half his tenure, more of his judicial nominees were confirmed when I was the chairman than in the more than 4 years when Republicans were in charge.

Instead of building on that progress, Senate Republicans are intent on turning back the clock to the abuses they engaged in during their years of resistance to President Clinton's moderate and mainstream judicial nomination. The delays and inaction we are seeing now from Republican Senators in considering the nominees of another Democratic President are regrettably familiar. Their tactics have resulted in a sorry record of judicial confirmations this year--less than a handful-- with 10 judicial nominees currently stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar.

By November 9 in the first year of the Presidency of George W. Bush, the Senate had confirmed 17 circuit and district court judges, four circuit court nominees and 13 district court nominees. By contrast, Judge Davis is only the second circuit court nomination Republicans have allowed to be considered all year. When his nomination is confirmed, it will only bring the total to five--less than one third of what we had accomplished by this time in 2001. I know because in the summer of 2001, I began serving as the chair of the Judiciary Committee. We achieved those results with a controversial and confrontational Republican President after a mid-year change to a Democratic majority in the Senate. We did so in spite of the attacks of September 11; despite the anthrax-laced letters sent to the Senate that closed our offices; and while working virtually around the clock on the PATRIOT Act for 6 weeks. By comparison, this year, the Republican minority has this year allowed action on only four judicial nominations to the Federal circuit and district courts. Judge Davis will be the fifth, and only the second circuit court judge.

Now we face this. Look at the chart I have in the Chamber. It is outrageous what is happening, the few nominees they are allowing through. This is not for lack of qualified nominees. There are 10 such nominees who have been reported by the Judiciary Committee on the Senate Executive Calendar. Had those nominations been considered in the normal course we would be on the pace I set in 2001 when fairly considering the nominations of our last Republican President.

Even though as Democrats we treated President Bush far more fairly than they had treated President Clinton, even though we tried to turn back the clock from when there were 60 judges Republicans pocket- filibustered during President Clinton's time, even though in 17 months Democrats confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominations, it looks as though, as far as President Obama is concerned: President Obama nominates them, then they have to

stall them. Rather than continued progress, we see Senate Republicans resorting to their bag of procedural treats to delay and obstruct. They have ratcheted up the partisanship and seek to impose ideological litmus tests.

The obstruction and delays in considering President Obama's nominations is especially disappointing given the extensive efforts of President Obama to turn away from the divisive approach taken by the previous administration. He has reached out to Members of both parties to select mainstream, well-qualified nominees. I have been at some of those meetings. I know the job he has done in reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans.

In a recent column, Professor Carl Tobias wrote about President Obama's approach:

Obama has emphasized bipartisan outreach, particularly by

soliciting the advice of Democratic and Republican Judiciary

Committee members, and of high-level party officials from the

states where vacancies arise, and by doing so before final

nominations. Obama has gradually, but steadily, put forward

his nominees, typically naming a few on the same day. This

approach compares favorably with the approach of the two

prior administrations, which often submitted large packages

on the eve of Senate recesses, thus complicating felicitous

confirmation. To date, Obama has nominated 23 well-qualified

consensus candidates, who are diverse in terms of ethnicity,

gender and ideology. This is sufficient quantitatively and

qualitatively to foster prompt confirmation.

I will ask that a copy of Professor Tobias's column be printed in the Record following my statement.

Professor Tobias makes this point well and it is substantiated by the bipartisan support from Republican home State Senators for the President's nominees. Indeed, since he made these observations the President has nominated two North Carolinians for vacancies on the Fourth Circuit after consulting with both Senator Hagan and Senator Burr.

His first nomination of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to the Seventh Circuit came to the Senate with the strong endorsement of Senator Lugar, the senior Republican in the Senate. Senator Lugar praised the ``thoughtful, cooperative, merit-driven'' process he and Senator Bayh took in consulting on that nomination. Despite the bipartisan endorsement from his home State Senators, Judge Hamilton's nomination is the subject of a Republican filibuster and has been stalled since it was reported to the Senate in June.

Federal judicial vacancies, which had been cut in half while George W. Bush was President have already more than doubled since last year. There are now 98 vacancies on our Federal circuit and district courts, including 22 circuit court vacancies. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts, but that is the likely result of the stalling and obstruction.

Despite the fact that Senate Republicans had pocket filibustered President Clinton's circuit court nominees, Senate Democrats opposed only the most extreme of President Bush's ideological nominees and worked to reduce judicial vacancies. That had led to a reduction in vacancies in nearly every circuit during President Bush's administration. One of the circuits where we succeeded in reducing vacancies was the Fourth Circuit, the circuit to which Judge Davis has been nominated.

After Senate Republicans had refused to consider any of President Clinton's four Fourth Circuit nominees from North Carolina, vacancies on the Fourth Circuit had risen to five. All four of President Clinton's nominees from North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit were blocked from consideration by the Republican Senate majority. These outstanding nominees included United States District Court Judge James Beaty, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge J. Richard Leonard, Professor Elizabeth Gibson, and North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge James Wynn. Had either Judge Beaty or Judge Wynn been considered and confirmed, he would have been the first African-American judge appointed to the Fourth Circuit. The failure to proceed on those nominations was never explained. Indeed, Senate Republicans refused to consider any of President Clinton's highly qualified circuit court nominations from any of its States in the Fourth Circuit during the last 3 years of his administration. That resulted in five continuing vacancies.

What followed was an effort by President Bush to pack the Fourth Circuit with ideologues. He nominated a political operative from Virginia for a vacancy in Maryland who was caught stealing from a local store and pleaded guilty to fraud. There was his highly controversial nomination of William ``Jim'' Haynes II to the Fourth Circuit who as general counsel at the Department of Defense was an architect of many discredited policies on torture and who never fulfilled the pledge he made to me under oath at his hearing to supply the materials he discussed in an extended opening statement regarding his role in developing these policies and their purported legal justifications.

Mr. Haynes nomination led the Richmond Times-Dispatch to write an editorial in late 2006 entitled ``No Vacancies,'' about President Bush's counterproductive approach to nominations in the Fourth Circuit. The editorial criticized the administration for pursuing political fights at the expense of filling vacancies. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

The president erred by renominating . . . and may be

squandering his opportunity to fill numerous other vacancies

with judges of right reason.

President Bush insisted on nominating and renominating Terrence Boyle, despite the fact that as a sitting U.S. district judge and while a circuit court nominee, Judge Boyle ruled on multiple cases involving corporations in which he held investments. President Bush should have heeded the call of North Carolina Police Benevolent Association, the North Carolina Troopers' Association, the Police Benevolent Associations from South Carolina and Virginia, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Professional Fire Fighters and the Paramedics of North Carolina. Law enforcement officers from North Carolina and across the country opposed to the Boyle nomination. Civil rights groups opposed the nomination. Those knowledgeable and respectful of judicial ethics opposed the nomination. Ultimately, President Bush withdrew the Boyle nomination.

I mention these ill-advised nominations because so many Republican partisans seem to have forgotten the reasons these ideological nominations did not proceed.

We did break the logjam in North Carolina. I worked to break through the impasse and to confirm Judge Allyson Duncan of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit when President Bush nominated her. From the summer of 2001 through 2002, I presided over the consideration and confirmation of three Fourth Circuit judges nominated by President Bush. And in the Presidential election year of 2008, one of the final appellate court judges confirmed by the Senate was another Fourth Circuit nominee. Despite the confrontational approach taken by President Bush and additional retirements on the Fourth Circuit, we ended up reducing the vacancies on the Fourth Circuit during the course of his administration.

Despite our good efforts, the right wing seems intent on repeating its mistakes of the past and obstructing President Obama's nominees to the Fourth Circuit. That appears to be why Judge Davis has been delayed for months. That appears to be why they are resisting consideration of the nomination of Justice Barbara Keenan from Virginia. And that appears to be why following the announcement last week of the nominations of Judge James Wynn and Judge Albert Diaz to Fourth Circuit vacancies, the head of a right wing group urged Republican Senators to obstruct the nominees saying: ``I will predict . . . that life will not be made easy for these two nominees'' the same way when the heads of the Republican Party said they should block Eric Holder for Attorney General, and they did. They delayed him for weeks. Finally, when we did get to vote, he got more votes than any of the last four Attorneys General.

The Senate is finally being allowed to consider Judge Davis's nomination. He has had a long and distinguished legal career. During the last 14 years, he served as Federal district judge in Maryland. He has been a State judge. He has been a Federal prosecutor. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated cum laude with his JD from the

University of Maryland School of Law, where he still teaches classes as an adjunct faculty member.

I congratulate Judge Davis and his family on what I know will be his confirmation. I apologize to him for these unnecessary delays for such a very fine man. I applaud the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and my Senate partner from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for their work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article by Professor Tobias to which I referred be printed in the Record.

I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, would the Senator yield?

I agree so much with our leader about the appropriations bills. I see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, on the Senate floor. He is the only person standing on this floor who has served longer in this Senate than I have. I have been on that committee for 35 years. These are things that are always done. Whether it is a Republican majority or a Democratic majority, they have always been done, almost in a pro forma fashion. If somebody wants to vote against it, they can vote against it. But with all of the tremendous bipartisan work that is done in the Appropriations Committee--nobody has worked harder than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Nobody has worked harder than he has to get a bipartisan bill to the floor. To have it delayed, especially Military Construction, especially matters that help our military at a time when they desperately need it, to have that held up just makes no sense. I share the leader's frustration.

I want to note for the record that nobody has worked harder to get a bipartisan bill on the floor than the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In years past, that would go through in no time at all. I cannot understand this kind of partisanship.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell has been nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Judge Honeywell's confirmation has been needlessly delayed. Judge Honeywell is a longtime State judge, last appointed by former Republican Governor Jeb Bush. She was one of three district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee on October 1 without dissent. Yet Senate consideration has been delayed for 5 weeks.

After a 3-week wait, the Senate was allowed to consider the nomination of Roberto Lange, who was confirmed by the Senate 100 to 0-- unanimously--to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota after 2 hours of floor debate during which no Senator spoke in opposition. After a 4-week wait, the Senate was allowed to consider the nomination of Irene Cornelia Berger, who was confirmed by a vote of 97 to 0 to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia after an hour of floor debate during which no Senator spoke in opposition. After more than 5 weeks, the Senate today finally considers the nomination of Judge Honeywell, and I expect a similar result.

At the conclusion of the hearing to consider these nominations, Senator Sessions, the committee's ranking member, said:

It's a great honor that you've been given to be nominated

and I expect things should go forward in a timely manner. I

don't believe that any of you need to be held up based on

what I know at this time. So, we'd like to see you get your

vote as soon as reasonably possible.

I have been disappointed by Republican delays in bringing these well- qualified, noncontroversial nominees to a vote in the full Senate.

Judge Honeywell first served as a State court judge in 1994, and in 2001 was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush to serve as a State circuit court judge. Her legal career also includes working in private practice, serving as an assistant city attorney and as an assistant public defender. She was unanimously rated ``well-qualified'' by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the committee's highest rating. She received the bipartisan support of Florida Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez.

The Senate must restore its tradition of regularly considering qualified, noncontroversial nominees to fill vacancies on the Federal bench without needless and harmful delays. This is a tradition followed with Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents.

I congratulate Judge Honeywell and her family on her confirmation today.

Mr. President, the amendment that has been sponsored by Senators Graham, McCain, Lieberman, and Webb is wrong and it is unnecessary. It would, as Senator Graham said, prohibit the prosecution of any individual suspected of involvement with the September 11 attacks against the United States from being tried in our article III courts.

The idea that we cannot try a terrorist and mass murderer in our courts is beneath the dignity of this great country. Timothy McVeigh was one of the greatest mass murderers this Nation has ever known and we had no difficulty trying him and convicting him and executing him using our laws and our article III courts.

The real intent of this amendment is clear, to ensure that the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, some who have been held for years without charge, can only be tried by military commissions.

As a former prosecutor, I find it deeply troubling that the Senate would be asked to prohibit the administration from trying even dangerous terrorists in our Federal courts. These Senators should not use an amendment that politicizes decisions about significant prosecutions as a backdoor to require the use of military commissions.

The administration has worked hard to revise the military commissions to make sure that they meet constitutional standards. However, their use has been plagued with problems and repeatedly overturned by a conservative Supreme Court.

In contrast, our Federal courts have a long and distinguished history of successfully prosecuting even the most atrocious violent acts, and they are respected throughout the world. When we use our Federal courts, the rest of the world recognizes that we are following over 200 years of judicial history of the United States of America. We earn respect for doing so.

The administration strongly opposes this amendment. In a letter to the Senate leadership the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, warn that this amendment would ``set a dangerous precedent'' by directing the Executive Branch's prosecutorial determination.

They also point out this amendment would prohibit them from being able to ``use every lawful instrument of national power . . . to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives.''

If we really want to stop terrorists, if we really want to make sure they pay for their crime, why would we block off any of the avenues available to us? Two senior administration officials, individuals directly responsible for the disposition of these detainees, are telling us not to tie their hands in the fight against terrorism. This Senator is listening to them, and I believe all Senators should listen to them.

There has been an outpouring of opposition against this amendment including by numerous human rights groups such as Human Rights First, the National Institute of Military Justice, Constitution Project and Amnesty International.

We have also seen a strong public declaration in support of trying terrorism offenses in Federal courts, signed by a bipartisan group of former Members of Congress, high-ranking military officials and judges.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how best to handle detainees. Experts and judges across the political spectrum have agreed that our criminal justice system can handle this challenge and indeed has handled it many times already.

We are a nation that fought hard to have a strong, independent judiciary, with a history of excellence. Do we now want to say to the world that in spite of all of our power, our history, our strong judiciary, that we are not up to trying those who struck us in our traditional federal courts? I think we should say just the opposite, that we can and will prosecute these people in a way that will gain the respect of the whole world and protect our nation. Republican luminaries, such as General Colin Powell, have agreed with this idea.

In fact, one of the things we tend to forget is since January of this year alone, over 30 terrorism suspects have been successfully prosecuted or sentenced in Federal courts. Those federal courts have sentenced individuals directly implicated by this amendment, such as Zacarias Moussaoui.

If this amendment were law Moussaoui, the so called ``20th hijacker'' who was directly involved in the planning of September 11, would not have been convicted by our federal courts and sentenced to life in prison. This amendment takes away one of the greatest tools we have to protect our national security--the ability to prosecute suspects in Federal court. Instead, as the Justice Department has said in its opposition to it, the Graham amendment would make it more likely that terrorists will escape justice.

I believe as strongly as all Americans do that we should take all steps possible to prevent terrorism, and we must ensure severe punishment for those who do us harm. As a former prosecutor, I have made certain that perpetrators of violent crime receive serious punishment. I also believe strongly that we can ensure our safety and security, and bring terrorists to justice, in ways that are consistent with the laws and the values that make us a great democracy.

The administration has said where possible they will try individuals in Federal courts. When we unnecessarily preempt that option, we are saying we do not trust the legal system on which we have relied for so long. All that does is give more ammunition to our enemies. It further hurts our standing around the world, a standing which has already suffered so much from the stain of Guantanamo Bay. Worse still it sends the message to other countries that they do not have to use traditional legal regimes with established protections for defendants if they are prosecuting American soldiers or civilians.

Just as partisan Republicans were wrong in trying to hold up the confirmation of Attorney General Holder to extort a pledge from him that he would not exercise independent prosecutorial judgment-- something I have never seen done before in 35 years here--it is also wrong to force an amendment politicizing prosecutions in the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. I opposed the effort by some Republican Senators who wanted the Nation's chief prosecutor to agree in advance to turn a blind eye to possible lawbreaking before even investigating whether it occurred. Republicans asked for such a pledge, a commitment that no prosecutor should give. To his credit, Eric Holder didn't give that pledge.

Passing a far-reaching amendment that takes away a powerful tool from the Justice Department in bringing terrorists to justice and usurps the Attorney General's constitutional responsibilities is not the path forward. All administrations should be able to decide who to prosecute and where they should be prosecuted. This amendment denies us the benefit of using not only our Federal courts, with their successful track record convicting terrorists, but also from using our Federal laws, which are arguably more expansive and better suited for use in terrorism cases than the narrower set of charges that can be brought in a military commission. We should not tie the hands of our law enforcement in their efforts to secure our national security. Any former prosecutor, any lawyer and any citizen should know it is not the decision of or an appropriate role for the United States Senate.

It is time to act on our principles and our constitutional system. Those we believe to be guilty of heinous crimes should be tried, and when convicted, punished severely. Where the administration decides to try them in Federal courts, our courts and our prisons are more than up to the task. I agree with the Justice Department that this amendment ``would ensure that the only individuals in the world who could not be prosecuted under the criminal terrorist offenses Congress has enacted would be those who are responsible for the most devastating terrorist acts in U.S. history.'' That means that the only people in the world who could not be prosecuted under our terrorism laws are the people who committed the most devastating terrorist acts against us. That is Alice in Wonderland justice. It makes no sense to have tough terrorism laws, to have the best judicial system in the world and then, when terrorist acts are committed against us, to simply ignore that system and decide we cannot use it to prosecute those acts. It makes no sense.

Let us put aside heated and distorted rhetoric and support the President in his efforts to truly make our country safe and strong and a republic worthy of the history and values that have always made America great.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will confirm yet another outstanding nominee to fill a high-level vacancy at the Department of Justice. The confirmation of Ignacia Moreno to head the Environment and Natural Resources Division is long overdue. Ms. Moreno's nomination has been stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar without explanation for almost 6 weeks. Nominations for four other Assistant Attorneys General to run divisions at the Department remain stalled by Republican objections to their consideration.

I thank Senator Whitehouse for chairing the Judiciary Committee hearing on this nomination on September 9. When we reported this nomination by unanimous consent--without a single dissenting vote--on September 24, I did not imagine it would not be considered by the full Senate until November.

Senate Republicans have irresponsibly held up nominations to critical posts in the Department of Justice, depriving the President, the Attorney General, and the country of the leaders needed to head key law enforcement divisions at the Justice Department. These are leaders in our Federal law enforcement efforts. Presidents of both parties, especially newly elected ones, are normally accorded significant deference to put in place appointees for their administrations.

Yet, 10 months into President Obama's first term, even after we confirm Ms. Moreno, four nominations to be Assistant Attorneys General will remain stalled on the Senate's Executive Calendar due to Republican opposition and obstruction. These are the President's nominees to run 4 of the 11 divisions at the Justice Department--nearly half. By comparison, at this point in the Bush administration the Senate had confirmed nine Assistant Attorneys General and only one nomination was pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. The difference is that the Republican minority is refusing to consider these nominations.

The nomination we consider today, President Obama's nomination of Ignacia Moreno to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, has been on the Senate Executive Calendar for almost 6 weeks, even though it was reported by the Judiciary Committee without a single Republican Senator dissenting. By comparison, a Democratic majority in the Senate confirmed President Bush's nomination of Thomas Sansonetti to the position only 1 day after it was reported by the Judiciary Committee.

The President nominated Dawn Johnsen to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department on February 11. Her nomination has been pending on the Senate Executive Calendar since March 19. That is the longest pending nomination on the calendar by over 2 months. We did not treat President Bush's first nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel the same way. We confirmed Jay Bybee to that post only 49 days after he was nominated by President Bush and only 5 days after his nomination was reported by the committee. Of course, his work in the Office of Legal Counsel is now the subject of an ongoing review by the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Mary Smith's nomination to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division has been pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar since June 11--nearly 5 months. We confirmed President Bush's first nomination to that position, Eileen O'Connor, only 57 days after her nomination was made and 1 day after her nomination was reported by the Committee. Her replacement, Nathan Hochman, was confirmed without delay, just 34 days after his nomination.

Chris Schroeder's nomination to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Policy has been pending on the Senate Executive Calendar since July 28. It was reported by voice vote without a single dissenting voice. President Bush's first nominee to head that division, Viet Dinh, was confirmed 96 to 1 only 1 month after he was nominated and only a week after his nomination was reported by the committee. The three nominees to that office that succeeded Mr. Dinh-- Daniel Bryant, Rachel Brand, and Elisabeth Cook--were each confirmed by voice vote in a shorter time than Professor Schroeder's nomination has been pending. Ms. Cook was confirmed 13 days after her nomination was reported by the committee, even though it was the final year of the Bush Presidency. By contrast, the majority leader may have to file another cloture position in order to overcome Republican obstruction and obtain Senate consideration of Professor Schroeder's nomination.

Instead of withholding consents and filibustering President Obama's nominees, the other side of the aisle should join us in treating them fairly. We should not have to fight for months to schedule consideration of the President's judicial nominations and nomination for critical posts in the executive branch.

Upon the announcement of her nomination, President Obama described Ignacia Moreno as a ``talented individual'' whose leadership will help us ``preserve our environment.'' I agree. Ignacia Moreno is a well- qualified nominee who has chosen to leave a lucrative private practice to return to government service.

Ms. Moreno currently works for General Electric, where she oversees that corporation's compliance with State and Federal laws. Prior to that, she spent 7 years in the Energy and Natural Resources Division, where she served as a Special Assistant and later Principal Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General. I am confident that Ms. Moreno's significant experience will be put to good use when she is confirmed to return to the Justice Department.

I congratulate Ms. Moreno and her family on her confirmation today. I thank her many supporters for helping to free this nomination for Senate consideration.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I am delighted to follow the Senator from Ohio, who has been such a leader in this area. Of course, I am delighted to see my distinguished friend from Massachusetts in the chair, a friend of probably more years than either one of us is willing to count.

Today, we as Members of Congress have the opportunity to complete an effort that actually began decades ago. The status quo has a powerful lobby, and the centuries of status quo have killed health insurance reform before. They are pouring all their energy not into offering constructive solutions but into erecting new pillars of obstruction at every turn.

Each of the various reform plans that have been brought forward by now have their strengths and their weaknesses. We all know that. But one other thing we should know: Radical reforms they are not.

As President Obama asked, these proposals are based on the existing system of employer-based private insurance. But in the absence of comprehensive national reform, several States have helped fill the void by crafting some of their own solutions. I am proud my home State of Vermont has been a leader and an innovator on several issues that are now being wrapped into the reform package. One such provision mirrors a pilot program in Vermont, the Blueprint for Health. This coordinates care among patients and does it in a way to prevent costly hospitalizations and procedures. Patients who participate in the program have their care monitored to ensure they are receiving the kinds of preventive services and disease management they need. The blueprint rewards physicians who keep their patients healthy. The program has already slowed costs. Of course, it has reduced emergency room visits.

Vermont has also coordinated patient care as one of the States at the forefront of the movement toward electronic medical records. That is a reform I have long promoted. Recently, I visited Montpelier Pharmacy in our capital city, a small city of 8,500. I had the privilege of being born there. But I visited Montpelier Pharmacy to announce a grant I secured to help small pharmacies across Vermont adopt a system for electronic prescriptions. With electronic prescribing, you can have all kinds of computer safeguards to prevent dosages from being too large or also prescribing a medication which may conflict with another medication that has already been prescribed. The system gives the physicians--but also the pharmacists--a concrete medication history that doesn't rely just on a patient's memory alone. In fact, if you have a patient who cannot or does not remember what medication they have been taking, this can be lifesaving. It is a little bit better than a patient saying: Well, I have that small white pill, and I think it is something for heart or something like that; they can press the button and know exactly what medications they have and what the contraindications are for other medications.

Vermont has also been a national leader in children's health care and in expanding coverage for low-income Vermonters to the Medicaid Program. All this in a little State of 650,000 people. But because of our early action, more than 96 percent of Vermont's children have health insurance. In our little State--not a wealthy State, but 96 percent of Vermont's children have health insurance. We have one of the lowest rates for uninsured adults in the country. It makes Vermont a leader and model for the rest of the Nation.

The proof is in the pudding. We have 96 percent of the children with health insurance, the lowest rates for uninsured adults, so it should be no surprise that Vermont has been ranked the healthiest State in the Nation by the American Public Health Association and the Partnership for Prevention and ranked No. 1 in health care by the Commonwealth Fund. We can talk about things to do, but when you actually do them, it works.

While Vermont has been a model in coordinating care and offering wider health coverage through public programs, a provision to expand Medicaid coverage nationwide threatens to penalize States such as Vermont that have acted early to do the right thing; States, such as Vermont, that did not wait but went forward to protect the people in their State. Instead of rewarding States that have taken the initiative to expand Medicaid Programs early, one of the Senate bills would require States that have been leaders in expanding coverage to accept less Federal assistance than other States who are offered only the bare minimum of coverage. In other words, it penalizes those that have done the right thing and rewards those that have done the wrong things. Taxpayers in early leader States such as Vermont would be forced to sustain programs in States across the country that traditionally ignored the needs of their citizens. So to address this disparity, I recently joined with 13 other Senators from early leader States to offer a proposal that treats all States fairly. We can all share the goal of increasing access to essential medical services by expanding Medicaid coverage nationwide. I look forward to working with others in a way that does not misguidedly harm early leader States.

Even though Vermont has long recognized the importance of a health care system that includes all Vermonters

and Americans, individual States can't make enough progress without comprehensive health insurance reform. We need that. Workers nationwide are losing insurance for their families when they change or lose jobs. Insurance companies can and do discriminate against sick people. Notwithstanding what the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of ads say, they can and do discriminate.

I hear heartbreaking stories daily from constituents in Vermont. They tell me of the trouble they have getting, paying for, and keeping health insurance. I hear it when I go to the grocery stores at home. I hear it when I am putting gas in my car at home. I hear it when I am walking down the street or coming out of church, such as the woman from Winhall, VT, who spends $500 a month on prescriptions--$500 a month on prescriptions--but she would be uninsured if not for her husband's job. She is working two jobs just to make ends meet and afford their health care costs.

Then there is the small business owner in Vermont who has three full- time employees and one part-time worker and she works 6 and 7 days a week, but she can't afford the blood test her doctor recommended. If she becomes sick, she will lose her business, she will lose her home, her employees will lose their insurance.

There is the man from central Vermont who told me about his sister- in-law who lost parts of both feet because she didn't have health insurance. She didn't have health insurance, and when she needed medical attention, she waited, hoping things would get better. Well, they didn't, and she had to be rushed to the emergency room for amputation.

Real-life stories such as these make us ask: Why are we the only industrialized Nation in the world that lacks health insurance for its citizens? Why does the wealthiest Nation on Earth lack health insurance for its citizens? Why does the most powerful Nation on Earth lack health insurance for its citizens? It is shameful. We owe it to all Americans to pass meaningful reform.

I strongly believe the best way to meet these goals is to include a public health insurance option in health insurance reform. A public option would give consumers more choices to purchase an affordable and quality health insurance plan. It would bring about competition. It will bring down costs. I applaud the majority leader for saying the Senate bill will consider this.

In order to introduce true competition in the insurance industry we must also end the exemption from antitrust scrutiny that has been carved out of our laws for the benefit of health insurers and medical malpractice insurance companies. The antitrust laws exist to protect consumers and promote competition, and we should no longer allow the insurance industry to hide behind its special, statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. During the Senate's debate on health insurance reform, I will offer as an amendment the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, which I introduced last month, to end the health insurance industry's exemption from our antitrust laws.

We know our current health system is unsustainable. It threatens not only our health security but also our economic security. Doing nothing has been seen as an option before us. It is always easier to do nothing, but that is not an option now. We tried doing nothing for years and the situation has grown worse. So let's debate and let's pass health insurance overhaul in the coming weeks. Let's give Americans the competition they need. Most importantly, let's give Americans the choice they need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kaufman, as well as Senators Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Klobuchar, to introduce the Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act of 2009. This legislation builds on the impressive steps the administration has already taken to step up health care fraud prevention and enforcement, and on the real progress represented by the anti-fraud provisions of the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee bills already before Congress. I was glad to contribute to those efforts.

I feel strongly, though, that more needs to be done. This bill will provide prosecutors with needed tools for the effective investigation, prosecution, and punishment of health care fraud. By making modest but important changes to the law, it ensures that those who drain our health care system of billions of dollars each year, driving up costs and risking patients' lives, will go to jail, and that their fraudulent gains will be returned to American taxpayers and health care beneficiaries.

For more than 3 decades, I have fought in Congress to combat fraud and protect taxpayer dollars. This spring, I introduced with Senator Grassley and Senator Kaufman the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the most significant anti-fraud legislation in more than a decade. When that legislation was enacted, it provided law enforcement with new tools to detect and prosecute financial and mortgage fraud. Now, as health care reform moves through the Senate, I want to make sure we do all we can to tackle the fraud that has contributed greatly to the skyrocketing cost of health care.

The scale of health care fraud in America today is staggering. According to conservative estimates, about three percent of the funds spent on health care are lost to fraud--more than $60 billion a year. In the Medicare program alone, the Government Accountability Office estimates that more than $10 billon was lost to fraud just last year. While Medicare and Medicaid fraud is significant, it is important to remember that health care fraud does not occur solely in the public sector. Private health insurers also see billions of dollars lost to fraud. That fraud is often harder for the Government to track. Private companies have less incentive to report it, and in some cases, are responsible for the fraudulent practices themselves. Reining in private sector fraud must be a part of any comprehensive health care reform.

The Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act of 2009 makes a number of straightforward, important improvements to existing statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat health care fraud. The bill would increase the Federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses. Despite the enormous losses in many health care fraud cases, offenders often receive shorter sentences than other white collar criminals. This lower risk is one reason criminals are drawn to health care fraud. By increasing the Federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses, we send a clear message that those who steal from the Nation's health care system will face swift prosecution and substantial punishment.

The bill also provides for a number of statutory changes to strengthen fraud enforcement. For example, it would expand the definition of a ``Federal health care fraud offense'' to include violations of the anti-kickback statute and several other key health care-related criminal statutes, which will allow for more vigorous enforcement of those offenses, including making their proceeds subject to criminal forfeiture. It would also amend the anti-kickback statute to ensure that all claims resulting from illegal kickbacks are considered false claims for the purpose of civil action under the False Claims Act, even when the claims are not submitted directly by the wrongdoers themselves. All too often, health care providers secure business by paying illegal kickbacks, which needlessly increase health care risks and costs. This change will help ensure that the government is able to recoup from wrongdoers the losses caused by false health care fraud claims. The bill clarifies the intent requirement of another key health care fraud statute in order to facilitate effective, fair, and vigorous enforcement.

The bill also provides the Department of Justice with limited subpoena authority for civil rights investigations conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act. This provision allows the Government to more effectively investigate conditions in publicly operated institutions, such as nursing homes, mental health institutions, and residential schools for children with disabilities, where there have been allegations of civil rights violations.

Lastly, the bill provides needed resources for criminal and civil enforcement of health care fraud laws. It authorizes the appropriation of $20,000,000 a year to the Department of Justice from 2011 through 2016 for investigations, prosecutions, and civil or other proceedings relating to fraud and abuse in connection with any health care benefit program. Studies indicate a return on investment of anywhere from $6 to $15 in Government recovery of fraud proceeds for every $1 spent on health care fraud enforcement, so this is a prudent and needed investment.

We all agree that reducing the cost of health care for American citizens is a critical goal of health care reform. We in Congress must do our part by ensuring that, when we pass a health care reform bill, it includes all the tools and resources needed to crack down on the scourge of health care fraud. This bill is an important part of that effort.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kaufman, as well as Senators Specter, Kohl, Schumer, and Klobuchar, to introduce the Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act of 2009. This legislation builds on the impressive steps the administration has already taken to step up health care fraud prevention and enforcement, and on the real progress represented by the anti-fraud provisions of the Finance and Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee bills already before Congress. I was glad to contribute to those efforts.

I feel strongly, though, that more needs to be done. This bill will provide prosecutors with needed tools for the effective investigation, prosecution, and punishment of health care fraud. By making modest but important changes to the law, it ensures that those who drain our health care system of billions of dollars each year, driving up costs and risking patients' lives, will go to jail, and that their fraudulent gains will be returned to American taxpayers and health care beneficiaries.

For more than 3 decades, I have fought in Congress to combat fraud and protect taxpayer dollars. This spring, I introduced with Senator Grassley and Senator Kaufman the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the most significant anti-fraud legislation in more than a decade. When that legislation was enacted, it provided law enforcement with new tools to detect and prosecute financial and mortgage fraud. Now, as health care reform moves through the Senate, I want to make sure we do all we can to tackle the fraud that has contributed greatly to the skyrocketing cost of health care.

The scale of health care fraud in America today is staggering. According to conservative estimates, about three percent of the funds spent on health care are lost to fraud--more than $60 billion a year. In the Medicare program alone, the Government Accountability Office estimates that more than $10 billon was lost to fraud just last year. While Medicare and Medicaid fraud is significant, it is important to remember that health care fraud does not occur solely in the public sector. Private health insurers also see billions of dollars lost to fraud. That fraud is often harder for the Government to track. Private companies have less incentive to report it, and in some cases, are responsible for the fraudulent practices themselves. Reining in private sector fraud must be a part of any comprehensive health care reform.

The Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act of 2009 makes a number of straightforward, important improvements to existing statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat health care fraud. The bill would increase the Federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses. Despite the enormous losses in many health care fraud cases, offenders often receive shorter sentences than other white collar criminals. This lower risk is one reason criminals are drawn to health care fraud. By increasing the Federal sentencing guidelines for health care fraud offenses, we send a clear message that those who steal from the Nation's health care system will face swift prosecution and substantial punishment.

The bill also provides for a number of statutory changes to strengthen fraud enforcement. For example, it would expand the definition of a ``Federal health care fraud offense'' to include violations of the anti-kickback statute and several other key health care-related criminal statutes, which will allow for more vigorous enforcement of those offenses, including making their proceeds subject to criminal forfeiture. It would also amend the anti-kickback statute to ensure that all claims resulting from illegal kickbacks are considered false claims for the purpose of civil action under the False Claims Act, even when the claims are not submitted directly by the wrongdoers themselves. All too often, health care providers secure business by paying illegal kickbacks, which needlessly increase health care risks and costs. This change will help ensure that the government is able to recoup from wrongdoers the losses caused by false health care fraud claims. The bill clarifies the intent requirement of another key health care fraud statute in order to facilitate effective, fair, and vigorous enforcement.

The bill also provides the Department of Justice with limited subpoena authority for civil rights investigations conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act. This provision allows the Government to more effectively investigate conditions in publicly operated institutions, such as nursing homes, mental health institutions, and residential schools for children with disabilities, where there have been allegations of civil rights violations.

Lastly, the bill provides needed resources for criminal and civil enforcement of health care fraud laws. It authorizes the appropriation of $20,000,000 a year to the Department of Justice from 2011 through 2016 for investigations, prosecutions, and civil or other proceedings relating to fraud and abuse in connection with any health care benefit program. Studies indicate a return on investment of anywhere from $6 to $15 in Government recovery of fraud proceeds for every $1 spent on health care fraud enforcement, so this is a prudent and needed investment.

We all agree that reducing the cost of health care for American citizens is a critical goal of health care reform. We in Congress must do our part by ensuring that, when we pass a health care reform bill, it includes all the tools and resources needed to crack down on the scourge of health care fraud. This bill is an important part of that effort.