Floor Statements

Madam President, I am both proud and saddened today to salute Mr. Al Myers, a beloved teacher at Williston Central School in Vermont who recently passed away after being injured while working on the set of a school play. Mr. Myers was best known as a popular educator who was remembered by former school principal Lynn Murray as being ``brilliant with children.'' As a U.S. Senator, I remember Mr. Myers bringing students to Washington, DC every year. He truly wanted them to understand the importance of living in the world's greatest democracy.

In memory of Mr. Myers, I ask unanimous consent that the following memorial article, by Matt Ryan of the Burlington Free Press, be printed into the Record.

Mr. President, this is National Crime Victims' Rights Week--a time when communities in Vermont and across the Nation recognize the needs of crime victims, and work together to promote victims' rights and services. There is no more important time than now to renew our commitment to address the needs of crime victims and their families.

Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Collins, and more than 30 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to reintroduce the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This is a bipartisan bill designed to combat crimes that have long terrorized communities and remain a serious problem in this country. This legislation is a matter of simple justice. It is past time for Congress to enact this bill and strengthen the Federal Government's role in preventing and punishing crimes motivated by hate.

I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes law, and I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of this legislation. A bipartisan majority of

the Members in the House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the last Congress. Unfortunately, there were partisan attempts to filibuster and prevent passage of the Senate bill. The measure was ultimately attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill with the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. While I am disappointed that the hate crime provision was taken out of that bill at conference, I am hopeful that our efforts to enact this civil rights measure into law will be successful this year.

Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century, to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story that we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two attacks in recent years that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation.

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that hate crimes are becoming more prevalent and more nationalized is a leaked copy of the Department of Homeland Security report on violent extremism in the United States. The report is nothing short of chilling.

The DHS report found that ``the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment'' and these elements in turn have the potential to drive hate groups to carry out violence. It also found that anti-immigrant fervor by organized hate groups ``has the potential to turn violent.'' The DHS report concluded that the ``advent of the Internet'' has potentially made ``extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.''

Of course, these findings comport with a recent Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, report on hate group activity in the United States entitled ``The Year in Hate.'' The SPLC repot found that activity by known domestic hate groups has increased by 50 percent since 2000, from 602 hate groups in 2000, to 926 hate groups in 2008. The recent and rapid growth in hate group activity is simply astonishing.

It remains painfully clear that as a Nation, we still have serious work to do in protecting all Americans from these crimes and in ensuring equal rights for all our citizens. While the answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be found in increased tolerance, strengthening our Federal hate crimes laws is a step in the right direction.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 improves existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Victims will no longer have to engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. This bill also expands Federal protections to include the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a key and long-overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to state, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes.

This bill strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former state prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country.

Moreover, this bill accomplishes the critically important goal of protecting all of our citizens without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.

We crafted this legislation after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the advocates who work so hard to promote civil rights and with Justice Department attorneys in the field who work on hate crimes prosecutions every day. It contains changes to Federal hate crime law that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights First, and the more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, religious, and other professional organizations for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of hate crimes victims in the United States.

The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families. They inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. That is wrong. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition, and brings us one step closer towards ensuring an America that values tolerance and protects all of its people. I hope all Senators will support passing this important bipartisan bill this year.

Mr. President, this is National Crime Victims' Rights Week--a time when communities in Vermont and across the Nation recognize the needs of crime victims, and work together to promote victims' rights and services. There is no more important time than now to renew our commitment to address the needs of crime victims and their families.

Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Collins, and more than 30 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to reintroduce the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This is a bipartisan bill designed to combat crimes that have long terrorized communities and remain a serious problem in this country. This legislation is a matter of simple justice. It is past time for Congress to enact this bill and strengthen the Federal Government's role in preventing and punishing crimes motivated by hate.

I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes law, and I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of this legislation. A bipartisan majority of

the Members in the House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the last Congress. Unfortunately, there were partisan attempts to filibuster and prevent passage of the Senate bill. The measure was ultimately attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill with the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. While I am disappointed that the hate crime provision was taken out of that bill at conference, I am hopeful that our efforts to enact this civil rights measure into law will be successful this year.

Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century, to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story that we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two attacks in recent years that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation.

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that hate crimes are becoming more prevalent and more nationalized is a leaked copy of the Department of Homeland Security report on violent extremism in the United States. The report is nothing short of chilling.

The DHS report found that ``the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment'' and these elements in turn have the potential to drive hate groups to carry out violence. It also found that anti-immigrant fervor by organized hate groups ``has the potential to turn violent.'' The DHS report concluded that the ``advent of the Internet'' has potentially made ``extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.''

Of course, these findings comport with a recent Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, report on hate group activity in the United States entitled ``The Year in Hate.'' The SPLC repot found that activity by known domestic hate groups has increased by 50 percent since 2000, from 602 hate groups in 2000, to 926 hate groups in 2008. The recent and rapid growth in hate group activity is simply astonishing.

It remains painfully clear that as a Nation, we still have serious work to do in protecting all Americans from these crimes and in ensuring equal rights for all our citizens. While the answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be found in increased tolerance, strengthening our Federal hate crimes laws is a step in the right direction.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 improves existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Victims will no longer have to engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. This bill also expands Federal protections to include the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a key and long-overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to state, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes.

This bill strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former state prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country.

Moreover, this bill accomplishes the critically important goal of protecting all of our citizens without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.

We crafted this legislation after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the advocates who work so hard to promote civil rights and with Justice Department attorneys in the field who work on hate crimes prosecutions every day. It contains changes to Federal hate crime law that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights First, and the more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, religious, and other professional organizations for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of hate crimes victims in the United States.

The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families. They inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. That is wrong. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition, and brings us one step closer towards ensuring an America that values tolerance and protects all of its people. I hope all Senators will support passing this important bipartisan bill this year.

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

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

The bill, S. 386, is the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, the Leahy-Grassley bill. When I mention my name and Senator Grassley's name, we are only two of a large number of people on this bill. We have Senators Kaufman, Klobuchar, Schumer, Murray, Bayh, Specter, Snowe, Harkin, Levin, Dorgan, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, Shaheen, Stabenow, Sanders, Bennet of Colorado, Durbin, Mikulski, Gillibrand, Begich, Burris, Dodd, Menendez, Cardin, Reid, and Pryor as co-sponsors.

I mention those names because they go across the political spectrum. They know we have to strengthen the Federal Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have severely undermined our economy and hurt so many hard-working people in this country.

The reason so many of us came together, again, across the political spectrum--and I note there are several former prosecutors in that group--is we have seen what some of these unscrupulous people have done. They have set up these mortgage frauds in basically an unregulated area. They will come to somebody who is facing difficulty in paying off a mortgage--there has probably been a foreclosure and they come and say: Here, we can take care of you. Sign these papers. Put this money down. Send payments to us. We will take care of everything.

So people exhaust their life savings. Maybe they send the money they put away for their kids to go to college. Probably it is part of their retirement account. By the time they get done, the people committing the fraud are gone. The mortgage on the house, however, has not been paid off. In fact, the bank is still going to foreclose. They have lost their life's savings. They have lost all the money they have set aside for whatever reasons so many millions of Americans set money aside for. And these people who committed the fraud are gone. They have been robbed of their savings, their retirement accounts, their children's college funds, their equity, and, of course, many have lost their homes on top of that.

When the testimony of the FBI and the Department of Justice and others showed this type of fraud--which was bad enough in years past-- has skyrocketed in the last couple of years, the Senator from Iowa and I decided we should bring a piece of legislation that would allow the FBI and the Department of Justice to go after these people defrauding Americans.

I do not want to just have a simple fine. If somebody steals $100 million, and they get a fine of $5 or $10 million, it is a matter of doing business. I want enough teeth in here that they will go to jail. If you steal somebody's home, if you steal their dreams, if you steal their retirement, you should go to jail. We send kids to jail for sealing a car. How much more important is it that we should send these white-collar thieves to jail for stealing someone's life and someone's dreams? That is what we want to do here.

The bill will help provide the resources and legal tools needed to police and deter fraud but also to protect the taxpayer-funded economic recovery events now being implemented.

I was disappointed that last week our efforts to enact this legislation were stalled. But I take a great deal of hope now to know that by tomorrow midday it should be passed. It is, as I said, a bipartisan bill. It does strengthen the tools available to law enforcement to combat financial and mortgage fraud.

We were delayed a number of times before we got on the floor of the Senate, and I compliment the distinguished majority leader for bringing it to the floor last week. And when we did, we began to work on 18 amendments that were offered to the bill. We had votes on a number of them. By Thursday afternoon, we had voted on all the germane amendments. We also worked in good faith on a number of amendments not related to the underlying fraud enforcement legislation.

I would like to mention the kind of cooperation we had. The distinguished Republican deputy leader, Senator Kyl, had a series of amendments that I believe would have passed the test of germaneness. He talked with Senator Grassley and myself, and we arranged a vote on one amendment. He had wanted to bring up several similar ones. They were objected to. He pulled them down, and we had a vote on the one. We spent very little time doing that. We had plenty of time for Senator Kyl to make his points, Senator Grassley and I to make ours, and then we had a vote on it.

So we voted on all the germane amendments. For the remaining amendments, we sought an agreement to proceed to vote on each of those pending amendments, the ones that had not been voted on. When the offer was rejected, after being on this bill for several days, the majority leader was forced to file cloture to conclude consideration of this bipartisan legislation.

Majority Leader Reid did the only thing he could responsibly do because this is timely legislation. It is needed to protect people from losing their retirement funds, their homes, and their savings for their children to go to college. Americans are seeing their life's savings taken from them by unscrupulous criminals.

I think of my parents who came up during the time of the Great Depression and started a small business. They saved all their lives for their own retirement, to send their children to college. I think of how I would have reacted if I had seen somebody steal from them. Well, it is happening to a lot of other parents and grandparents around this country. It is time for the Senate to act before more people have their lives destroyed.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act will make necessary changes to criminal laws, including criminal fraud, securities, and money- laundering laws. It will increase the funding available to Federal law enforcement agencies to combat mortgage fraud and financial fraud. It will revise the False Claims Act to ensure that the Government can recover taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. This is a very important part of the bill. If somebody is stealing the taxpayers' dollars too, we want to get that back for the taxpayers.

Throughout this debate, I have several times commended the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, our lead cosponsor. I commend him and I thank him for his contributions to the bill and the debate, his work in the Judiciary Committee, in getting us this far, and for his dedication to protect taxpayer funds by deterring, investigating, and prosecuting fraud. I thank our many cosponsors for their steadfast support. I have named them. I shall not again. But everybody I have heard from across this country supports this bill.

No one should want to see taxpayer money intended to fund economic recovery efforts diverted by fraud. No one should want to see those who engage in mortgage fraud escape accountability. That is what is going to happen unless we vote to conclude the debate on this bill, pass it, get it to the other body, get it passed, get it signed into law, and give law enforcement the resources and tools they so desperately need.

During the first months of this year, the Judiciary Committee has concentrated on what we can do legislatively to assist in the economic recovery. Already we have considered and reported this fraud enforcement bill and the patent reform bill, and worked to ensure that law enforcement assistance was included in the economic recovery legislation.

The recovery efforts are generating signs of economic progress. That is good. That is necessary. But that is not enough.

We need to make sure we are spending our public resources wisely. We want to make sure they are not being taken by fraud. We also need to ensure that those responsible for the downturn through fraudulent acts in financial markets and the housing market are held to account. It should not be a case where we taxpayers pay for what they did and they get away scot-free. Two decades ago we responded during the savings and loan crisis by hiring more agents, analysts, and prosecutors. We allocated the resources needed to catch those who took advantage to profit through fraud. We have to do it again.

At our February hearing, we heard from the FBI, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, and the Justice Department. All of our law enforcement witnesses testified of the need for this legislation and these additional law enforcement resources.

Deputy Director John Pistole of the FBI warned that the losses of this economic crisis dwarf those of the savings and loan debacle, and the need for more enforcement is even greater now than it was then.

Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky described how law enforcement resources had understandably been diverted from traditional white collar crime to terrorism, but that had left the Justice Department's capacity

to respond to financial and securities fraud significantly weakened. He warned that with trillions of dollars being spent under TARP and other associated programs, ``it is essential that the appropriate resources be dedicated to meet the challenges of both deterring and prosecuting fraud.'' I agree.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita Glavin of the Justice Department testified that our bill would provide the Justice Department with needed tools ``to aggressively fight fraud in the current economic climate'' and ``provide key statutory enhancements that will assist in ensuring that those who have committed fraud are held accountable.''

We then held a hearing with FBI Director Robert Mueller. Director Mueller reiterated law enforcement's message. Here is what he said: ``[The bill] will be tremendously helpful in giving us the tools to investigate . . . to help prosecutors prosecute, and finally to obtain the convictions and the jail sentences that are the deterrent to this activity taking place in the future.''

Each week we learn of additional scandals in the financial industry, as leading money managers are charged with multimillion dollar fraud schemes carried out over the years. We need to clean up the mess. That means providing the tools and resources that law enforcement needs to get to the bottom of this, restore order, and exact accountability.

To show how severe this is, reports of mortgage fraud are up 682 percent over the past 5 years, more than 2,800 percent over the past decade. Some say we are losing more than $4 billion a year to mortgage fraud. And massive, new corporate frauds, like the $65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, are being uncovered as the economy has turned worse, exposing many investors to massive losses.

The problem is getting worse, not better. The victims of these frauds have to be protected now more than ever. The victims include, as I have said, homeowners who have been fleeced by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, retirees who have lost their life savings in stock scams and Ponzi schemes, which have come to light only as corporations collapse and the market falls.

They also include American taxpayers who have invested billions of dollars to restore our economy. These American taxpayers expect us to protect the investment they have made to make sure those funds are not exploited by crime. Each one of us is among those taxpayers. We all want to make sure the money is not stolen.

I urge all Senators to support our efforts and work with us to pass this bill without further delay. That means to vote for cloture so that we can conclude the amendment process and vote on the bill.

I see the distinguished cosponsor of this bill, Senator Grassley, on the floor and I yield to him.

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, what time is this bill scheduled for a vote?

If the Senator will be kind enough to amend his unanimous

consent request to include not to interfere with the vote at 5:20.

Madam President, we have about a minute left. I reiterate for my colleagues that this is a bill that, when it is voted upon, I predict--and I am fairly good about such predictions--will pass almost unanimously, certainly with 80 to 90 votes for it. We handled a number of amendments--mostly Republican amendments--and we either included them or voted them down. Most were included in this bill. Cloture was filed only because a huge number of amendments came in that had absolutely nothing to do with the jurisdiction of either the Judiciary Committee or this bill. That is the only way to get on to the bill and give our law enforcement the tools they need. Many law enforcement groups in this country has spoken in favor of this.

I ask unanimous consent that a group of letters from law enforcement organizations and other groups in favor of it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to raise a point of order en bloc against all pending amendments; that they are not germane postcloture.

Madam President, I raise a point of order en bloc that the pending amendments are not germane postcloture.

Madam President, I understand the vote will be tomorrow on the bill. Would it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this point?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, yesterday, when we were finally allowed to proceed to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, we began making real progress. Ten amendments were offered during the course of the day, four amendments were adopted, and six remain pending. I believe, had we not stopped voting at 5 o'clock, we could have finished the bill and passed it last night. As things stand, we hope to dispose of the six remaining amendments through the course of this morning. We should complete Senate consideration of the bill without further delay.

I should note that the number of Senators who have cosponsored this bill continue to grow--now at 17 Senators. Most of the Senators who offered amendments yesterday praised the underlying bill. I think we have only one pending amendment that regards the underlying bill; only one that actually directly relates to it. Senator Grassley will speak to that amendment. Most of the amendments that have been offered, almost all the remaining amendments pending, aren't within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, they are within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, and I look forward to the leadership of that committee--the committee of jurisdiction--with respect to guidance on those amendments.

In my view, it would have been better if Senators had withheld their amendments and waited to offer them on the housing and banking legislation that is going to be considered next week by the Senate. Then you would have at least had a bill that was relevant to the amendments. But, of course, every Senator can do whatever he or she wants to. Now, the banking/housing amendments that have been added to this Judiciary bill will complicate passage and enactment of what everyone agrees is needed--the fraud enforcement legislation. I think that is unfortunate.

Among the examples are amendments affecting the use of TARP funds.

Modifying the Troubled Asset Relief Program is a complicated matter. I wish it were not complicating this bill. I have no problem with such amendments being on a bill that actually relates to TARP, but this one does not. Indeed, in the 6 weeks, the month and a half since the fraud enforcement bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee, my staff and I reached out to Senators and no one raised these TARP issues. Had they, we would have engaged with Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby and tried to work them out as best we could in the proper setting.

The Obama administration has reformed the TARP process. It is doing its best to get a handle on the use of these funds. I intend to look to their views and to those of Chairman Dodd, but I believe complicating passage of this fraud enforcement bill with those issues is not helpful. Nonetheless, we will do what we have to in order to complete this process.

The Obama administration's Statement of Administration Policy expresses their strong support for enactment of the underlying fraud enforcement bill. They note:

Its provisions would provide Federal investigators and

prosecutors with significant new criminal and civil tools and

resources that would assist in holding accountable those who

committed financial fraud.

To give an idea, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Special Inspector General for the TARP, law enforcement officers, good government advocates--all support the underlying bill. The New York Times wrote last weekend:

Senators should not be asking if the expenditure on fraud

enforcement called for in this bill is affordable, but

whether it is enough.

Fraud has damaged our economy. It has wrecked the lives and life savings of thousands of hardworking Americans. That is why this bill should not be complicated with a lot of extraneous material that is not in the jurisdiction of this bill. We have people around this country facing economic crises. They are preyed upon by some of these mortgage fraud groups. They promise to help them out of any kind of a mortgage difficulty they have and then they steal their retirement accounts. They steal the money they may have saved for their children to go to college. They steal the equity in their homes. Then they disappear, so people are left with no homes, no equity, no retirement accounts. If they saved money for their children to go to college, there is no money there, and the people who have committed the fraud get away.

On those occasions when sometimes they are chased down, they may actually face a fine. But if they have stolen $200 million and get a $10 million fine--big deal. It is the cost of doing business. But if we have very tough legislation that allows the Justice Department and others to go in right at the get-go, to be able to go in and go after these people and make it very clear: If you are involved in this kind of fraud, if you are involved in this kind of theft, you are not going to get a fine, you are going to go to prison, then they are going to pay attention.

I can tell you from my own experience as a prosecutor, I know fines in this kind of fraud situation do not serve as much of a deterrent. But if we are able to send in the police to arrest these people, and they know they are going to spend years behind bars, then they start paying attention. That is the only thing that really does it, and that is the only thing that is going to protect these Americans, American taxpayers, honest, hardworking men and women--the only thing that is going to protect them from losing everything they have in a downturn in the economy.

We should pass this bill without further delay. We should move to the task of helping law enforcement find and hold accountable those who engage in such fraudulent conduct. This should be fairly easy. We can pass this bill and say: We are against crime, we are against fraud, we want the good guys to win, we want the bad guys to go to jail. It is as simple as that. That is why there are Republicans and Democrats who support this--across the political spectrum.

Strengthening fraud enforcement is a key priority for President Obama. During the campaign the President promised to ``crack down on mortgage fraud professionals found guilty of fraud by increasing enforcement and creating new criminal penalties.''

The President made good in his promise in his budget, calling on FBI agents ``to investigate mortgage fraud and white collar crime,'' and more Federal prosecutors and civil attorneys ``to protect investors, the market, and the Federal Government's investment of resources in the financial crisis, and the American public.''

As taxpayers, we all have a stake in this. If these people are able to get away with their fraud, if they are able to get away with siphoning off this money, we taxpayers pay the bill in the long run. Those who are hit with the fraud pay far more than that. They may pay with their life savings, with their homes, with everything they have ever worked for.

This bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act is a chance to authorize the necessary additional resources to detect, fight, and deter fraud that robs the American people and the American taxpayers of their funds. Investing resources in detecting and deterring fraud yields dividends for the American people. That is what this bill would do, and we should pass it without further delay.

I want my colleagues to know, at some point, if people are not here to offer amendments, we will call up and vote on the amendments that are pending and then go to final passage. I know the Democratic and Republican leaders talked about a budget matter that has to come up that will probably take us into the evening. I am trying to save the time of all Senators, so I urge Senators to come because at some point everything that is pending is going to be called up and is going to be voted on up or down. I would at least like to have the Senators on the floor who are sponsoring them. Then we will go to final passage.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my friend from South Dakota for his courtesy in talking to me first about the amendment. As I pointed out to him, these are matters before the Banking Committee. The Judiciary Committee has really got nothing to do with it, the same as many of these. I will wait for Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby to respond; I will not.

I am going to make a unanimous consent request. I have notified both sides of this. There is a Boxer-Snowe amendment No. 1000. I ask unanimous consent that at 10:50--I realize it is going to be objected to, but I am trying to save both Republicans and Democrats from being here until 2 o'clock tomorrow morning because of the bill that comes up after this. I ask unanimous consent--and if this is objected to, I will repeat the request later on--that at 10:50 the pending business be set aside, the Boxer-Snowe amendment No. 1000 be brought up, there be 8 minutes of debate evenly divided before a vote, and that it then be in order to go to a rollcall vote on the amendment.

I have been advised that there would be an objection because they have not heard from the Banking Committee, from Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby. I would urge them to come to the floor so we can move forward, as most of the amendments pending or about to be pending have absolutely nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the bill on the floor, have everything to do with a bill that is coming up next week from the Banking Committee. So I would urge the Banking Committee to come to the floor and speak to the amendments that are all within the jurisdiction of their committee.

I mention this because if we don't, the other alternative is to accept everything and go immediately to final passage. I don't think that would be responsible because then the fraud bill that virtually everybody in this body, Republicans and Democrats, supports is going to die because it won't go past the other body. I realize every Senator has a right to offer any amendment he or she wants, but at some point we have to be realistic. If we are against the people who are committing fraud on the American taxpayers, something for which all of us have made speeches that we are in favor of stopping them--newspapers from the right to the left have editorialized in favor of stopping them--let's be honest and actually pass a bill that does it. The message amendments should wait until an appropriate bill that has something to do with them.

I am also trying to help Senators. We are going to complete this bill before we go to budget matters. We can complete it easily by noon. As Senators know, I have supported Republican amendments that came up yesterday. They have all been accepted, including an amendment by Senator Grassley and myself. But we want to complete this legislation. I am perfectly willing to stay here all night long to finish this and the budget. But every hour we take on this is an hour longer on the budget. It is somewhat frustrating that Senators who have a concern can't find time to show up on the floor. Senators from both sides of the aisle don't have time to show up on the floor on a bill which we were notified 3 weeks ago was going to be on the floor at this time. I urge them to do so. Because as soon as these amendments are disposed of one way or the other, we will go to final passage.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, while the Senator from South Dakota is in the Chamber, if I may ask him a question, we also have amendment No. 982 offered by Senator Coburn which allows the unused TARP funds to pay for the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. I ask the Senator if the Coburn amendment and his amendment are mutually exclusive?

I thank the Senator. I have read it carefully, and that was my conclusion. This is a matter more in line with the Banking Committee, and I will let them speak to it. This is unprecedented, that we have amendments on bills, whether this one or others, that are mutually exclusive. I did note that. I thank my friend from South Dakota for his comments.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I was distracted in another conversation. Senator Coburn left the floor. I wished to speak to him about his amendment because it appears to have already been covered in the Isakson-Conrad amendment. I would like to ask if he also feels that way. I would hope he might come back to the floor so we could discuss that.

I also wish to notify the other side I am about to renew my unanimous consent request for a vote on the Boxer amendment. I will not until they have time to talk to the Republican side. There is no Republican on the floor right now. But in a few minutes, I will renew my request for a rollcall vote on that amendment.

In the meantime, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I will object, and I will just take a moment to explain.

First off, I would note, as he typically does, the Senator from Arizona came and talked to me before and was very straightforward with what he was going to do.

This talks about recoveries available under the False Claims Act. I think the Senate expert on the False Claims Act is Senator Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Grassley opposes this, as do I. I know there are going to be other amounts the distinguished Republican leader is going to bring up, but my reason in opposing them--and he has explained each one of them to me ahead of time, so there is no surprise--but I will oppose them because I believe without whistleblowers, a lot of these billions of dollars in fraud that have been found wouldn't have been found. Without the whistleblowers, the Government--the American taxpayers--wouldn't recover so much.

The False Claims Act--and, again, Senator Grassley and others were the leaders in putting that together--has brought back more than $22 billion into the U.S. Treasury.

Now, it has a balanced approach in providing incentives for said whistleblowers. They share in such recoveries if it is warranted and if it is approved by the judge. A judge has to approve it. It has worked out very well. Rather than there being an arbitrary cap, I would rather leave it to the judge to make the determination. Simply saying, well, we will limit it to three times the cost, then I worry about seeing a padding of expenses. I think it is very well balanced the way it is, including having a judge make the final decision.

I think one of the things we all agree upon--I am sure the Senator from Arizona and I agree--is that we have to find fraud, we have to root it out, and we have to bring those who commit fraud to justice. What I am thinking about, as Senator Grassley has pointed out in the past, as have I, we have to give an incentive to the whistleblowers to bring the case. After all, we have seen all too often a whistleblower will alert us to the fraud, and the first thing that happens is they lose their job. They often risk retaliation. In fact, if they are turning in their coworkers or their supervisors and bringing out the fraud, this could be life-altering. It could actually change their professional career, often for the worse. They are looked at as the bad guys, but they are not the bad guys; they are the good guys. We ought to reward them.

I will vote against it in this case. I object to considering it. I know the Senator from Arizona is going to have further amendments, but I just want him to know--and I want my colleagues to know what I have told him privately. I commend him for--as we have always done in cases we have had--talking to me ahead of time, as I have with him when I have had amendments or matters that may involve him.

So I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, as I indicated to my friend earlier, I would object to that, and I do object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hate to try to fix something that I don't think is broken. The False Claims Act has worked very well for the U.S. taxpayers. It has worked well. I know the Senator from Iowa worked so hard in putting this together in the first place. It has brought more than $22 billion back into the Treasury. The awards to whistleblowers have to be approved by a judge. I don't want to fix something that is not broken, so, therefore, I will object, and I do object.

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa wishes to speak on this amendment, and we will soon have a rollcall vote. I ask the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Iowa if we could withhold for 2 minutes in order for the Senator from Wisconsin to speak on an amendment of his, and then we will go back to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Kyl amendment, now pending, occur at 11:45 but that there be 2 minutes equally divided immediately preceding the vote. First, I make that request.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that there not be any amendments to that amendment.

Mr. President, I understand the senior Senator from New York has an amendment. While the senior Senator from Iowa is on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senator from New York to bring up his amendment--that the pending amendment be set aside for 5 minutes--speak on it, and if there are no objections to it, it then be accepted, and we go back to the Kyl amendment so as not to interfere with the unanimous consent agreement to have a vote on the Kyl amendment at 11:45 a.m. I make that request.

If I can get the attention of the senior Republican, my request is that the Senator from New York be allowed to bring up his amendment for 5 minutes, and at the conclusion of the 5 minutes, unless more time is requested by unanimous consent, that the matter, if it can be disposed of, be disposed of, but in any event, at the end of that time, we go back to the Kyl amendment on which there is a unanimous consent agreement for a rollcall vote at a quarter of 12.

I so modify it. That would still leave the amount of time Senator Kyl has requested prior to a vote on his amendment.

Mr. President, are we now back on the Kyl amendment?

Before that happens, I thank the Senator from New York and the Senator from Iowa. They have been meeting with me and my staff for weeks on this amendment. I am glad they were able to reach agreement on the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Wait a minute. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator repeat that? That is not my understanding of what he was to do. Would the Senator repeat the unanimous consent request?

That was not my understanding of what the Senator was asking, so I would object.

Amendment No. 1004

Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, it is my understanding that we now have about 7 minutes or 8 minutes. Then we will go off this and go back to the Kyl amendment. I want to protect the Senator from Arizona on his amendment. Even though it is one I disagree with, I want to protect his right to have that.

Mr. President, I assume the Banking Committee will talk about the amendment of the Senator from Nevada.

If I could have the attention of the Senator from Nevada, if his staff would allow me to have the attention of the Senator from Nevada for a moment, I realize we are merely constitutional impediments to the staff. I hate to interfere.

Again, this is one of a series of amendments that is not at all within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I find it an interesting amendment, but it is within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I was hoping, since there is going to be a banking bill next week, that some of these banking amendments would actually go on the Banking bill and have Judiciary amendments on the Judiciary bill. And I would assume that the discussion will be carried out by Senators Dodd and Shelby of the Banking Committee, in that there is no relationship at all to the Judiciary Committee bill.

I would add to that, of course, that the Senator from Nevada has an absolute right to bring up anything. Someone can bring up something on agriculture and price supports, I suppose. But I wish we could keep it to Judiciary matters.

Mr. President, am I correct we are now back on the Kyl amendment?

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN addressed the Chair.

I withhold that request for the Senator from Nevada.

Amendment No. 1000

Mr. President, I thought the Kyl amendment was pending by unanimous consent.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Will the Senator give up the floor?

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

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

Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Arizona and I have 2 minutes equally divided between us before the vote?

I know Senator Kyl is on the way. I will say what I said before, when he was standing on the floor. I, along with Senator Grassley, strongly oppose his amendment because the False Claims Act is so well put together, has a balanced approach of providing incentives for whistleblowers, and has recovered more than $22 billion for the Treasury. That is why Senator Grassley and I oppose the amendment by the Senator from Arizona. Awards to whistleblowers have to be approved by judges, so there is a mechanism to handle excessive awards.

When we have something like the False Claims Act that is working as well as it is--as I said, it is one of the few things that has made money for the Federal Government. So far it has made $22 billion for the U.S. taxpayers. I hate to interfere with something that is working.

My time is up. The Senator from Arizona is on the Senate floor.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

vote explanation

Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, this bill would have been easily finished last night, but I understand, under the Senate schedule, we were unable to continue at that time. I hope we will finish soon so that we don't have to spend a great deal more time. We have had a large number of amendments that are basically Banking Committee amendments, and other committees, not the Judiciary Committee. We should come back to realizing that this is a Judiciary bill. Every one of us says we are against those who are stealing life savings and money set aside for kids' colleges and stealing people's homes. We all say we would love to put them in jail. We will not do it until we get the bill through.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Missouri for her statement. I hope people listen to what she had to say because it is a warning to many. Again, I would reiterate that one of the reasons we are trying to move this fraud bill through, everybody will be against fraud and everybody is against crime, but as the Senator from Missouri knows so well, you have to have some laws on the book to go after fraud and go after crime. I wish to speak further on that, but I see my dear friend and distinguished colleague from Vermont on the floor.

I will yield the floor so he can also speak on a matter.

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

Madam President, with the vote and disposition of the Kyl amendment today and the Kyl amendment and the Leahy-Grassley amendment yesterday, we have basically completed work on the underlying bill. Those were the only amendments that affected the underlying bipartisan fraud enforcement bill. A number of other amendments have come in, but they, of course, have nothing to do with this bill. They are not within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. They are, in large part, extraneous to the fraud enforcement bill. Many if not all are within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I haven't seen one yet that should be in Agriculture, but hope springs eternal. Today, a Senator offered an amendment drawn from the HELP Committee jurisdiction. In a way, it is a compliment that so few people have suggested changes that they wanted to make to the Judiciary Committee bill. I guess Senators are anxious in case they are not around here next week when we have a Banking bill.

I would like to conclude consideration of the bill that actually is before the Senate. We will soon have a list of

amendments on which both sides will agree to have votes. I don't think any of them really have anything to do with the Judiciary bill, but every Senator has a right to offer whatever amendments he or she wants, whether germane to the bill or not, and to get a vote on them. If they are all going to require rollcall votes, we should be done certainly sometime before midnight. Then we can pick up the next piece of legislation, which I understand we should have done by Saturday. Of course, the only amendments really involving this bill could have been done yesterday. We could have finished this bill yesterday.

I would like to speak briefly about the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. This bill has received overwhelming support. Almost everyone recognizes the importance of strengthening the Federal Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have undermined our economy. The legislation has strong bipartisan support. I applaud Senator Grassley, who is the lead cosponsor. He worked with me to write this bill. He has been a leader on this issue.

Senators Specter and Snowe have joined as cosponsors. Many different law enforcement and good government organizations are supporting this bill as well, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Association of Certified Tax Examiners, and Taxpayers Against Fraud.

Now let me address the authorizations in the bill. I have rarely seen such detailed justification with regard to an authorization. I mention this because this is not an appropriations bill. It is authorizing legislation. It still has to go through the appropriations process. Every agency authorized to receive money in the bill has set out in detail exactly what it would do with that money if it is authorized and appropriated. The detail includes the number of agents, prosecutors, and other key personnel who would be hired, and each agency has explained why the added resources are needed. Those detailed justifications have been shared with anyone interested in reviewing them.

In total, the bill authorizes $245 million a year over the next 2 years to hire more than 300 Federal agents, more than 200 prosecutors, and another 200 forensic analysts and support staff to rebuild our Nation's fraud enforcement efforts. We have broken those numbers down agency by agency.

These resources for additional agents, analysts, and prosecutors are desperately needed. The number of fraud cases is now skyrocketing, but resources were shifted away from fraud investigations after 9/11. Today, the ranks of fraud investigators and prosecutors are drastically understocked, and thousands of fraud allegations go unexamined each month.

Reports of mortgage fraud are up nearly 50 percent from a year ago and have increased tenfold over the past 7 years. In the last 3 years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, has more than doubled, and the FBI anticipates that number may double yet again. Despite this increase, the FBI currently has fewer than 250 special agents nationwide assigned to financial fraud cases, which is only a quarter of the number the Bureau had more than a decade ago at the time of the savings and loan crisis. At current levels, the FBI cannot even begin to investigate the more than 5000 mortgage fraud allegations the Treasury Department refers each month. Other agencies have documented similar crises in their ability to keep up with the rising pace of new cases.

We all know that fraud enforcement simply can't be adequately covered with funds allocated in the recently passed recovery legislation for State and local law enforcement. As someone who pushed strongly for recovery legislation that included State and local law enforcement, I know the purpose behind those funds and what they are dedicated to. It is intended to ensure that State and local law enforcement agencies and crime prevention programs could avoid layoffs, make new hires, and reinforce their work to prevent the increased crime so often associated with economic downturns. In so doing, these funds would reinforce and revitalize those neighborhoods that have experienced economic development and that could so easily backslide. State and local law enforcement fund are urgently needed for those vital purposes. They should not be diverted from State and local law enforcement needs to fund Federal fraud investigations.

Moreover, while states have done admirable work cracking down on mortgage fraud, the Federal Government must play a substantial role in this area. Mortgage fraud schemes and other financial fraud schemes often cover many States and jurisdictions, which hampers the ability of any State or local investigators and prosecutors to reach them. These schemes also are often extremely complex and labor-intensive to unravel, requiring the expertise and resources of the Federal Government and the mortgage fraud task forces in which Federal and State law enforcement officers work closely together. We simply cannot ask States to solve this enormous and complex problem on their own. I believe that we need to be good law enforcement partners and that the Federal Government needs to do its share. To fulfill those responsibilities these additional funds need to be authorized.

I agree that the $10 million in additional funding to the FBI for mortgage fraud enforcement in the omnibus appropriations bill is a good start, but it is just a small start to what is needed. I wish the economic recovery had been able to include an additional $50 million for the FBI that the Senate initially was willing to include, but that additional funding was stripped away. Unfortunately, to achieve bipartisan support and passage of the economic recovery package, those funds were eliminated. The funds currently being provided are insufficient to tackle the magnitude of this problem. I refer all Senators to the testimony before the Judiciary Committee by the Director of the FBI and the Deputy Director of the FBI and to the detailed justifications the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have provided.

I believe authorizing and funding fraud enforcement will save the government money. That is what the Justice Department has found. That is what Taxpayers Against Fraud has found. That is what the administration indicates in its Statement of Administration Policy in strong support of this bill. As the administration says: ``These additional resources will provide a return on investment through additional fines, penalties, restitution, damages, and forfeitures.'' I would add that strong fraud enforcement will also save money by deterring fraudulent conduct.

According to recent data provided by the Justice Department, the government recovers on average $32 for every dollar spent on criminal fraud litigation. Similarly, the nonpartisan group Taxpayers Against Fraud has found that the Government recovers $15 for every dollar spent in civil fraud cases. Just last year, the Justice Department recovered nearly $2 billion in civil false claims settlements, and, in criminal cases, courts ordered nearly $3 billion in restitution and forfeiture. Strengthening criminal and civil fraud enforcement is a sound investment, and this legislation will not only pay for itself, but should bring in money for the Federal Government.

If fraud goes unprosecuted and unpunished, then victims across America lose money. In many cases, American taxpayers take the loss directly. For example, in the case of many mortgage frauds, the Federal Government has guaranteed the loans, and when the fraud is uncovered, American taxpayers, as well as the victim, lose out. More directly, with the billions of dollars of Federal funds now going out through the recovery legislation, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, and other bailout programs, we should all recognize that enforcement will be essential to protect those recovery funds from fraud and to recover any money that is fraudulently taken. If we do not take action to investigate and prosecute this kind of fraud, Americans will lose far more money than this bill costs.

The only organizations that have opposed this legislation are the Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. They have argued that the legal fixes

in this bill constitute overreaching by the Federal Government. In fact, this bill does not overfederalize or overcriminalize.

Senator Grassley and I took great care in crafting it to avoid those kinds of excesses. The bill creates no new statutes and no new sentences. Instead, it focuses on modernizing existing statutes to reach unregulated conduct and on addressing flawed court decisions interpreting those laws. This is exactly the kind of Federal criminal legislation that these critics should appreciate. Rather than gratuitously adding new laws or expanding Federal jurisdiction, it acts in a targeted way to fill in gaps identified by investigators and prosecutors to make it easier for them to reach the conduct most relevant to the current financial crisis.

The bill amends the definition of ``financial institution'' in the criminal code in order to extend Federal fraud laws to mortgage lending businesses that are not directly regulated or insured by the Federal Government. These companies were responsible for nearly half the residential mortgage market before the economic collapse, yet they remain largely unregulated and outside the scope of traditional Federal fraud statutes. This change will finally apply the Federal fraud laws to private mortgage businesses like Countrywide Home Loans and GMAC Mortgage.

The bill would also amend the major fraud statute to protect funds expended under the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the economic stimulus package, including any government purchases of preferred stock in financial institutions. The U.S. Government has provided extraordinary economic support to our banking system, and we need to make sure that none of those funds are subject to fraud or abuse. This change will give Federal prosecutors and investigators the explicit authority they need to protect taxpayer funds.

This bill will also strengthen one of the core offenses in so many fraud cases--money laundering--which was significantly weakened by a recent Supreme Court case. In United States v. Santos, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the money laundering statutes, limiting their scope to only the ``profits'' of crimes, rather than the ``proceeds'' of the offenses. The Court's mistaken decision was contrary to congressional intent and will lead to financial criminals escaping culpability simply by claiming their illegal scams did not make a profit. Indeed, Ponzi schemes like the $65 billion fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, which by definition turn no profit, are exempt from money laundering charges under this formulation. This erroneous decision must be corrected immediately, as dozens of money laundering cases have already been dismissed.

None of these changes constitute overcriminalization. Rather, they reach fraudulent conduct at the center of our ongoing economic crisis. Americans are rightly demanding accountability for this fraud, and we cannot have full accountability without the participation of Federal investigators and prosecutors armed with the tools and resources they need.

We can delay no further in taking decisive action to strengthen fraud enforcement and doing everything we can to fight the scourge of fraud that has contributed to our economic crisis. There is simply no good reason for us not to act. The administration ``strongly supports enactment'' of this bill. The Justice Department supports it, the FBI supports it, the Secret Service supports it, the TARP inspector general supports it, the HUD inspector general supports it, Federal and State law enforcement officers support it.

The bottom line, Madam President--before I lose my voice entirely-- is, this legislation is to stop people who have been robbing the retirement savings of Americans, who have been robbing their homes from under them, who have been robbing the money they have set aside for their kids' college education and getting away with it under some of the elaborate mortgage fraud schemes. They get away with it because there is no real ability to go after them. There is neither the money nor the personnel. This legislation gives both money and personnel but also gives teeth to the law.

I have said on this floor several times, if you have somebody who sets up a $100 million fraud scheme, they do not care what happens to the people in their way. They do not care if they ruin the lives of the people they are going after. They do not care if the people lose their homes because they figure if they get caught, they might have to give a little bit of the money back in a fine or otherwise. They are not deterred. They, obviously, do not have a sense of conscience or morality. They do not care if people lose their life savings. They do not care if people lose their retirement. They do not care if people lose their hope for the future. All they want is the money.

Madam President, I tell you right now, if these same people think they are going to go to prison for what they are doing, if they think they will spend time behind bars for years and years, then maybe-- maybe--some Americans may be able to keep their homes, some Americans may be able to keep their dreams, some Americans may be able to keep their retirement, some Americans may be able to keep sending their children to college.

People are now losing that dream. That is why there is strong bipartisan support for this bill. That is why I must admit I am somewhat frustrated that many have come here to try to bring amendments that have absolutely no place in this bill, and, if anything, would slow up the ability to protect Americans. But they have the right to do this.

We will soon have a list of amendments, we will set the list in, and we will set a time for final passage. And maybe--maybe--within a few weeks the President will be able to sign this legislation and people will be a lot more protected than they are now.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I think the distinguished leader is doing all he can do in this case. I am surprised, as he said, since this bill has had huge bipartisan support and bipartisan sponsorship. It is to try to protect people from losing their retirement funds, their home, their savings for their children to go to college, from these mortgage fraud people. Everybody across the political spectrum has endorsed the bill.

We voted on every amendment to remain to the bill. There are about a dozen or more that have nothing to do with the bill. It is unfortunate for the people who are seeing their life savings being ripped off by unscrupulous criminals, and that we cannot criminalize it in such a way as to stop it. So I will be here to vote. The irony is that when the bill finally gets to a vote, it will probably pass about 90 to 5.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2009, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, in room S-216, at 12 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, April 23, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Technology Neutrality in Energy Tax: Issues and Options.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Voice of Veterans from the Afghan War.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Follow the Money: State and Local Oversight of Stimulus Funding.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2009, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on the Library be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 11:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on Printing be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 11:45 a.m.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) The Senate is in morning business with 5 minutes remaining under the majority's control.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to compliment the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois for what he just said. As he knows, of course, he was the earliest supporter of his then-colleague, then-Senator Barack Obama, and he knows I also supported him very early on.

I was asked why I supported then-Senator Obama, and I said because we have to reintroduce America to the rest of the world. I believe we are a great and wonderful nation. We are the Nation of the Marshall Plan, the Peace Corps, the Nation that brought together a coalition to defeat the fascists and the Nazis and others in World War II. We are a great nation. We discovered polio vaccines. We have done so much. The rest of the world had lost sight of that. There is animosity toward our ``it is our way or no way'' approach. It is the ``we are right you are wrong'' attitude of this country and the reference to ``Old Europe'' and things like this that were so dismissively done. Any of us who traveled around the world realized how that was.

As a proud American, as one who believes we do live in the greatest democracy history has ever known, I wanted to reintroduce America, the America I believe in, to the rest of the world. That is why I supported Barack Obama. That is why I was glad to see President Obama reintroduce us first in Europe and then in Latin America.

The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. It is all I hear in my State, a State that has a very strong sense of internationalism but a very strong sense of patriotism: Thank goodness somebody is showing what America is.

I commend the President for doing that.

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

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

Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is about to come to the floor. As each of us probably have times we are going to have to be on and off the floor, I am going to begin my comments now.

I said Monday at the outset of this debate on the motion to proceed to the fraud enforcement bill that I hoped the objection to proceeding and any filibuster effort against this bill would be short lived. I am glad to see that cooler heads have prevailed. That actually happens in the Senate now and then.

After being delayed 2 days, we have agreement to turn to the Leahy- Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. I thank the majority leader for his persistence. I regret that the weeks we spent reaching across the aisle for a time agreement on this bill were unavailing. The majority leader was required to file cloture to get us to this point.

We are talking about going after people who defrauded American taxpayers, and the sooner we can go after them, the better we all are. I commend Senators Grassley and Kaufman, Klobuchar, Dorgan, and Shaheen for their statements to the Senate on Monday in support of this fraud enforcement bill. Their strong statements no doubt contributed to the reversal of the position that now allows us to proceed to what is a bipartisan fraud enforcement bill. In total, six Senators spoke in favor of the bill on Monday and no one spoke against. Each of us who spoke on Monday is a cosponsor. The bipartisan group of 16 Senators who have cosponsored this bill include, Senators Schumer, Murray, Bayh, Specter, Snowe, Harkin, Levin, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, and Sanders.

On Monday, as the Senate debated the motion to proceed to the Leahy- Grassley fraud enforcement bill, the Obama administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

This statement begins:

The Administration strongly supports enactment of S. 386.

Its provisions would provide Federal investigators and

prosecutors with significant new criminal and civil tools and

resources that would assist in holding accountable those who

have committed financial fraud.

I thank the President and the administration for their strong support.

The statement continues:

[The] legislation would benefit U.S. taxpayers by both

addressing existing fraud and deterring waste, fraud and

abuse of public funds.

That is something we all should be in favor of. They went on to add that it ``would provide needed resources to strained law enforcement agencies.'' Of course, pointing out what we all know, these additional resources will far more than pay for themselves through fines and penalties, restitution, damages, and forfeitures.

But there is more of a human thing in here. We have families losing their homes, defrauded, and losing their life savings. People are defrauding them and getting away with it. I want to not only get the people who did it, but I want to deter others from doing it in the future.

I said on Monday that the Justice Department and the FBI, the Secret Service, the special inspector general for TARP, law enforcement officers, and many good-government advocates supported the bill.

As we continue our debate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a number of editorials and news articles favorable to the legislation.

Just this weekend, the New York Times wrote that fraud enforcement must be one of our priorities as we rebuild our economy, not only to hold accountable those who committed fraud and contributed to these hard times but to protect our efforts to stabilize the banking system and to jump-start the economy. They wrote:

While Washington is spending billions to shore up the

financial system, it is doing far too little to strengthen

the federal government's ability to investigate and prosecute

the sort of corporate and mortgage frauds that helped cause

the economic collapse.

Those efforts--never fully adequate--have suffered in

recent years as money and people were shifted from white-

collar fraud to anti-terrorist activities.

That is precisely what law enforcement officials from the Justice Department and the FBI and the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program told us in their testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

As the Times wrote, referring to the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act:

A bipartisan measure newly approved by the Senate Judiciary

Committee and now coming before the full Senate would begin

to close the enforcement gap . . . and strengthen existing

federal fraud and money-laundering provisions, updating the

definition of ``financial institution'' in federal fraud

statutes to include largely unregulated mortgage businesses,

for example, and reversing flawed court decisions that have

undermined the effectiveness of the False Claims Act, one of

the most potent weapons against government fraud.

Like a similar enforcement buildup in response to the

savings and loan crises of the 1980s, this one will

contribute far more than it costs to the federal Treasury

through restitutions and asset recoveries. . . .Senators

should not be asking if the expenditure is affordable, but

whether it is enough.

Every prosecutor I have talked to says they need this. I am willing to bet that every person who has been defrauded by some of these unregulated mortgage companies would give anything to have had this on the books and these people there 6 months or a year ago before they lost their life savings, before they lost their homes, their chance for their children to go to college, and before they lost the chance for retirement. But there are still millions of Americans at risk. Let's protect them. Let's show that we are against such crime and that we will provide the tools to stop it.

One of the things every prosecutor knows and learns is, if you ask people if they are against crime, everybody is against crime. If you ask legislative bodies: Are you willing to pass resolutions against crime, of course they are. But then you ask the real question: Will you give us the tools to fight crime? That is where everybody goes: Well, let's see.

Here are the tools to fight crime.

This is something supported across the political spectrum. Look at the Washington Times, a very conservative newspaper. They raised very similar concerns about the need to fight fraud and protect the taxpayers' money being spent on the economic stimulus. In an editorial on March 26 entitled ``Stimulus Spending Ripe for Fraud,'' the Washington Times called for fraud enforcement. In commenting on an Energy Department official who was concerned with waste, fraud, and abuse in stimulus funding, they wrote:

The same attitude must be adopted by all agencies

overseeing the implementation of the massive spending

measure.

Well, they are right. They went on to say that simply having a Web site to provide greater transparency, while a good thing, is not enough. They said:

[E]ven an unprecedented level of post-spending transparency

will do only so much to ensure waste is kept to a minimum. .

. . It will take more than a new Web site and the sort of

staff training the administration has implemented to turn an

understanding of the problem into real accountability. . . .

The administration is, in fact, doing more than creating the most transparent Government in history. They are supporting this bill and its aggressive response to fraud enforcement. The bill will actually translate rhetoric into reality, a reality that can save billions. It is just the kind of action these editorials from the right to the left have asked for.

Look at a front page article of March 12, entitled ``Financial Fraud Is the Focus of Prosecutors.'' The New York Times reported that fraud was surging, particularly mortgage fraud cases.

It is very interesting. We talk about tough enforcement. The chairman of the House Banking Committee said, ``Rules don't work if people have no fear of them.'' Anybody in law enforcement can tell us that. Every State has laws against burglary, for example. But put two warehouses on the same street, one with a rusty lock on the door and no alarm system, no lights, one with a state-of-the-art alarm system, lights, the ability to call police immediately, and which one gets broken into? The law is the same. You are going to break into the one that is easy. You can have all the laws in the world on mortgage fraud, and if people think they are not going to be enforced, they are going to break those laws. If you believe the worst that will happen is you might get a fine, if you have a $100 million fraud operation going and you might get a $5 million fine, gee-whiz, that is the cost of doing business. If you find out, however, that you might go to prison, that in all likelihood you will go to prison as well as losing the money you defrauded from people and allow that money to go back to them, then you are going to think twice.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, issued a 250-page report warning yet again that the bank bailout funds are particularly vulnerable to fraud. He talked about protecting American taxpayers. He testified about similar concerns when he appeared before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill.

Strengthening fraud enforcement is a key priority for the President. During the campaign, President Obama promised to ``crack down on mortgage fraud professionals found guilty of fraud by increasing enforcement [but also] creating new criminal penalties.'' The President, in his budget to Congress, called for additional FBI agents ``to investigate mortgage fraud and white collar crime,'' as well as hiring more Federal prosecutors and civil attorneys ``to protect investors, the market, and the Federal Government's investment of resources in the financial crisis, and the American public.'' Additional money was included in the initial recovery package for the FBI, but it was cut out during negotiations that led to its passage. This bill is our chance to authorize the necessary resources.

I can't state enough, it is not enough to have a law on the books that says: Thou shalt not commit crime. It works only if people think they are going to get caught and they are going to lose the money they have stolen and they are going to go to jail on top of that. As long as people carrying out these frauds and these scams think they will never get caught, will never get prosecuted, the laws aren't tough enough, they are in an unregulated industry, nobody is going to go after them, why not keep trying. The worst that could happen is somewhere along the line you might have to give a little bit of the money back and keep scamming people, keep ruining people's lives, keep taking people's homes away from them, keep taking people's retirement accounts, keep taking the money they have saved for their kids to go to college. If all you think you might get is a little slap on the wrist or in all likelihood you will get away with it completely, what is to stop you?

Obviously not a sense of morality, as we saw with Bernie Madoff and others. We have to have laws to stop them. We have to have enforcement of the laws. We have to have people go to prison for stealing retirement accounts and stealing children's money being saved for college and stealing homes through mortgages scams. We should pass this.

I see the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania in the Chamber. He is a man with a distinguished career, first as a prosecutor before he came here and now a man who has been both chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He understands this.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Statement of Administration Policy

Well, Mr. President, I suspect my experience is probably similar to that of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. Fines, especially in these commercial fraud type things, were seen as the cost of doing business. If you steal $100 million, and you get a $5 million fine, then you stole $95 million. But if they think they are going to go to prison, that is when they think twice. We saw this after Enron and other things that when people actually believe they are going to go to prison, then they start thinking twice.

I am sure this was the experience the Senator from Pennsylvania had. It is the experience I had. Nothing focuses the attention of somebody who is going to want to defraud someone if they think they are going to spend years in a tiny cell. That focuses their attention, and suddenly it is not worth the effort. That is what we want to do here because the people who are being defrauded are the most defenseless. They are the people who have lost their retirement. They are the people who have lost their homes. They are the people who have lost the ability to pay for their kids to go to college.

The Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely right.

(Mrs. GILLIBRAND assumed the chair.)

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

Madam President, I understand there is a pending amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and it be in order for me to send an amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley. I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise to explain what this is, and then I will try to schedule a vote on the Kyl amendment and the Grassley- Leahy amendment at some time, I hope in the next few minutes.

As we begin consideration of the bill, Senator Grassley and I are offering a brief managers' amendment. I was just explaining for everybody that it makes two simple technical changes in the bill in order to clarify the original intent of the bill and in order to avoid any ambiguity in the statutory language. It makes sure the bill extends the major fraud statute to all the funds being expended to stabilize and strengthen our banking system.

The original language in the bill amended the major fraud statute to protect against frauds related to many Government economic recovery programs, including the purchase of ``preferred stock in a company'' by the Government as part of our efforts to stabilize banks. The Justice Department advises that this language may be too narrow, as recovery efforts may include purchases of other types of stock or other troubled assets. So the Justice Department, which supports the Leahy-Grassley bill, has requested that the reference to ``any preferred stock in a company'' be replaced with the phrase ``any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.'' This simple change will make clear that all troubled assets purchased by the Government as part of the recovery effort will be covered under the major fraud statute. This change is consistent with the original intent of the bill and simply provides greater assurances that taxpayers' money will be protected to the full extent of the Federal law.

Second, the amendment strikes five words in the bill that could create unintended ambiguity in the statute and could be used to limit the effect of the bill. The phrase ``for such property or services'' appears in the original statute as a modifier of the kinds of contracts or subcontracts covered by the major fraud statute. With the changes included in the bill, the language is no longer applicable because the transactions involved in our efforts to stabilize banks include grants, loans, and purchases of assets that may not legally be characterized as ``property or services.'' If this phrase remained in the statute, it could be used improperly to limit the scope of the major fraud statute and undermine the intent of this legislation, which is to cover all of the Government's efforts to rebuild our economy and restart our banking system.

Frankly, when we send prosecutors out to get people for defrauding Americans, I don't want to have something unintentionally in the statute which may limit the ability of prosecutors to go after those who are defrauding Americans.

These changes that have been requested and supported by the Justice Department have the full support of Senator Grassley, the lead Republican cosponsor of this bill and the Republican manager for this bill. All Senators should support this bipartisan managers' amendment which should protect our efforts to strengthen the banking system and restart the economy.

What I am going to do, Madam President, I am going to suggest that when Senator Kyl gets here and Senator Grassley gets back to the floor, we accept this managers' amendment--I think it is noncontroversial--and that we then have a vote as soon as he has had a chance to say what he would like to on the Kyl amendment. In the meantime, we will leave the managers' amendment the pending amendment just so Senators then can understand, if we can work it that way, hopefully we will have a vote relatively soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have been in discussions with the distinguished Republican deputy leader, Senator Kyl. We do not have a formal agreement but what we are looking toward doing, in the next 10 minutes or so, is having acceptance of the managers' technical amendment and then going to a rollcall vote on Senator Kyl's amendment, which I will support.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Leahy-Grassley amendment at the request of the Justice Department to add the word ``or'' after the comma at page 2, line 1. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. President, we have the Leahy-Grassley technical amendment. I ask for its passage.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I believe it would be in order now to bring up the Kyl amendment; is that correct?

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Kyl amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. He worked with me and Senator Grassley. We both support his amendment. I will vote for it.

Mr. President, I have listened to some of the things being said. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, who said we should find out what went wrong and try to make it right. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota said we should find out what happened and why it happened and make sure it never happens again. And it should be a nonpartisan effort, not finger pointing.

I find myself closely aligned with this. I said the same thing about having an accountability commission on what happened in areas including torture, the OLC memos that twisted statutes and policy, and with White House interference in prosecutions and law enforcement. And I have been making such a recommendation for some time, so that we can find out just what happened. As we now found, opinions were written that were totally contrary to the law. We find such things as the Bybee memo. I hope that Judge Bybee, now that that memo has become public, will do the honest thing, the moral thing, the right thing, and resign from

the bench. We find out about more and more of these alarming issues, but we still do not have all the facts.

I think we should have some type of a nonpartisan commission, as the Senator said--not for finger-pointing, as he said--but to find out what happened and why it happened and to make sure it never happens again. We must find out what happened in order to try to make it right, as the Senator has also said.

I am tempted to offer, as a second-degree amendment to this one, an amendment to include an examination of everything that went on during the last administration with regard to the manipulation of prosecutors, the manipulation of the law, and those who wrote memos saying basically that certain people in the Government are above the law, cannot be affected by the law, and cannot be held accountable to the law. Those individuals even went so far as to say that the President could simply decide the law does not apply to him, which, of course, would be the first time in this Nation's history that any binding Executive branch memo has ever claimed a President has that authority that I am aware of. All the arguments made by the Senator from North Dakota, which I believe were good arguments, could be made, for my commission proposal. On the question of why people decide not to follow our laws, how they convinced themselves to do that, and how they managed to get lawyers to write twisted memos to justify the idea that they did not have to follow the law: we had a certain cadre of such people within the White House and within the administration. And they apparently believed they could automatically excuse themselves from following the law.

As I have said, there is the temptation to offer this as a second- degree amendment. I will not. But I simply point out that if it is applicable here, it is certainly applicable in those areas where people were not just trying to steal money, they were trying to steal the Constitution of the United States. And they are trying to steal the laws of the United States. I think that should be looked into just as much as somebody who might want to steal money from the United States. Money can be paid back and should be paid back. Once you lose honor, once you lose your integrity, once you lose credibility, once you lose adherence to our Constitution, that takes a lot longer to get back.

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

Mr. President, on the particular matter, the distinguished Senator from Arizona and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota have spoken about the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and I assume the chairman of the Rules Committee will speak about it. I also understand that Senators Schumer and Coburn have amendments. I urge them to come to the floor because there has been a request for a vote on the Isakson-Conrad amendment. I will not make a unanimous consent request at the moment, but it is our intent to have a vote on that around 4:20, 4:30--on the Isakson-Conrad amendment.

I understand, because of budget matters that come up tomorrow, there is an intent to try to finish this bill tonight. We can finish this bill tonight. I hope we could finish it before 6 or 7 or 8 o'clock. Having an Irish father and Italian mother, I come with a hopeful attitude by nature. But I note we will have a vote around 4:30, 4:20 or 4:30.

There are a number of matters. I see the distinguished and able chairman of the Banking Committee here. There are a number of matters within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. I will let him speak to that.

I urge Senators who have amendments to bring them to the floor because as soon as we have no amendments apparently here, we are going to try to move to final passage.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 995 at 4:32 p.m. today and that the 4 minutes immediately prior to the vote be equally divided and controlled between myself and Senator Isakson or our designees; that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; and upon disposition of amendment

No. 995, Senator Dorgan be recognized to offer his select committee amendment.

Mr. President, has the Senator from Georgia requested a rollcall vote?

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

Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask that the rollcall vote start now.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Nevada, the distinguished majority leader. I will stay here for a few minutes, if there are some amendments pending. If there are some amendments pending that we could take by voice vote, I am perfectly willing to do that tonight. If there are rollcalls, if there are amendments people think will need rollcalls, I don't know what time the distinguished leader wants to go back on the bill in the morning, but I would suggest that if we start early on that----

Then if I might further inquire of the leader--and I think that is perfectly fair--I intend that at such time as there are no amendments pending, or no amendments pending that people actually expect to go forward, we will go to final passage.

This is a bill that saves taxpayers' money but more importantly protects a lot of people who are being preyed upon by people wanting to defraud them out of their homes, out of their retirement, out of the money they have saved for their children to go to college. So I think, with what is happening--and it has been proven--all of these frauds that have taken place all over the country, the last thing in the world the American people want to see is us delay it.

I thank the distinguished leader for bringing up this bill this week. It is my intention--my hope, anyway--to have it finished by noon tomorrow.

I would note further to the leader that Senator Grassley, who is not only the chief sponsor, but we have a dozen or so sponsors on both sides of the aisle--Senator Grassley and I worked very closely with a number of Senators to work out amendments. The first amendment we brought up was one we worked on with Senator Kyl on, and I think that passed 95 to 1, or something like that. So we are ready to work with people, but we will finish this bill soon.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I understand there is a request for a rollcall on the Senator's amendment. I was not going to ask for one, as he knows. I wonder if he would have any problem with a unanimous consent agreement that when we come back on the bill in the morning, his amendment will be the pending amendment and there be 10 minutes a side, and we then proceed to a vote on it.

I am throwing this out as a suggestion, so my colleagues will hear it. For one thing, rather than spend several hours on the same amendment in the morning, or tonight, perhaps we will be able to do this: I say to the floor staff that this is a unanimous consent request that I will be making. I do not intend to make a unanimous consent request at this time. I will soon make this request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, April 23, after the Senate resumes consideration of S. 386, the time until 10 a.m. be for debate with respect to Dorgan-McCain amendment No. 999, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Dorgan and myself, or our designees; that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto; that at 10 a.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 108, submitted earlier today.

Today I have submitted--along with Senators Gregg of New Hampshire, Feingold of Wisconsin, Kennedy and Kerry of Massachusetts, and, of course, my colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont--a Senate resolution on Captain Richard Phillips, the ship captain from Underhill, VT, who Somali pirates took hostage 2 weeks ago.

This resolution praises Captain Phillips for his selfless heroism--he offered himself in lieu of his crew as a hostage--his extraordinary rescuers, his family, and the Federal agencies that kept close watch on the captain while the pirates held him literally at gunpoint in an 18- foot lifeboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

This situation was an all too real drama that played out on the high seas. With grappling hooks and guns, Somali pirates took control of Captain Phillips' ship, the Maersk Alabama. The 20-member crew of the 500-foot container ship retook control after a harrowing struggle.

But to protect his crew from further danger, Captain Phillips agreed to go with the pirates into a lifeboat where he was held hostage at gunpoint for 5 days. Displaying a resourcefulness and the indomitable spirit that speaks to the best qualities of Vermont, New England, and our great Nation, he attempted to escape. He kept his cool and confidence in the most volatile situation where the pirates, in a second, could have easily killed him.

The U.S. Navy arrived, headed up by the guided missile destroyer, USS Bainbridge, and when the captain faced imminent danger, snipers from one of our most elite military units, the Navy SEALs, killed his captors.

The entire country has shared feelings of admiration for the courage and fortitude of Captain Phillips, relief that he and his crew are safely home, and gratitude for the outstanding performance of the U.S. Navy, particularly the Bainbridge crew and the SEALs, for their rescue of the captain.

The Maersk Alabama incident is part of a troubling pattern of piracy that comes from the anarchy and the poverty plaguing Somalia. Pirates have taken hostage more than 200 crew members in dozens of countries. They have absconded with tens of millions of dollars in ransom, reinvesting that money into more advanced equipment and weapons, from guns to rocket-propelled grenades to global positioning systems.

The scale and intensity of the piracy is only getting worse, as this resolution underscores. This piracy has to be addressed.

But on that Wednesday, those pirates met their match, from Captain Phillips and his crew, to the remarkable Phillips family, to the formidable U.S. military, and the wider U.S. Government.

The President monitored the situation closely. He gave the necessary direction to the SEALs to use force if required to protect Phillips. The FBI provided guidance to the USS Bainbridge to deal with the hostage situation, while the Department of State kept the family informed.

Andrea Phillips, Captain Phillips' wife, was incredible throughout this crisis. I was receiving calls from the White House. I was told what was going on, as were my staff. I was calling Mrs. Phillips and talking with her. And the calmness of this woman, realizing the harrowing danger that her husband faced, and her respect for our Government's efforts to save him were remarkable--she repeatedly thanked the Navy personnel, the FBI, and others for keeping such close tabs on the situation. Even though this was an especially difficult experience for their two children, Daniel and Mariah, they weathered the crisis and had a happy reunion.

I look forward to the next time I take the ferry boat across Lake Champlain and Daniel is piloting it. I think one of the happiest moments was with several friends at Easter Mass on Easter Sunday. I talked with the White House earlier that morning, and I knew that things may come to a conclusion. But I turned my cell phone off while I was at Mass. I came out and there was a message from the White House: ``He is safe.'' At the top, ``He is safe.'' Then they filled me in on what happened.

I was telling my friends, my wife, Marcelle, who was with me. We were standing there in the parking lot cheering, laughing, tears. People were kind of looking at us wondering just what was going on. I called Mrs. Phillips, and she had the same reaction. Later the President called her, as he called her husband. The reunions last week with the crew arriving at Andrews Air Force Base, Captain Phillips stepping off the plane at the Burlington, VT, airport were moments of joy and relief.

The country is so proud of these Americans who certainly did not want to be at the center of an international crisis. But when they were, they rose to the occasion with the strength and bravery that represent the best of our country.

With this resolution, we commend Captain Phillips and his family, the crew of the Maersk Alabama, the U.S. Armed Forces, and the Navy SEALs for their heroism. This resolution has one message above all others: Welcome home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Captain Phillips of Underhill, VT, held hostage by Somalians, where his own courage allowed the release of his crew, and the courage of the U.S. Navy and the courage of our military and the courage of our leadership, at the White House, the Department of Defense, and elsewhere brought about his release.

The Phillips family is a wonderful family. They live in a small and beautiful town in Vermont. There are few things that unite everybody. I can say as a lifelong Vermonter, I know my State is united in pride for Captain Phillips. All of us felt our prayers were answered on Easter Sunday when we received word that he was safe and was going back home. I know how much it meant to me to pick up the phone and call Mrs. Phillips, and the day before he arrived back home, to call her up and wish her a happy birthday and say: The best birthday present this Nation can give you is tomorrow afternoon at the Burlington Airport when your husband will arrive.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, how much time is there on S. 386?

Mr. President, under the normal circumstances, I would speak as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as the chief sponsor of this bill. Then we would go, by normal protocol, to either the Republican ranking member or the senior Republican who is cosponsor, which I assume will be done.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, be recognized next. I ask further unanimous consent that at the completion of my statement, if there is no member of the Republican party seeking recognition, Senator Kaufman be recognized; if there is a member of the Republican party seeking recognition on this bill, that, of course, they be recognized first, and then the next person to be recognized be Senator Kaufman.

Mr. President, this afternoon we begin consideration of the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. What this does is to strengthen the Federal Government's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have so severely undermined our economy; that not only undermined our economy, they have hurt so many people in this country.

It is going to give the resources and the legal tools needed to police and deter fraud. We have massive recovery efforts now being implemented. But if we do not go after those who are committing fraud against people in this country, much of that effort is going to be wasted.

I commend the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, our lead cosponsor, for his contributions to this package, and his dedication to protecting taxpayer funds by deterring, investigating, and prosecuting fraud. He worked with me to write this bill. He has been a leader on this legislation every step of the way.

I thank our many cosponsors for their steadfast support for this effort. Senator Schumer has not only supported this measure but has also introduced additional legislative proposals with Senator Shelby. Senator Kaufman is an original cosponsor and has been a strong ally. He has spoken and written about the need for fraud enforcement all year. Senator Klobuchar has participated throughout the course of Judiciary Committee consideration of this bill. As former prosecutors, she and I both know how important it is to have sufficient resources on the ground committed to deterring and discovering these devastating crimes. More recently, we have been joined in our efforts by the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, another former prosecutor and friend, Senator Specter, and by Senators Snowe, Harkin, Levin, Dorgan, Whitehouse, Bayh, Shaheen, and Murray.

It is a bipartisan effort. And, actually, if you are going to go after people committing crimes and fraud, you should not consider it a Democratic or a Republican effort; this is a bipartisan effort. And we ought to be able to do it, because those who are committing the frauds did not ask if the person they are going to defraud is a Republican or

Democrat, they want to defraud them. But what we want to do is to stop them. So whether one supported the economic recovery efforts proposed by President Bush and President Obama or not, I think we can all agree no one wants that money squandered by fraud.

Whether we want to help homeowners in hard times or people who have lost their jobs or were lured into subprime mortgages--some may think it may be their fault they were lured into their subprime mortgages. But if you had people involved in mortgage fraud, they should be held accountable.

I thank the majority leader for moving to proceed to this measure. It is my hope we can get to a time agreement without being filibustered. I hope we will not have to spend a lot of time in a filibuster before we consider antifraud efforts on behalf of the American people. Everybody I talk to, whether it is in Vermont or any other State, says those who are involved in mortgage fraud, those who are involved in stealing the money, especially at a time of economic downturn, ought to be prosecuted.

Frankly, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you nothing so focuses the minds of those who want to commit fraud as if they think they might actually be arrested, convicted, and sent to prison.

We are returning from the Easter recess. During these first months of the year, the Judiciary Committee has concentrated on what it can do to assist in the economic recovery. We have already considered and reported this fraud enforcement bill, we considered and reported a patent reform bill, and we also put law enforcement assistance in the economic recovery legislation. The President's efforts are beginning to show dividends. As he said last week at Georgetown University, this administration has responded to an extraordinary set of economic challenges with extraordinary action, action that has been unprecedented both in terms of its scale and its speed.

We have seen the recovery plan enacted, the bank capitalization program, the housing plan, the strengthening of the nonbank credit market, the auto plan, and the work with the G-20. Those are signs intended to generate economic progress. That is good. That is necessary. I agree with that. But it is not enough. We have to make sure when we send public money, taxpayers' money, that it is going to what it is supposed to go to, it is not being stolen, it is not being dissipated by fraud, it is not going to the hands of people whom nobody in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, would want it to go to.

We need to ensure those responsible for the downturn through fraudulent acts of financial markets and in the housing market are held to account. That is why we have to enact the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. We have to make every effort to ensure accountability, and this bill will do that. It will build our Nation's capacity to investigate and prosecute financial fraud.

Take a look at this chart. These are the reports of mortgage fraud. This is at near epidemic levels. Look at the number of reports in 1998. Look at them now. In 1998, 2,269. Last year, 65,049. Frauds are up 682 percent over the past 5 years and more than 2,800 percent in the past decade.

Some would estimate that we are losing $4 billion each year in mortgage fraud alone. Then you have massive new corporate frauds, such as the $65 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard Madoff. These are being uncovered. How many more are there?

In the past 2 weeks alone, the Justice Department announced prosecutions in mortgage and security scams involving more than $200 million in fraud. This kind of fraud has even touched my own State of Vermont. We are a very small State. We are the second smallest State in the Union, 650,000 people. But last fall, Federal authorities uncovered a $26 million mortgage scam involving more than 50 properties being run out of the small town of Highgate, VT. It is affecting everybody. Let's go after these people. Let's prosecute them. Let's throw them in jail. Because, otherwise, if you simply give them a fine, it is a cost of doing business and nobody is deterred by it.

The victims of these frauds must be protected now more than ever. They are homeowners who have been fleeced by unscrupulous mortgage brokers or so-called foreclosure experts who promise to help. Instead of helping them, they leave them unable to keep their homes and in further debt than before.

We have retirees who have lost their life savings with stock scams and Ponzi schemes. These have come to light only when the markets and corporations have collapsed. They also include the American taxpayers who have invested billions of dollars to restore our economy and support our banking system, and they assume that taxpayers' dollars are going to be there to support our industries, that taxpayer dollars are going to be there to help bail out our economy, that somebody is not going to steal it.

As the economic crisis worsened last fall, I called upon Federal law enforcement to track down and punish those who were responsible for the corporate and mortgage frauds that helped make the economic downturn far worse than anyone predicted. This year, as Congress reconvened, I joined with Senator Grassley to draft and introduce the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the legislation we consider today, which will provide the new tools and resources needed by law enforcement to carry out this effort. Now, I call on all Senators to support and promptly pass this bill, so we can make sure that those responsible for these frauds are held fully accountable and that the many millions, likely even billions, of dollars lost will be recovered for fraud victims and for the American taxpayer.

Federal law enforcement needs this legislation now to combat fraud effectively. In the last 3 years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation--FBI--has more than doubled, and the FBI anticipates that number may double yet again. Despite this increase, the FBI currently has fewer than 250 special agents nationwide assigned to financial fraud cases, which is only a quarter of the number the Bureau had more than a decade ago at the time of the savings and loan crisis. At current levels, the FBI cannot even begin to investigate the more than 5000 mortgage fraud allegations referred by the Treasury Department each month.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, we faced a similar financial crisis with the collapse of the federally insured savings and loan industry. At the time, Congress responded by passing legislation to hire prosecutors and agents similar to the bill we consider today, and that effort resulted in more than 600 fraud convictions nationwide and recovery of more than $130 million in ordered restitution. But the savings and loan collapse is dwarfed in scale by the current crisis, as financial institutions have lost more than $1 trillion in assets in the past year, compared to only $160 billion in assets lost during the entire savings and loan era. Clearly, we must respond at least as strongly as we have in the past.

Two decades ago we responded during the savings and loan crisis by hiring more agents, analysts and prosecutors and allocating the resources needed to catch those who took advantage to profit through fraud. We need to do so, again.

At a February 11, 2009, Judiciary Committee hearing, we heard from the FBI, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, and the Justice Department. All witnesses testified concerning the need for this legislation and these additional law enforcement resources.

Deputy Director Pistole of the FBI testified that the number of mortgage fraud cases opened by the FBI had more than doubled in the past 3 years, with 721 cases open in 2005, and more than 1,800 open at the end of 2008. He warned that the losses in this economic crisis dwarf those of the savings and loan debacle, and the need for more enforcement is even greater now than it was then.

Special Inspector General Barofsky described how law enforcement resources had understandably been diverted from traditional white collar crime to terrorism following the attacks on September 11, 2001. This trend left the Justice Department's capacity to respond to financial and securities fraud significantly weakened, and with the recent trends shifting even more resources to mortgage frauds, other white collar efforts were even further ``underfunded and underprosecuted.'' He warned that with trillions of dollars

being spent under TARP and other associated programs, ``it is essential that the appropriate resources be dedicated to meet the challenges of both deterring and prosecuting fraud.'' I agree.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Glavin of the Justice Department testified that our bill would provide the Justice Department with needed tools ``to aggressively fight fraud in the current economic climate'' and ``provide key statutory enhancements that will assist in ensuring that those who have committed fraud are held accountable.''

The committee also received written testimony supporting this enforcement effort from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and from the Acting Chief Postal Inspector.

We all know about Bernard Madoff's infamous $65 billion Ponzi scheme that went undetected for years. And every month we learn of more and more kinds of schemes. We have to clean this up.

This would allow the FBI, the Justice Department, other agencies, to respond to the crisis. In total, the bill authorizes $245 million a year over the next two years to hire more than 300 Federal agents, more than 200 prosecutors, and another 200 forensic analysts and support staff to rebuild our nation's ``white collar'' fraud enforcement efforts. While the number of fraud cases is now skyrocketing, we need to remember that resources were shifted away from fraud investigations after 9/11. Because today the ranks of fraud investigators, of prosecutors, are drastically understocked.

Some have said, well, we cannot afford to authorize additional money for fraud investigations. I think that is a bad mistake. The only way you are going to stop it is to show you are going to stop it. The only way you are going to deter it is if you act to deter it, if you investigate the people, if you go after them, if you make them pay, and if we recover money for American taxpayers.

I see the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota on the floor. She is a former prosecutor. She knows that the way you go after these people is to really go after them. If fraud goes unprosecuted and unpunished, then victims across America lose money. In many cases, American taxpayers take the loss directly. For example, in the case of many mortgage frauds where the Federal Government has guaranteed the loans, and when the fraud remains hidden, American taxpayers, as well as the victim, lose out. If we don't take action to investigate and prosecute this kind of fraud, Americans will lose far more money than this bill costs.

In fact, fraud enforcement is an excellent investment for the American taxpayers. According to recent data provided by the Justice Department, the Government recovers, on average, $32 for every dollar spent on criminal fraud litigation. Think about that. If you are an investor, you would love to invest and get that kind of return. We spend $1 on criminal fraud litigation, we get back $32. The nonpartisan group, Taxpayers Against Fraud, has found that in civil fraud cases, the Government recovers $15 for every dollar spent in civil fraud cases.

Last year the Justice Department recovered nearly $2 billion in civil false claims settlements, and in criminal cases, the courts ordered nearly $3 billion in restitution and recovery. That is why we should pass this and pass it quickly.

I do not want, 8 months from now, when suddenly we find here another hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, taken from American taxpayers in fraud and theft that we could have stopped, but to say: Gosh, if only that bill had passed.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act also makes a number of straightforward, important improvements to fraud and money laundering statutes to strengthen prosecutors' ability to combat this growing wave of fraud. Specifically, the bill amends the definition of ``financial institution'' in the criminal code in order to extend Federal fraud laws to mortgage lending businesses that are not directly regulated or insured by the Federal Government. These companies were responsible for nearly half the residential mortgage market before the economic collapse, yet they remain largely unregulated and outside the scope of traditional Federal fraud statutes. This change will apply the Federal fraud laws to private mortgage businesses like Countrywide Home Loans and GMAC Mortgage, just as they apply to federally insured and regulated banks.

The bill would also amend the major fraud statute to protect funds expended under the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the economic stimulus package, including any government purchases of preferred stock in financial institutions. The U.S. Government has provided extraordinary economic support to our banking system, and we need to make sure that none of those funds are subject to fraud or abuse. This change will give Federal prosecutors and investigators the explicit authority they need to protect taxpayer funds.

This bill will also strengthen one of the core offenses in so many fraud cases--money laundering--which was significantly weakened by a recent Supreme Court case. In United States v. Santos, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the money laundering statutes, limiting their scope to only the ``profits'' of crimes, rather than the ``proceeds'' of the offenses. The Court's mistaken decision was contrary to congressional intent and will lead to financial criminals escaping culpability simply by claiming their illegal scams did not make a profit. Indeed, Ponzi schemes like the $50 billion fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, which by definition turn no profit, are exempt from money laundering charges under this formulation. This erroneous decision must be corrected immediately, as dozens of money laundering cases have already been dismissed.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act also strengthens one of the most potent civil tools we have for rooting out fraud in government-- the False Claims Act. The Federal Government has recovered more than $11 billion using the False Claims Act since it was modernized through the work of Senator Grassley in 1986, but the statute still can be more effective. Recent court decisions and changes in government-- contracting practices have limited the effectiveness of the False Claims Act. As we did in the last Congress, Senator Grassley and I have joined together to update and restore the False Claims Act to protect the American taxpayer.

Some may argue that the legal fixes in this bill constitute overreaching by the Federal Government, In fact, this bill does not over-federalize or over-criminalize, as we took great care in crafting it to avoid those kinds of excesses. The bill creates no new statutes and no new sentences. Instead, it focuses on modernizing existing statutes to reach unregulated conduct and on addressing flawed court decisions interpreting those laws.

This bill has broad bipartisan support. It has the strong backing of the Justice Department and the Obama administration, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Specter, the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. We have Senator Snowe joining us as a cosponsor. They have joined with Senators Kaufman, Schumer, Klobuchar, Levin, Harkin, Dorgan, Whitehouse, Bayh, Shaheen, and Murray who have cosponsored this bill.

The Justice Department sent us a letter. They said:

The Department strongly supports enactment of [the bill].

The provisions of the legislation would provide Federal

investigators and prosecutors with significant new tools and

resources . . . to combat mortgage fraud, securities and

commodities fraud.

Look what the Director of the FBI said:

FERA [referring to our bill,] will be tremendously helpful

in giving us the tools to investigate . . . to help

prosecutors prosecute, and finally to obtain the convictions

and jail sentences that are the deterrent to this activity

taking place in the future.

Remember, we certainly want to recover money. Certainly we want those forfeitures. Certainly we want those fines. But I want people to go to jail for this. Because if you think if you are going to defraud someone or groups defraud people of $100 million, you might get a $10 million fine, that is 10 percent of your cost of doing business. But if you think you might go to jail, then you are going to think twice.

That is why we received this support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the Association of Certified Tax Examiners, and Taxpayers Against Fraud.

The current epidemic of fraud went hand in hand with the greed and neglect that poisoned our economy in recent years. As banks and private mortgage companies relaxed their standards for loans, approving ever riskier mortgages with less and less due diligence, they created an environment that invited fraud. Private mortgage brokers and lending businesses came to dominate the home housing market, and these companies were not subject to the kind of banking oversight and internal regulations that had traditionally helped to prevent fraud. We are now seeing the results of this lax supervision and lack of accountability.

The problem spread as home mortgages were packaged together and turned into securities that were bought and sold in largely unregulated markets on Wall Street. Here again, the environment invited fraud. As the value of the mortgages started to decline with falling housing prices, Wall Street financiers began to see these mortgage-backed securities unravel. Some were not honest about these securities, leading to even more fraud, and victimizing investors nationwide.

Only by reinvigorating our antifraud measures and giving law enforcement agencies the tools and resources they need to root out fraud can we ensure that fraud can never again place our financial system at risk and victimize so many Americans. Taxpayers, who bear the burden of this financial downturn, deserve to know that the government is doing all it can to hold responsible those who committed crimes in the run-up to this collapse.

There should be strong support for this. The Justice Department supports it. The FBI supports it. The Secret Service supports it. The Postal Inspection Service supports it, the HUD Inspector General supports it, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program supports it, on and on and on.

And, most importantly, some of the most thoughtful members of this body, Republican and Democratic Members alike, support it. So let's go as quickly as we can. Let's have a decent time agreement on this bill.

Let's get it passed. Let's get it through the other body. Let's get it on the President's desk. Then let's go and investigate and lock up the people who cost the American taxpayers hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars.

I see the distinguished cosponsor, the Senator from Iowa. I yield the floor and withhold the remainder of my time.

Madam President, this evening, the Senate should act to confirm three of President Obama's Justice Department nominees: Tony West to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Lanny Breuer to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and Christine Varney to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division.

I am disappointed that Republican Senators have delayed action on these nominations. In my view, they should have been confirmed before the 2-week Easter recess. There was once a time in the Senate when we acted on nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar before a long recess. Certainly at the beginning of a presidential term, it makes sense to have the President's nominees in place earlier, rather than engage in needless delay, especially when there is no controversy. I know of no controversy regarding any of these outstanding nominations.

All three nominees were named by the President on January 22, 3 months ago. They each participated in a confirmation hearing on March 10, 6 weeks ago. After allowing time for follow-up written questions and answers, they were each considered by the Judiciary Committee, approved without a single negative vote, and reported to the Senate on March 26. Another week passed, but Republicans remained unwilling to confirm them before the April recess. That is how we find ourselves here, more than 12 weeks after they were designated by the President, without having acted on those named to head the Criminal Division, the Antitrust Division, or the Civil Division.

I will be very interested to hear why these nominations could not be approved before the Senate recessed on April 2, and why these additional weeks of delay were needed. I will be interested to see who opposes these nominees, who comes to the floor to speak against them, and who justifies the delay in their confirmations. To date, I know of no one who opposes them. I know that no Republican member of the Judiciary Committee voted against any of them when they were considered by the committee at a business meeting more than 3 weeks ago. As I say, there used to be a tradition of comity, and of acting on executive nominations before a recess. I will be interested to learn how that delay is justified to the Justice Department, to the country and to each of these nominees.

In a statement 2 weeks ago, I noted my disappointment that the Republican minority has returned to the tactics of anonymous and unaccountable holds, and needless delays. Attorney General Holder needs his leadership team in place to rebuild and restore the Department. None of these are controversial nominees. They all received numerous letters of strong support, and endorsements from both Republican and Democratic former public officials. They were all reported out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent. They should have been confirmed weeks ago.

What accounts for the delay? I hope that someone will explain. To date no one has. I am left to think back to a February column written by William Kristol, where he urged the Republican minority to practice obstruction and delay. He was specifically referring to the Republican efforts to oppose the President's proposals to revive our economy and build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. That they have done. Not one Republican Member of the House or Senate voted for the budget and not one Republican Member of the House voted for the emergency economic recovery package. They are adhering to a pundit's advice on important legislation and on the President's nominations. Their creed is to ``obstruct and delay.'' It is not one of bipartisanship to help the President enact his agenda this year. It is one designed to ``slow down the train.'' Mr. Kristol counseled Republicans to insist on ``lengthy debate,'' while noting that they ``can't win politically right now,'' but they can ``pick other fights--and they can try in any way possible to break Obama's momentum.'' That is a destructive prescription, and we see it being played out day after day, issue after issue, nomination after nomination. Rather than join with the new President as he rallies the country and the world to economic recovery and enhanced security, they persist in their efforts to obstruct and delay.

Recently the New York Times described the results of a New York Times/CBS News poll of the American people. Since the Republican opposition is so interested in poll-driven politics, I urge them to consider it, and reconsider their own ill-fated course. The Obama administration is just 11 weeks old, and already the American people have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country. Americans approve of the President's handling of the economy and foreign policy with fully two-thirds saying they approve of his overall job performance. Following his recent trip to Europe, meetings with other world leaders, his outreach to Turkey and his visit to Iraq, I expect those numbers may be even higher today. More and more people feel that things are headed in the right direction--despite Republican obstruction. Two and one half months into office, President Obama has broad support on economic and national security matters with almost two-thirds of Americans believing that President Obama is likely to make the right decisions.

By contrast, only 20 percent of Americans believe that congressional Republicans would more likely make the right decisions about the nation's economy. The Republican nay-saying is sinking in. So I urge Senate Republicans, if they will not honor our traditional deference to a new President and vote for his nominees, if they will not join together with President Obama at a time of great challenges to America by working cooperatively and quickly to approve the administration's law enforcement leadership team, if none of those worthwhile reasons convince them to do the right thing, then I urge them to consider how the American people are reacting to their obstruction. I urge them to abandon the across-the-board tactics of resistance and delay. The majority of the American people are calling for us to work together and are rejecting Republican obstruction and delay.

Tony West knows the Department of Justice well. He served in the Department as a Special Assistant to Deputy Attorneys General Philip Heymann and Jamie Gorelick. He then worked as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. His commitment to public service continued when he became a

Special Assistant Attorney General in the California Department of Justice. He has also worked in private practice. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as president of the Stanford Law Review.

His nomination has earned support from both sides of the aisle. The former chairman of the California Republican Party, George Sundheim, sent a letter to the committee stating that Mr. West is admired by ``both sides of the aisle'' for his ``integrity, honesty and decency,'' and that there is no one ``more qualified to assume a position of leadership in the Department of Justice.'' The Federal prosecutors who worked across the table from Mr. West during the high-profile prosecution of John Walker Lindh witnessed Mr. West's ``extraordinary professionalism,'' and ``smart advocacy . . . executed with the highest degree of integrity.'' We should confirm this outstanding leader for the Civil Division and should not have delayed his confirmation this long.

President Obama has said that Lanny Breuer has the ``depth of experience and integrity'' to fulfill the highest standards of the American people and the Department of Justice. I agree. Mr. Breuer began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He told us during his hearing that his commitment to ensuring justice for all Americans stemmed from his days working on the front lines of the fight against crime as a Manhattan prosecutor. His call to public service continued while serving in the White House Counsel's Office as a special counsel to President Clinton. Mr. Breuer has also worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and Columbia University.

Michael Chertoff, who led the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice during the Bush administration, endorsed Mr. Breuer's nomination, saying he has ``exceptionally broad legal experience as a former prosecutor and defense attorney'' and has ``outstanding judgment, a keen sense of fairness, high integrity and an even temperament.'' Brad Berenson, a veteran of the Bush administration's White House counsel's office, writes that Mr. Breuer is ``everything one could hope for in a leader of the Criminal Division.''

Mr. Breuer's former colleagues from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have said that as a criminal prosecutor, he ``distinguished himself as a tenacious but scrupulously fair trial lawyer, driven by the unwavering goal of achieving justice.'' Former Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson and former Congressman and DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson have also written to the committee in support of Mr. Breuer's nomination. I agree with all their comments and wish the Republican minority had not stalled the confirmation of Mr. Breuer's nomination needlessly for an additional 2 weeks.

Christine Varney was confirmed to be a U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner in 1994, after being nominated by President Clinton. As a Federal Trade Commissioner, Ms. Varney gained valuable experience in antitrust enforcement and in reducing anticompetitive measures that harm American consumers. Her Government service work includes a high level position in President Clinton's White House, where she served as an assistant to the President and secretary to the Cabinet. She has worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. She also graduated from my alma mater, the Georgetown University Law Center.

Her nomination is supported by individuals who served in the Antitrust Division during both Democratic and Republican administrations. John Shenefield and James Rill, both former heads of the Antitrust Division, say that she is ``extraordinarily well qualified to lead the Antitrust Division.'' Twenty former chairs of the American Bar Association section of antitrust law have described Ms. Varney as a ``highly accomplished, capable nominee who will serve consumers and this country with distinction'' and who will have ``immediate credibility'' in her new position.

I agree. At a time when our economy is suffering, there is a temptation to act anticompetitively. We need to make sure that we have a strong and effective advocate for competition and the interests of consumers in place. This was not the time for delay.

Republican Senators delayed for weeks the confirmation of Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States, before demanding an extended debate on her nomination. They delayed for 2 weeks what was a unanimous vote in favor of David Kris to serve as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division at the Justice Department. And they have refused for more than a month to consent to a time agreement for debate and a vote on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to lead the critical Office of Legal Counsel. The nominations the Senate considers this evening are three additional nominations they held up needlessly this month.

On April 1, both the New York Times and Roll Call featured reports suggesting that Senate Republicans intend to, and are planning to, filibuster the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. That was no April fool's joke. That is a serious matter and one that hurts the President's efforts to restore the rule of law. I cannot remember a time when Democratic Senators filibustered a Justice Department nomination.

Speech after speech by Republican Senators just a few short years ago about how it would be unconstitutional to filibuster Presidential nominees appear now to be just speeches that served a partisan political purpose at the time. Last month, in an online column for Slate entitled ``How Many Ways Can Senate Republicans Show Intellectual Hypocrisy?'' Dahila Lithwick observed:

``The irony now on display among Republicans on the Senate

Judiciary Committee is staggering.'' She could have included

Republican Senators who have recently championed the

principle that ``elections have consequences,'' that the

President is entitled to his nominees, and that filibustering

is an ``obstructionist tactic'' and ``obscene.''

In her April 8 column in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus reminded ``the people who are considering a Johnsen filibuster how hypocritical this stance would be.'' She reminded them that Democrats did not filibuster President Bush's nominations of John Ashcroft or Ted Olson, although there were more than 40 negative votes on each of those nominations. She noted:

``[T]he president is entitled, absent extraordinary

circumstances, to have the advisers of his choosing. Voting

against a president's nominee is a serious step. Voting to

prevent that nomination from getting an up-or-down vote kicks

it up several notches.'' She concluded by explaining why,

from her own experience and knowledge, Dawn Johnsen is not

out of the mainstream or extreme: ``This is hardly the kind

of nominee so extreme that she should not be entitled to an

up-or-down vote.''

The men and women at the Department of Justice have a special duty to uphold the rule of law because, as President Obama reminds us, ``laws are only as effective, only as compassionate, [and] only as fair as those who enforce them.'' The three nominees Republicans agreed to consider this evening, and Dawn Johnsen, whose nomination they refuse to debate and vote on, are all nominees who meet President Obama's standards and will work on behalf of the American people in the best traditions of the Department of Justice. I urge Republican Senators to vote to confirm these Assistant Attorney General nominations tonight.

Then I hope we will be able to proceed to a time agreement to consider and vote on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant Attorney General to head the important Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Her work has been delayed too long. The President designated her back on January 5. The time has come to debate that nomination and vote it up or down. The President has suspended the OLC opinions until they can be reviewed; she will head that review. The delay has gone on long enough. The Senate should vote.

Madam President, we have three nominations that should have been confirmed by voice vote. Before we left on recess, the Republicans asked to hold them up for 2 weeks. I wish they had not because these are nominiees to vital positions in the Department of Justice. Only four Senators, after holding them up for 2 weeks, not allowing them to be there, only four Senators voted against Tony West to be head of the Civil Division. We now have Lanny Breuer to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. These are people who were voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously by Republicans and Democrats. I hope we have a similar vote. A rollcall has been requested on the Republican side, which is fine; they have that right. But I hope we will confirm this nomination also.

Madam President, the 88-to-0 vote, again, was one that, instead of having a voice vote before the recess on a key member of the Department of Justice, our friends on the Republican side insisted we have. We held it up for 2 weeks. I am glad to see that now the right thing has been done with not a single dissenting vote. I wish it could have been done 2 weeks earlier so they could get to work at the Department of Justice.

Madam President, the third vote is Christine Varney--and I hope we have a similar vote--to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Again, I wish it could have been done 2 weeks ago, but I would hope we would go forward.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination, as the Republicans had requested.

Yes, it is. I am just asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senate was poised today to confirm three more superbly qualified nominees to fill top leadership positions at the Department of Justice before adjourning for the 2-week April recess. Instead, the Republican minority has returned to the tactics of anonymous and unaccountable holds they employed when they were in the majority to block scores of President Clinton's nominees.

Attorney General Holder needs his leadership team in place to rebuild and restore the Department. Tony West, President Obama's nominee to lead the Civil Division, Lanny Breuer, nominated to head the Criminal Division, and Christine Varney, nominated to head the Antitrust Division, have all chosen to leave lucrative private practices to return to Government service.

None of these are controversial nominees. They all received numerous letters of strong support, and endorsements from both Republican and Democratic former public officials. They were all reported out of the Judiciary Committee last week by unanimous consent. We should be confirming them today, not holding them hostage to the tired partisan playbook of Senate Republicans.

Tony West knows the Department of Justice well. He served in the Department as a Special Assistant to Deputy Attorneys General Philip Heymann and Jamie Gorelick. He then worked as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. His commitment to public service continued when he became a Special Assistant Attorney General in the California Department of Justice. He has also worked in private practice. Mr. West is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University Law School, where he served as president of the Stanford Law Review.

His nomination has earned support from both sides of the aisle. The former chairman of the California Republican Party, George Sundheim, sent a letter to the committee stating that Mr. West is admired by ``both sides of the aisle'' for his ``integrity, honesty and decency,'' and that there is no one ``more qualified to assume a position of leadership in the Department of Justice.'' The Federal prosecutors who worked across the table from Mr. West during the high-profile prosecution of John Walker Lindh witnessed Mr. West's ``extraordinary professionalism,'' and ``smart advocacy . . . executed with the highest degree of integrity.'' We should be confirming this outstanding leader for the Civil Division today.

President Obama has said that Lanny Breuer has the ``depth of experience and integrity'' to fulfill the highest standards of the American people and the Department of Justice. I agree. Mr. Breuer began his legal career as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He told us during his hearing that his commitment to ensuring justice for all Americans stemmed from his days working on the front lines of the fight against crime as a Manhattan prosecutor. His call to public service continued while serving in the White House Counsel's Office as a special counsel to President Clinton. Mr. Breuer has also worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Covington & Burling. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School and Columbia University.

Michael Chertoff, who led the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice during the Bush administration, endorsed Mr. Breuer's nomination, saying he has ``exceptionally broad legal experience as a former prosecutor and defense attorney'' and has ``outstanding judgment, a keen sense of fairness, high integrity and an even temperament.'' Brad Berenson, a veteran of the Bush administration's White House counsel's office, writes that Mr. Breuer is ``everything one could hope for in a leader of the Criminal Division.''

Mr. Breuer's former colleagues from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have said that as a criminal prosecutor, he ``distinguished himself as a tenacious but scrupulously fair trial lawyer, driven by the unwavering goal of achieving justice.'' Former Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson and former Congressman and DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson have also written to the committee in support of Mr. Breuer's nomination. I agree with all their comments and wish the Republican minority was not stalling confirmation of Mr. Breuer's nomination.

Christine Varney was confirmed to be a U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner in 1994, after being nominated by President Clinton. As a Federal Trade Commissioner, Ms. Varney gained valuable experience in antitrust enforcement and in reducing anticompetitive measures that harm American consumers. Her Government service work includes a high level position in President Clinton's White House, where she served as an assistant to the President and secretary to the Cabinet. She has worked in private practice for the prestigious Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. She also graduated from my alma mater, the Georgetown University Law Center.

Her nomination is supported by individuals who served in the Antitrust Division during both Democratic and Republican administrations. John Shenefield and James Rill, both former heads of the Antitrust Division, say that she is ``extraordinarily well qualified to lead the Antitrust Division.'' Twenty former chairs of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law have described Ms. Varney as a ``highly accomplished, capable nominee who will serve consumers and this country with distinction'' and who will have ``immediate credibility'' in her new position.

I agree. At a time when our economy is suffering, there is a temptation to act anticompetitively. We need to make sure that we have a strong and effective advocate for competition and the interests of consumers in place. Now is not the time for delay.

Republican Senators delayed for weeks the confirmation of Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan to be the Solicitor General of the United States, before demanding an extended debate on her nomination. They have yet to consent to a time agreement on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to lead the critical Office of Legal Counsel. And they are now holding up three nominations today, including the nomination of Christine Varney to head the Antitrust Division. I am concerned that Republican delay tactics are creating a double standard for these highly qualified women. Republicans did not apply the same standards or make the same demands for extensive followup information and meetings when supporting President Bush's nominations to the same posts.

Indeed, The New York Times and Roll Call yesterday each featured reports suggesting that Senate Republicans intend to, and are planning to, filibuster the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. I cannot remember a time when Democratic Senators filibustered a Justice Department nomination. Speech after speech by Republican Senators just a few short years ago about how it would be unconstitutional to filibuster Presidential nominees appear now to be just speeches that served a partisan political purpose at the time.

During last week's formal installation of the Attorney General, President Obama reminded Americans and the world that what makes our country unique is that ``we are bound together not by a shared bloodline or allegiance to any one leader or faith or creed, but by an adherence to a set of ideals.'' The men and women at the Department of Justice have a special duty to uphold the rule of law because ``laws are only as effective, only as compassionate, [and] only as fair as those who enforce them.''

All of the nominees we should be considering and confirming today fit the mold described by President Obama and the best traditions of the Department of Justice. I urge Republican Senators to reconsider their partisan obstructionist approach and return from recess ready to end the delays and confirm these nominees.