Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, there is one amendment on there, and I do see the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, on the floor. I would object to a time agreement such as this, I would object to any time agreement on it as it now stands. With the modification, there is a major change in the privacy aspects of the modification that comes under the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is different than what we have proposed.

I would have no objection to the list, with the exception of the Enzi amendment. I would wonder if it would be possible for the leader to get the whole list and allow the Senator from Wyoming and I some time to talk about his amendment. I say this only because the Senator from Wyoming is on the floor. I would not have said this if he were not here and not able to respond.

But, Madam President, not in this batch.

Mr. President, with the forbearance of my friend from Wyoming, I am pleased to tell the managers of the bill and all that we have reached agreement with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Snowe, and Klobuchar to preserve the important privacy protections of electronic health records in the bill. I think these changes will help ensure there are meaningful privacy protections for America's electronic health records in place. I know that is something both the Senator from Wyoming and I are interested in. This helps. I support the amendment, and I urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy once again in the introduction of this important legislation. The bill that we introduce today will correct the Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which misconstrued the intent of Congress and cut off access to our Nation's courts for citizens injured or killed by defective medical devices.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings to examine the way in which the Supreme Court's decisions in the areas of retirement benefits, consumer product safety, workplace discrimination, and personal finance have consistently trended against the rights of consumers and in favor of big business. In many cases that have profound effects on the lives of ordinary Americans, the Court has either ignored the intent of Congress, deferred to corporate interests, or sided with a Federal agency's flawed interpretation of a congressional statute's preemptive force to disadvantage consumers. The impact of the decisions that were the focus of those hearings continue to be felt by Americans today, whether they are prohibited from seeking redress in the courts for an injury caused by a defective product, paying exorbitant credit card interest rates and fees with no relief from the laws of their own state, or subjected to the unscrupulous practices of some in the mortgage lending industry.

These hearings raised awareness in Congress, and among Americans, about the impact the Supreme Court has on our everyday lives. I am especially proud that following on these hearings, and through the efforts of a determined and principled congressional majority, we witnessed our constitutional democracy at work when President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And I am heartened that Congress reclaimed the intent of its original legislation and overrode the Supreme Court to restore the rights of Americans to be free from discrimination in the workplace.

The bill we introduce today is another important step to correct an erroneous reading by the Court of Congress' intent in enacting the medical device amendments of 1976. This legislation will make explicit that the preemption clause in the medical device amendments upon which the Court relied does not, and never was intended to, preempt the common law claims of consumers injured by a federally approved medical device.

The extraordinary power to preempt State law and regulation lies with Congress alone. Where the Court reaches to the extent it did in the Riegel decision to find Federal preemption contrary to what Congress intended, Congress is compelled to act, just as it was in the case of Lilly Ledbetter. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Grassley the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, FERA, of 2009, a bipartisan bill that will reinvigorate our Nation's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have so severely undermined our economy and hurt so many hard working people in this country.

Our Nation is in the midst of its most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. With each passing week, tens of thousands more Americans lose their jobs to layoffs, and many thousands have already lost their homes to foreclosure. We learn more and more each day about the causes of this debacle, and it is now clear that unscrupulous mortgage brokers and Wall Street financiers were among the principle contributors of this economic collapse.

As the crisis worsened last fall, I called upon Federal law enforcement to track down and punish those whose conduct went beyond mere negligence or incompetence and who were directly responsible for the corporate and mortgage frauds that helped make the economic downturn far worse than anyone predicted. With the new tools and resources in this bill, it will be easier to ensure that all of those responsible for these financial crimes are held accountable.

While the full scope of the fraud that triggered this economic crisis is still unknown, we have already learned a great deal about what went wrong. 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 accountability.

In the last six years, suspicious activity reports alleging mortgage fraud that have been filed with the Treasury Department have increased more than tenfold, from about 5,400 in 2002 to more than 60,000 in 2008. In the last three years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened by the FBI has more than doubled, and the FBI anticipates a new wave of cases that may double that number yet again. Despite the increase, the FBI currently has fewer than 250 special agents nationwide assigned to financial fraud cases. At current levels, they cannot even begin to investigate the more than 5,000 fraud allegations they receive from the Treasury Department each month.

Of course, the problem is not limited to mortgage frauds. As is so common in today's financial markets, 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. Unfortunately, some were not honest about these securities, leading to even more fraud, and victimizing investors nationwide.

All of this fraud has contributed to an unprecedented collapse in the mortgage-backed securities market. In the past year, banks and financial institutions in the United States alone have suffered more than $500 billion in losses associated with the sub-prime mortgage industry. Some of our Nation's largest and most venerable financial institutions collapsed as a result. The list of publicly-traded companies that declared bankruptcy or have been taken over by the Federal Government because of the mortgage-backed securities market collapse include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, and Lehman Brothers.

As we take steps to make sure this kind of collapse cannot happen again, we must reinvigorate our anti-fraud measures and give law enforcement the tools and resources they need to root out fraud so that it can never again place our financial system at risk. Taxpayers, who bear the burden of this financial downturn, deserve to know that government is doing all it can to hold responsible those who committed fraud in the run-up to this collapse. This bill will do just that.

This bipartisan legislation begins by providing the resources needed for law enforcement to uncover and go after these frauds. The bill authorizes $155 million a year for hiring fraud prosecutors and investigators at the Justice Department for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. This includes $65 million a year for the FBI to bring on 190 additional special agents and more than 200 professional staff and forensic analysts to rebuild its ``white collar'' investigation program. With this funding, the FBI can double the number of its mortgage fraud task forces nationwide--from 26 to more than 50--that target fraud in the hardest hit areas in our Nation. This also includes $50 million a year for U.S. Attorneys' offices to staff those strike forces and $40 million for the criminal, civil, and tax divisions at the Justice Department to provide special litigation and investigative support to those efforts. The bill also authorizes $60 million a year for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for investigators and analysts at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Office of Inspector General for the Housing and Urban Development Department to combat fraud against Federal assistance programs and financial institutions.

Of course, the economic recovery legislation includes new appropriations of $75 million for FBI salaries and $2 million for the Inspector General for the Treasury Department, yet certainly far more needs to be done to address the full scope of these enforcement issues now and in the future.

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 Asset 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.

The legislation would amend the Federal securities statute to cover fraud schemes involving commodities futures and options, including derivatives involving the mortgage-backed securities that caused such damage to our banking system.

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 had not made a profit. This erroneous decision must be corrected immediately, as dozens of money laundering cases have already been dismissed.

Lastly, FERA improves one of the most potent civil tools we have for rooting out waste and fraud in government--the False Claims Act. The effectiveness of the False Claims Act has recently been undermined by court decisions which limit the scope of the law and allow sub- contractors paid with government money to escape responsibility for proven frauds. The False Claims Act must quickly be corrected and clarified in order to protect from fraud the Federal assistance and relief funds expended in response to our current economic crisis.

The Federal Government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize our banking system, and Congress will soon spend even more to restart our economic recovery. But to date, we have paid far too little attention to investigating and prosecuting the mortgage and corporate frauds that has so dramatically contributed to this economic collapse.

Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation so the American taxpayers can be confident that those who are criminally responsible for contributing to this economic disaster are caught and held fully accountable and to ensure that the money we are now spending to restore America is protected from fraud in the future.

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

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce with Senator Grassley the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, FERA, of 2009, a bipartisan bill that will reinvigorate our Nation's capacity to investigate and prosecute the kinds of financial frauds that have so severely undermined our economy and hurt so many hard working people in this country.

Our Nation is in the midst of its most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. With each passing week, tens of thousands more Americans lose their jobs to layoffs, and many thousands have already lost their homes to foreclosure. We learn more and more each day about the causes of this debacle, and it is now clear that unscrupulous mortgage brokers and Wall Street financiers were among the principle contributors of this economic collapse.

As the crisis worsened last fall, I called upon Federal law enforcement to track down and punish those whose conduct went beyond mere negligence or incompetence and who were directly responsible for the corporate and mortgage frauds that helped make the economic downturn far worse than anyone predicted. With the new tools and resources in this bill, it will be easier to ensure that all of those responsible for these financial crimes are held accountable.

While the full scope of the fraud that triggered this economic crisis is still unknown, we have already learned a great deal about what went wrong. 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 accountability.

In the last six years, suspicious activity reports alleging mortgage fraud that have been filed with the Treasury Department have increased more than tenfold, from about 5,400 in 2002 to more than 60,000 in 2008. In the last three years, the number of criminal mortgage fraud investigations opened by the FBI has more than doubled, and the FBI anticipates a new wave of cases that may double that number yet again. Despite the increase, the FBI currently has fewer than 250 special agents nationwide assigned to financial fraud cases. At current levels, they cannot even begin to investigate the more than 5,000 fraud allegations they receive from the Treasury Department each month.

Of course, the problem is not limited to mortgage frauds. As is so common in today's financial markets, 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. Unfortunately, some were not honest about these securities, leading to even more fraud, and victimizing investors nationwide.

All of this fraud has contributed to an unprecedented collapse in the mortgage-backed securities market. In the past year, banks and financial institutions in the United States alone have suffered more than $500 billion in losses associated with the sub-prime mortgage industry. Some of our Nation's largest and most venerable financial institutions collapsed as a result. The list of publicly-traded companies that declared bankruptcy or have been taken over by the Federal Government because of the mortgage-backed securities market collapse include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, and Lehman Brothers.

As we take steps to make sure this kind of collapse cannot happen again, we must reinvigorate our anti-fraud measures and give law enforcement the tools and resources they need to root out fraud so that it can never again place our financial system at risk. Taxpayers, who bear the burden of this financial downturn, deserve to know that government is doing all it can to hold responsible those who committed fraud in the run-up to this collapse. This bill will do just that.

This bipartisan legislation begins by providing the resources needed for law enforcement to uncover and go after these frauds. The bill authorizes $155 million a year for hiring fraud prosecutors and investigators at the Justice Department for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. This includes $65 million a year for the FBI to bring on 190 additional special agents and more than 200 professional staff and forensic analysts to rebuild its ``white collar'' investigation program. With this funding, the FBI can double the number of its mortgage fraud task forces nationwide--from 26 to more than 50--that target fraud in the hardest hit areas in our Nation. This also includes $50 million a year for U.S. Attorneys' offices to staff those strike forces and $40 million for the criminal, civil, and tax divisions at the Justice Department to provide special litigation and investigative support to those efforts. The bill also authorizes $60 million a year for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for investigators and analysts at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Office of Inspector General for the Housing and Urban Development Department to combat fraud against Federal assistance programs and financial institutions.

Of course, the economic recovery legislation includes new appropriations of $75 million for FBI salaries and $2 million for the Inspector General for the Treasury Department, yet certainly far more needs to be done to address the full scope of these enforcement issues now and in the future.

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 Asset 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.

The legislation would amend the Federal securities statute to cover fraud schemes involving commodities futures and options, including derivatives involving the mortgage-backed securities that caused such damage to our banking system.

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 had not made a profit. This erroneous decision must be corrected immediately, as dozens of money laundering cases have already been dismissed.

Lastly, FERA improves one of the most potent civil tools we have for rooting out waste and fraud in government--the False Claims Act. The effectiveness of the False Claims Act has recently been undermined by court decisions which limit the scope of the law and allow sub- contractors paid with government money to escape responsibility for proven frauds. The False Claims Act must quickly be corrected and clarified in order to protect from fraud the Federal assistance and relief funds expended in response to our current economic crisis.

The Federal Government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize our banking system, and Congress will soon spend even more to restart our economic recovery. But to date, we have paid far too little attention to investigating and prosecuting the mortgage and corporate frauds that has so dramatically contributed to this economic collapse.

Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation so the American taxpayers can be confident that those who are criminally responsible for contributing to this economic disaster are caught and held fully accountable and to ensure that the money we are now spending to restore America is protected from fraud in the future.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as a cosponsor on the Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, today, Senator Hatch and I renew our bipartisan effort to improve and modernize our intellectual property laws. We are reintroducing the Performance Rights Act to ensure artists are compensated fairly when their works are used. I am pleased that performance rights legislation will be introduced in the House today, as well.

When radio stations broadcast music, listeners are enjoying the intellectual property of two creative artists--the songwriter and the performer. The success, and the artistic quality, of any recorded song depends on both. Radio stations pay songwriters for a license to broadcast the music they have composed. The songwriters' work is promoted by the air play, but no one seriously questions that the songwriter

should be paid for the use of his or her work. The performing artist, however, is not paid by the radio station.

The time has come to end this inequity. Its historical justification has been overtaken by technological change. In the digital world, we enjoy music transmitted over a variety of platforms. When webcasters, satellite radio companies, or cable companies play music, and profit from its use, they compensate the performing artists. Terrestrial broadcast radio is the only platform that still does not pay for the use of sound recordings.

Radio play surely has promotional value to the artists, but there is a property right in the sound recording, and those that create the content should be compensated for their work. The United States is behind the times in this regard. Ours is the only Nation that is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development but still does not compensate artists. An unfortunate result of the lack of a performance rights in the United States is that American artists are not compensated when their recordings are played abroad.

Artists should have the same rights regardless of the platform over which their work is used. All platforms promote artists and all platforms profit off the artists' work. Today, different rate standards and restrictions are applied to different music delivery platforms, with broadcast radio stations being uniquely and completely exempt. In the last Congress, Senator Feinstein chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Committee that addressed whether the time has come to achieve platform parity by harmonizing the terms and conditions for use of the statutory copyright license. Senator Feinstein has been a leader on this issue, and I am pleased to accept her offer to lead negotiations this year to develop a new standard that can be applied across platforms.

We also need to make certain that songwriters are protected in this process. Songwriters currently do receive compensation from radio stations. The changes made by this legislation, which will ensure performing artists are compensated, should not have any negative effect on songwriters. I will work closely with the songwriters and we will make sure that is the case.

In introducing the Performance Rights Act today, we are sensitive to the needs of broadcast radio stations; we are sensitive to the regulatory regime under which they operate; and we are particularly sensitive to the fact that it is not just artists, but also broadcasters that are facing a difficult economic climate. Rather than require all radio stations to pay fair market value to artists for the songs they play, the legislation includes special provisions for noncommercial and all but the largest commercial stations. In addition, every radio station can use a statutory copyright license to transmit sound recordings, instead of negotiating licenses separately in the marketplace.

Noncommercial stations have a different mission than do commercial stations and they require a different status. Our legislation, appropriately, permits noncommercial stations to take advantage of the statutory copyright license subject only to a nominal annual payment to the artists.

Similarly, we intend to nurture, not threaten, small commercial broadcasters. Smaller music stations are working hard to serve their local communities while finding the right formula to increase their audience size. We intend to foster the growth of these stations--nearly 85 percent of the radio stations in Vermont--and the legislation does that by also providing a flat fee option for use of the statutory license to the more than 75 percent of commercial music stations earning less than $1.25 million a year. This payment may only provide minimal compensation to the artists whose music is used by the vast majority of commercial music stations, particularly when viewed against the fair market value of the music, but by helping radio stations grow, artists, the stations, and the public will all benefit.

I am an avid music fan and much of the music I enjoy I first heard on the radio. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings; there is also no doubt that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings.

Traditional, over-the-air radio remains vital to the vibrancy of our music culture, and I want to continue to see it prosper as it transitions to digital. But I also want to ensure that the performing artist, the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio, is compensated fairly. I will continue to work with the broadcasters--large and small, commercial and noncommercial--to strike the right balance.

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

Mr. President, today, Senator Hatch and I renew our bipartisan effort to improve and modernize our intellectual property laws. We are reintroducing the Performance Rights Act to ensure artists are compensated fairly when their works are used. I am pleased that performance rights legislation will be introduced in the House today, as well.

When radio stations broadcast music, listeners are enjoying the intellectual property of two creative artists--the songwriter and the performer. The success, and the artistic quality, of any recorded song depends on both. Radio stations pay songwriters for a license to broadcast the music they have composed. The songwriters' work is promoted by the air play, but no one seriously questions that the songwriter

should be paid for the use of his or her work. The performing artist, however, is not paid by the radio station.

The time has come to end this inequity. Its historical justification has been overtaken by technological change. In the digital world, we enjoy music transmitted over a variety of platforms. When webcasters, satellite radio companies, or cable companies play music, and profit from its use, they compensate the performing artists. Terrestrial broadcast radio is the only platform that still does not pay for the use of sound recordings.

Radio play surely has promotional value to the artists, but there is a property right in the sound recording, and those that create the content should be compensated for their work. The United States is behind the times in this regard. Ours is the only Nation that is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development but still does not compensate artists. An unfortunate result of the lack of a performance rights in the United States is that American artists are not compensated when their recordings are played abroad.

Artists should have the same rights regardless of the platform over which their work is used. All platforms promote artists and all platforms profit off the artists' work. Today, different rate standards and restrictions are applied to different music delivery platforms, with broadcast radio stations being uniquely and completely exempt. In the last Congress, Senator Feinstein chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Committee that addressed whether the time has come to achieve platform parity by harmonizing the terms and conditions for use of the statutory copyright license. Senator Feinstein has been a leader on this issue, and I am pleased to accept her offer to lead negotiations this year to develop a new standard that can be applied across platforms.

We also need to make certain that songwriters are protected in this process. Songwriters currently do receive compensation from radio stations. The changes made by this legislation, which will ensure performing artists are compensated, should not have any negative effect on songwriters. I will work closely with the songwriters and we will make sure that is the case.

In introducing the Performance Rights Act today, we are sensitive to the needs of broadcast radio stations; we are sensitive to the regulatory regime under which they operate; and we are particularly sensitive to the fact that it is not just artists, but also broadcasters that are facing a difficult economic climate. Rather than require all radio stations to pay fair market value to artists for the songs they play, the legislation includes special provisions for noncommercial and all but the largest commercial stations. In addition, every radio station can use a statutory copyright license to transmit sound recordings, instead of negotiating licenses separately in the marketplace.

Noncommercial stations have a different mission than do commercial stations and they require a different status. Our legislation, appropriately, permits noncommercial stations to take advantage of the statutory copyright license subject only to a nominal annual payment to the artists.

Similarly, we intend to nurture, not threaten, small commercial broadcasters. Smaller music stations are working hard to serve their local communities while finding the right formula to increase their audience size. We intend to foster the growth of these stations--nearly 85 percent of the radio stations in Vermont--and the legislation does that by also providing a flat fee option for use of the statutory license to the more than 75 percent of commercial music stations earning less than $1.25 million a year. This payment may only provide minimal compensation to the artists whose music is used by the vast majority of commercial music stations, particularly when viewed against the fair market value of the music, but by helping radio stations grow, artists, the stations, and the public will all benefit.

I am an avid music fan and much of the music I enjoy I first heard on the radio. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings; there is also no doubt that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings.

Traditional, over-the-air radio remains vital to the vibrancy of our music culture, and I want to continue to see it prosper as it transitions to digital. But I also want to ensure that the performing artist, the one whose sound recordings drive the success of broadcast radio, is compensated fairly. I will continue to work with the broadcasters--large and small, commercial and noncommercial--to strike the right balance.

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

Mr. President, this week, the Senate is considering critical legislation to renew our economy and to renew America's promise of prosperity and security for all of its citizens. I have long held the view that American innovation can and should play a vital role in revitalizing our economy and in improving our Nation's health care system. I commend the lead sponsors of this legislation for making sure that the economic recovery package includes an investment in health information technology that also takes meaningful steps to protect the privacy of American consumers.

The privacy protections for electronic health records in the economic recovery package are essential to a successful national health IT system, and these safeguards should not be weakened. In America today, if you have a health record, you have a health privacy problem. The explosion of electronic health records, digital databases, and the Internet is fueling a growing supply of and demand for Americans' health information. The ability to easily access this information electronically--often by the click

of a mouse or a few keystrokes on a computer can be very useful in providing more cost-effective health care. But the use of advancing technologies to access and share health information can also lead to a loss of personal privacy.

Without adequate safeguards to protect health privacy, many Americans will simply not seek the medical treatment that they need for fear that their sensitive health information will be disclosed without their consent. And those who do seek medical treatment assume the risk of data security breaches and other privacy violations. Likewise, health care providers who perceive the privacy risks associated with health IT systems as inconsistent with their professional obligations will avoid participating in a national health IT system.

The economic recovery package takes several important steps to avoid these pitfalls and to protect Americans' health information privacy. First, the provisions give each individual the right to access his or her own electronic health records and the right to timely notice of data breaches involving their health information. The economic recovery bill also places critical restrictions on the sale of sensitive health data and requires that the Department of Health and Human Services educates and conducts outreach to American consumers and businesses regarding their privacy rights and obligations. Lastly, the bill enhances the enforcement tools available to the States, as well as to Federal authorities, to deter lax health information privacy. These key privacy safeguards must not be weakened as the Senate considers the economic recovery bill.

Of course, more can--and should--be done in the weeks and months ahead to further improve health information privacy, such as strengthening the rights of consumers to control their own electronic health records. In Vermont, we have formed a public-private partnership that is charged with developing Vermont's statewide electronic health information system, including a policy on privacy. I believe that in order for a national health IT system to succeed, we in Congress should follow Vermont's good example and work together for the long term with public and private stakeholders to ensure the privacy and security of electronic health records.

As the Senate considers the economic recovery package, we face many difficult challenges in our Nation. The challenge of finding the right balance between privacy and efficiency for a national health IT system is just one, but it is an important test that we must meet head on. Without meaningful privacy safeguards, our Nation's health IT system will fail its citizens. In his inaugural address, President Obama eloquently noted that in our new era of responsibility ``there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.'' The privacy safeguards in the economic recovery package take an important step toward tackling the difficult but essential task of ensuring meaningful health information privacy for all Americans.

Again, I commend the lead sponsors of the economic recovery bill and President Obama for their commitment to include meaningful health privacy protections in the bill. I also commend the many stakeholders, including the Center for Democracy & Technology, Consumers Unions, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Microsoft, that have advocated tirelessly for meaningful health IT privacy protections in this legislation. I urge all Members to support the health IT privacy protections in the bill, so that our national health care system will have the support and confidence of the American people.

I ask to have a copy of a February 1, 2009, editorial from the New York Times in support of funding protections for patients' privacy entitled, ``Your E-Health Records,'' printed in the Record following my full statement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. President, The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka that has waxed and waned for decades costing the lives of tens of thousands of people has exploded into a full scale war, and it is civilians who are bearing the brunt of the carnage.

The origins of the conflict arise from decades of the Sinhalese majority's systematic discrimination against the Tamil minority and its denial of the Tamils' meaningful participation in the political process. The Sri Lankan army is almost exclusively Sinhalese. Successive Sinhalese-dominated governments have failed to effectively address these longstanding injustices.

Over the years, peaceful demonstrations by Tamils have been met with violence by Sinhalese extremists, which has in turn fostered violent extremism on the Tamil side.

In recent weeks, as the Sri Lankan army has seized control of most of the northern strongholds of the Tamil Tigers, or LTTE as they are otherwise known, the situation has gone from dire to the verge of catastrophe for the estimated 250,000 vulnerable civilians who are trapped in a so-called ``safe zone.''

The LTTE has a history of suicide bombings and other indiscriminate attacks against civilians, using civilians as shields, and preventing civilians under their control from escaping to government areas. Several hundred local staff of the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations are reportedly trapped because the LTTE refuses to allow them to leave. The LTTE has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States.

For its part, the Sri Lankan army insists it is targeting the LTTE, not civilians. But the army has also acted in ways that have blurred any meaningful distinction between itself and the LTTE. It has reportedly shelled areas populated by civilians, including hospitals, causing hundreds of casualties, summarily executed suspected LTTE sympathizers, and detained those who have fled LTTE areas, including women and children, in militarized camps where they are exposed to great hardship and danger.

The United Nations says a compound sheltering U.N. national staff inside the safety zone was shelled on January 24 and 25, killing at least 9 civilians and wounding more than 20. On January 26, another artillery attack reportedly narrowly missed UN local staff working in the safety zone but caused dozens of civilian deaths. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that ``[h]undreds of patients need emergency treatment and evacuation to [a] hospital in the government- controlled area.''

In the past 2 days, another hospital was reportedly shelled multiple times, resulting in more civilian deaths and injuries.

Human Rights Watch reports that since last September, when the Sri Lankan government ordered the withdrawal of most UN and nongovernmental humanitarian organizations, as well as journalists, from the conflicted area, a grave humanitarian crisis has developed with acute shortages of food, shelter, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies.

The Sri Lankan government has a duty to respect the rights and protect the safety of all Sri Lankan citizens, whatever their ethnic origin or political views. Instead, the government has embarked on a strategy to defeat the LTTE militarily and in doing so has shown disregard for the laws of war. Rather than protecting the Tamil people, the government has often contributed to their suffering. Its strategy has been to cordon off the area and blame everything, including its own violations, on the LTTE.

Since 1984, successive peace talks have failed, as both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government have reneged on their agreements, and the government has failed to provide the vision and leadership necessary to build a multi-ethnic consensus. Both sides' extreme ethnic nationalist agendas have caused widespread human suffering. Both sides are accountable.

I have no sympathy for the LTTE, which has brought misery upon the Tamil people it professes to represent. But while the LTTE has been severely weakened, it is unlikely to disappear,

and the cycle of violence may continue.

It is imperative that the government and the LTTE agree to an immediate cease-fire to avoid further loss of life, permit access to U.N. monitors and humanitarian organizations, and permit civilians to leave for areas of safety. The Obama administration, the British, Indian and other concerned governments, should be publicly urging the same.

Over the longer term, if lasting peace is to come to Sri Lanka, the government must effectively address, in negotiations which include all the main Tamil and Muslim parties, the core issues that have fueled the conflict including laws and policies that unfairly discriminate against Sri Lanka's minorities.

There is a related issue that needs to be mentioned, and that is the imprisonment for the past ten months of J.S. Tissainayagam, a journalist, and N. Jashiharan, a publisher, and his wife, V. Valamathy. They were arrested for articles critical of the government, and are being held in violation of their right to freedom of expression. Another of Sri Lankan's most respected journalists, Lasantha Wickrematunga, was gunned down in broad daylight a few weeks ago. According to Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, ``[t]he killing of . . . Wickrematunge . . . was the latest blow to the free expression of dissent in Sri Lanka. The searing article he wrote prophesying his own murder is an extraordinary indictment of a system corrupted by more than two decades of bloody internal conflict.'' The High Commissioner noted that there have not been any prosecutions of political killings, disappearances and other violations committed in recent years. That in itself speaks volumes about the Sri Lankan government's credibility.

For many years, the United States and Sri Lanka have enjoyed good relations. A close friend of mine, James Spain, was our Ambassador there years ago. He often told me of his deep affection for the Sri Lankan people, and of the country's extraordinary natural beauty.

When the tsunami crashed ashore in December 2004, a member of my staff was on the island. The American people responded generously to help Sri Lanka rebuild.

It has therefore been difficult for me to watch the conflict intensify, the LTTE abuse civilians and fail to live up to its commitments, and the government threaten to expel foreign diplomats, aid agencies and journalists, and refuse appeals to permit independent observers and aid workers access to areas where Tamil civilians are trapped. And as reputable, courageous journalists have been arrested on transparently political charges or assassinated.

The Sri Lanka government will one day want the respect and support of the United States. The same can be said of the LTTE, if and when it renounces violence and becomes a legitimate political party. How they respond to today's humanitarian appeals will weigh heavily on how the United States responds when that day comes.

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

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and appreciate her being here. We are starting a minute or so late. It is my fault. When I saw my friend from Pennsylvania, the distinguished ranking member, come out, we had to have some discussion of last night's Super Bowl game. It was one of the most spectacular ones. He feels even more spectacular than Senators from some other States--any other State--because his State won.

I think it is also a spectacular day because the Senate is considering President Obama's historic nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States.

The Judiciary Committee voted last week to report Mr. Holder's nomination to the Senate for consideration. That strong, bipartisan 17 to 2 vote in favor was a statement that members from both sides of the aisle recognize that Mr. Holder has the character, integrity and independence to be Attorney General. It is a statement that we all want to restore the integrity and competence of the Justice Department and to restore another critical component--the American people's confidence in Federal law enforcement. The broad support Mr. Holder's nomination has from law enforcement, from advocates for crime victims, from civil rights organizations and from across the political spectrum comes as no surprise to those of us that have known of Eric Holder during his decades of dedicated public service.

After more than 2 months of scrutiny and consideration, I was pleased to see Mr. Holder's nomination gain the support of such a large majority from the Judiciary Committee. I thank all the Democratic members for their thorough consideration of this nomination. In particular, I thank our newly assigned members for following the hearings and participating in our deliberations without missing a step. I thank the Republican members, as well. I had said that Senators could vote for or against the nomination and two Senators determined to vote no, as is their right. With respect to the six Republican members who ended up supporting the nomination, I note that Senator Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, did so early on. Then, in the last days the ranking Republican member of the committee, another former committee chairman, as well as Senator Grassley, Senator Sessions, a former U.S. attorney and State attorney general, Senator Kyl, the Republican whip, and Senator Graham came to support the Holder nomination. In my three and a half decades in the Senate, I have never seen a nominee as qualified as Eric Holder to serve as the Nation's top law enforcement officer.

The need for new leadership at the Department of Justice is as critical today as it has ever been. Over the last few years, political manipulation from the White House has undercut the Justice Department in its mission, and shaken public confidence in our Federal justice system.

The Judiciary Committee expended a good deal of effort over the last 2 years to uncover scandals at the Department of Justice. Former Attorney General Gonzales and virtually every top-ranking Department official resigned during our inquiry. Likewise, Karl Rove and his White House political deputies resigned.

Before the November election, I coauthored an article with our ranking Republican member. We wrote that the next Attorney General ``must be someone who deeply appreciates and respects the work and commitment of the thousands of men and women who work in the branches and divisions of the Justice Department, day in and day out, without regard to politics or ideology, doing their best to enforce the law and promote justice.'' I have every confidence that Eric Holder is such a person.

Mr. Holder's designation was greeted with delight by the career professionals at the Justice Department because they know him well. They know he is the right person to restore the Department. They know him from his 12 years at the Public Integrity Section, from his time as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, from his tenure on the bench, and from his years as the Deputy Attorney General, the second- highest ranking official at the Department. His confirmation will do a great deal to restore morale and purpose throughout the Department.

It is important that the Department also have the rest of its senior leadership in place without delay. This week, we will hold a hearing for the Deputy Attorney General nominee, and I will soon notice hearings for the other members of the Justice Department leadership team.

I wished we could have moved even more quickly to put the new leadership in place at the Department at a time when we face serious challenges and threats. When President Bush nominated Michael Mukasey in 2007 to the Attorney General's seat vacated by the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, Senator Jon Kyl said:

Since the Carter administration, attorney general nominees

have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three

weeks, with some being confirmed even more quickly. The

Senate should immediately move to consider Judge Mukasey's

nomination and ensure he is confirmed before Congress

recesses for Columbus Day.

Well, it has been more than twice that long since Mr. Holder's designation and three times that long since reports of his impending nomination. Our consideration was delayed because I accommodated requests from the ranking Republican member and committee Republicans and postponed the hearing until January 15 and then they postponed consideration another week through procedural objections.

Mr. Holder spent more than nine hours testifying before the Judiciary Committee at his hearing 2\1/2\ weeks ago, answering every question any member of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, chose to ask him. All Senators were accorded such time as they needed in three extended rounds of questioning to ask whatever they chose.

Despite that extended hearing and a second day of hearings with public witnesses that I convened at the request of our Republican members, in the week after the hearings 12 Senators sent Mr. Holder 125 pages of extensive follow up questions. He has answered these questions--more than 400 of them--as well.

I asked for the cooperation of all members to debate and vote on Mr. Holder's nomination on the day after the President's inauguration but instead, as is his right, the ranking Republican member held over the nomination for another week. I was, as I said, extremely disappointed. I did not schedule that markup until I had consulted with the Senator from Pennsylvania first. Indeed, he had assured me that he would not hold the matter over. Yet he joined with the Republican members of this committee in a unanimous request to hold over the nomination. Senator McCain was right last week when he said about the President's Cabinet nominations:

We shouldn't delay. . . . We had an election, and we also

had a remarkable and historic [inauguration], and this nation

has come together as it has not for some time.''

He concluded that he understood that ``the message that the American people are sending us now is they want us to work together and get to work.''

Regrettably the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee did not

hear or act on that message 2 weeks ago. I am glad that they changed course last week and that so many of them have come to support the nomination.

Yet even after receiving strong bipartisan support in the committee, a handful of Senate Republicans chose to delay yet again confirming this well-qualified nominee to his vital post. We could and should have debated Mr. Holder's nomination and confirmed him last week, but some Senators on the other side of the aisle seem unable to resist continuing their partisan tactics of obstruction and delay.

President Obama in his inaugural address spoke about the real challenges facing the country and the American people. He urged that we all work for the common good and ``proclaim an end to the petty grievances'' and ``recriminations'' and that we ``set aside childish things.''

President Obama is right. There is work to be done. There are real threats. There are abuses to be undone and rights that need to be restored. We need to get on with the task of remaking America.

Eric Holder is a good man, a decent man, a public servant committed to the rule of law. He will be a good Attorney General. Republicans know this. They heard from him at his hearing. They have heard the endorsements of former FBI Director Louis Freeh, President Bush's homeland security adviser Fran Townsend, Senator Warner of Virginia, Senator Hatch, Senator Martinez, and the many Reagan and Bush administration officials who have endorsed his nomination. They have seen the endorsements from the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the entire law enforcement community.

I would like to put into the Record a list of the more than 130 law enforcement and criminal justice organizations, civil rights organizations, victims' advocates, legal practitioners, bar associations, and current and former public officials that support Senate confirmation of Mr. Holder's nomination. These letters from nearly every part of the political spectrum are in the committee's hearing record and available for any Senator to read.

Judge Louis Freeh, a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who testified before the committee in support of Mr. Holder, said that Mr. Holder ``has the highest legal competence, total integrity, leadership, and, most importantly, the political independence to discharge faithfully the immense trust this Nation reposes in its Attorney General.'' Judge Freeh was ``honored to give him my very highest personal and professional recommendation.'' Former Attorney General William Barr and nine Republican lawyers and former officials wrote to the committee in support of Mr. Holder's nomination. They noted ``that not only is Eric superbly qualified to be Attorney General, but he is truly a good man.'' They further urged ``his rapid confirmation as our next Attorney General of the United States.'' James Comey, the Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush and before that prosecutor in charge of the Marc Rich case and the criminal investigation into the Marc Rich pardon, described Mr. Holder as ``a smart, decent, humble man, who knows and loves the Department and has demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law across an entire career,'' and urged his confirmation.

The endorsement from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and a number of civil rights organizations expressed ``strong support for the historic nomination of Eric Holder to the position of Attorney General of the United States,'' citing Holder as ``among the most qualified nominees for Attorney General in the last fifty years and . . . uniquely suited to lead the Department at this moment in time.'' The endorsement noted that: ``The nation urgently needs an Attorney General dedicated to restoring the independence and integrity of the Department, with an unquestionable commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. Eric Holder is the right person for this job.''

Nearly every major law enforcement organization has expressed support for Mr. Holder, including the National Association of Police Organizations, NAPO, and the Fraternal Order of Police, FOP. The National Sheriffs' Association highlighted Mr. Holder's ``outstanding record of public service in his role as a federal prosecutor, a trial judge, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice.'' The National Troopers Coalition urged Mr. Holder's ``speedy confirmation to the office of Attorney General'' and wrote that he ``presents a distinguished career as a prosecutor, Superior Court Justice and Deputy Attorney General. This unmatched experience will prove to be invaluable in directing our law enforcement efforts at this difficult time in history.''

Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the FOP, testified in support of Mr. Holder's nomination, saying that Mr. Holder is ``not only well qualified but possessing in excess the requisite character, knowledge, and skills to do this job and be an extremely effective leader for the Department.''

Fran Townsend, President Bush's homeland security adviser, also testified and said:

I am not here because I believe that, if confirmed as

Attorney General, Eric Holder will decide legal issues

necessarily in the same way that I would. On the contrary, I

expect that there would often be times where this is not the

case. I am here because I believe Eric is competent, capable,

and a fair-minded lawyer who will not hesitate to uphold and

defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

Ms. Townsend also pointed to the dangers of delay in confirming Mr. Holder as Attorney General. She testified:

The Attorney General position must be filled quickly. We

remain a nation at war and a nation that faces the continuous

threat of terrorist attack. We cannot afford for the Attorney

General position to sit vacant or for there to be a

needlessly protracted period where the leadership of the

department is in question.

I do not know why Republican Senators who supported the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales without any reservation slowed the consideration of the nomination of Eric Holder. He meets and exceeds any fair standard for confirmation. And at this time in our history, with the challenges we face, we need to move forward and confirm the new Attorney General and the leadership team at the Justice Department.

Mr. Holder has demonstrated that he is committed to restoring the rule of law, and, as President Obama said, ``to reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.'' I am more convinced than ever that Eric Holder is a person who will reinvigorate the Department of Justice and serve ably as a key member of the President's national security team. He will pursue the Justice Department's vital missions with skill, integrity, independence and a commitment to the rule of law.

I remember when the senior Senator from Pennsylvania took the occasion of the confirmation hearing for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General to apologize to Judge Ronnie White of Missouri for the manner in which his nomination to the Federal court had been rejected in a party-line vote of Senate Republicans.

I remember when the senior Senator from Utah and I had to labor for weeks to overcome the anonymous Republican hold on the Senate floor of Mr. Holder's nomination to be the Deputy Attorney General in 1997. Regrettably, after celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, the Judiciary Committee treated Mr. Holder's nomination to be Attorney General to the tactics of the past--more delay, more obstruction, more partisan muscle flexing. I am pleased that this week those who sought to delay and were considering opposing had second thoughts. Perhaps the unifying spirit of President Obama's inauguration had a delayed effect, perhaps it was the overwhelming support for the nomination, perhaps it was the qualities and qualifications of the nominee himself. Whatever the reason, I am glad to see so many Senators heed President Obama's call and perhaps heard the echo of President Lincoln's first inaugural address and were ``touched . . . by the better angels of [their] nature.''

I questioned Mr. Holder at his hearing and he gave his commitment to respect the second amendment right to bear arms as an individual right guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. I asked him to work with me on a media shield

law, and he said that he would do so. I asked him about revitalizing the Freedom of Information Act, and he was agreeable. President Obama took action on that score in his first full day in office, and once confirmed, Attorney General Holder can bring that policy to fruition so that the Federal Government is more open to the American people.

I asked about anticrime initiatives, strengthening the Violence Against Women Act and defending the Voting Rights Act. On all these matters he was straightforward and supportive. I look forward to working with him to provide greater Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement and to aggressively target fraud and public corruption. He said that his priorities will be the safety and security of the American people and reinvigorating the traditional work of the Justice Department in protecting the rights of Americans.

Mr. Holder has had a long and distinguished career in public service. His willingness to leave a lucrative private law practice and forego extensive earnings in order to return to public service at a time when judges are leaving the Federal bench because of their salary constraints, is commendable.

We need an Attorney General, as Robert H. Jackson said 68 years ago, ``who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.'' That is the kind of man Eric Holder is, the kind of prosecutor Eric Holder always was, the kind of Attorney General he will be, and the kind of family person he is. I met his wife and his family and his wonderful children, and they show what a person he is. The next Attorney General will understand our moral and legal obligation to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans and to respect the human rights of all people.

It is important that the Justice Department have its senior leadership in place without delay. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the country and a key member of the national security team. With the Bush administration having devoted billions to bailouts in the last few months, we need to ensure that those resources are not diverted by fraud or deceit. We need the Justice Department to be at its best.

The responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United States are too important to have had this appointment delayed by partisan bickering. We have known and worked with Mr. Holder for more than 20 years. He has been nominated by a Republican President and by a Democratic President and confirmed three times by the Senate to important positions over the last 20 years. His record of public service, his integrity, his experience and his commitment to the rule of law merit our respect and deserve our support.

Republicans over the last months sought to make comparisons to other confirmation hearings at other times, and even to those for lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. These comparisons are inappropriate. For example, the circumstances of the Ashcroft nomination were very different. The country at that time was deeply divided, and those divisions had been inflamed by the manner by which the Supreme Court had intervened to stop the counting of ballots in Florida and decide the outcome. Just before Christmas, President-elect Bush had further accentuated the divide by his polarizing designation of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. By contrast, we have just experienced the historic election of Barack Obama. President Obama has made numerous efforts already to be inclusive and to reach across the political aisle.

His selection of Eric Holder 2 months ago was greeted by nearly universal acclaim. The domestic and economic challenges to our country in recent years have been the most serious since the Great Depression. In recognition of those circumstances, Democrats expedited consideration of President Bush's nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General. Democrats scheduled a hearing quickly and did not hold the nomination over when it was scheduled for consideration. Those of us who were troubled by his unwillingness to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture voted no, but we were not dilatory. We did not play partisan political games.

My fundamental concern with President Bush's nomination of his White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was that he would not be independent of the White House. I did not oppose that nomination in a kneejerk, partisan reflex. Indeed, I initially hoped that he would be an improvement over the Ashcroft years. I met with Mr. Gonzales, raised the issue in my initial statement at his confirmation hearings and gave him opportunity after opportunity to demonstrate that he understood the role of the Attorney General. He did not. Ultimately I opposed that nomination. History proved me right. At the time, not a single Republican Senator was concerned. They all voted in favor of the Gonzales nomination. If that nomination met their standard for consideration, all of them must support Mr. Holder's nomination.

Unlike Mr. Gonzales, Eric Holder understands the responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United States, and the need to uphold the law and act in the interests of the American people, and not just the President. Unlike Mr. Ashcroft, he admitted past errors and has learned from his mistakes. Unlike Judge Mukasey, he recognizes that waterboarding is torture and that the legal opinions of the Bush era need to be reviewed and revised where they are found to be wrong. If an American were waterboarded by some government or terrorist anywhere in the world, it would be torture and illegal. It would not ``depend on the circumstances'' as the Bush Attorneys General maintained.

I recall the incident that Jane Mayer wrote about in her book ``The Dark Side.'' During a meeting of top White House officials like Vice President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice, the CIA Director and the Attorney General, in which they were hearing the details of what the Bush administration liked to call ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' Attorney General Ashcroft is quoted as warning: ``History will not judge us kindly.''

The Senate should proceed to confirm President Obama's nomination of Eric Holder without further delay. We must have leadership in place at the Justice Department to begin the vital work that must be done to carry out the Executive orders signed by President Obama last week that will finally put an end some of the Bush administration's most damaging national security policies. These orders call for the Attorney General to coordinate comprehensive interagency reviews of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility by the State Department, Director of National Intelligence, Homeland Security Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff and to chair task forces with the DNI and Department of Defense reviewing interrogation and detention policies. We need Mr. Holder in place as Attorney General to carry out these orders and put the government's detainee policies on a solid legal footing for the first time in many years.

I do not want another Attorney General who sits in the room while others in our Government approve the secret wiretapping of Americans in violation of our laws, or approve torture.

I want an Attorney General who stands up for the rule of law and our long-cherished American values. I believe Eric Holder will be that kind of Attorney General.

The rationales for holding up and opposing this nomination have shifted over time, since Karl Rove called for partisan opposition. Now it seems that some Republican Senators want the Nation's chief prosecutor to agree that he will turn a blind eye to possible lawbreaking before investigating whether it occurred. Senator Whitehouse is quite right that what Senator Cornyn and others are now asking for is a pledge no prosecutor should give. No Senator should demand such a bargain for his vote. Senators can vote in favor or they can ignore the needs of the country and the qualifications of the nominee and vote against, but no one should be seeking to trade a vote for such a pledge.

When he designated Mr. Holder, President Obama said:

The Attorney General serves the American people. And I have

every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold

the public trust, and adhere to our Constitution.

I have no doubt that Mr. Holder understands the serious responsibilities of the Attorney General of the United

States and that his experience and integrity will serve him and the American people well.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the list of 130 supporters of the nomination of Eric Holder that I mentioned earlier printed in the Record.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I was about to yield--we do our normal back and forth--to the Senator from Illinois. I understand the Senator from Oklahoma has a time constraint, if the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to yield time off his side to him.

Madam President, I know we proposed going with two on the Republican side and with two on the Democratic side. We will next go with Senator Burris and then Senator Dorgan.

I would note in this debate--and I apologize for my voice; I am recovering from laryngitis--that, one, the Justice Department is not the Department that handles the fairness doctrine. Out of fairness to Mr. Holder, that is not a matter that comes before the Attorney General.

Secondly, I asked Mr. Holder specifically a question about his views on the Second Amendment--because we do not have in Vermont the restrictive gun laws that the people in Oklahoma have supported or the restrictive gun laws the people of Texas or Pennsylvania have supported. We have less restrictive gun laws than any State in the Union. I own many firearms myself. I asked Mr. Holder specifically if he would, in a State without restrictive gun laws, such as Vermont, seek to replace those State laws with more restrictive Federal gun laws similar to those of the many other States represented on the Judiciary Committee, and he said no.

Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Next will be Senator Burris and then Senator Dorgan. I ask the Senator from North Dakota, Madam President, approximately how much time he wants.

I would seek to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois and 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, and then yield back time.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his excellent statement. I was touched by the fact that the Senator from Illinois mentioned he is at the desk once occupied by both Senator Paul Simon and Senator Barack Obama. I had the privilege of serving with both Senators from Illinois, both great people. I know it is safe to say that Senator Obama, now President Obama, will appreciate the statement made by Senator Burris today.

Having known Senator Paul Simon, I think it safe to say he also would have

been proud of the statement. Somewhere he is looking down and seeing this.

Last, it was my privilege as a young law student to be recruited by then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who made it very clear that the Justice Department was for all Americans and nobody, not even his brother, the President, would be allowed to interfere with criminal or civil rights prosecutions. I knew he meant it. I know the Senator from Illinois shares my feelings in that.

I welcome him to this body, and I thank him for his statement.

I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Madam President, I understand the Senator from Texas has a request to make.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but has the distinguished Senator from Texas left time for the ranking member if he wants it?

I see a nod of affirmation from the staff. Being one who understands that we Senators are merely constitutional necessities to the staff, Madam President, I have no objection to this with the understanding that we follow the usual comity of going from side to side.

Madam President, I know the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, the distinguished only Senator from Minnesota, seeks recognition, the newest member of the Judiciary Committee, an extraordinarily valued addition to the committee. We are especially happy whenever we have a former prosecutor come on the committee.

I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, point of inquiry. I certainly don't want to interfere with the Senator from Kentucky, but I think Senator Cornyn had locked in a specific amount of time for the Senator from Kentucky; am I correct?

Mr. President, seeing the Senator from California on the floor, how much time would the Senator wish to have?

Mr. President, I yield the distinguished senior Senator from California 10 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the Republican side, and how much time is remaining on the Democratic side?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I do not see any Republicans in the Chamber, although it would be their turn to speak next on this confirmation. While we are waiting, I will mention a couple things, and do this on the Democratic time.

There has been a lot of criticism of pardons and clemencies that former President Clinton granted. I would note that it was not Eric Holder who granted any of these clemencies or pardons. It was President Clinton.

Now, I know for the last 8 years, certainly while the Republicans were in charge, we would have one hearing, one investigation after another about the Clinton years, and it seemed to be kind of on automatic pilot. I heard a lot of outrage on the Republican side about pardons granted by President Clinton, and I shared my disappointment in some of those. I have heard them say people should have spoken out immediately. Well, many of us did.

But I was not able to find a single one who spoke out showing any outrage a few months ago when Republican President Bush gave a pass to Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff, who commuted his prison sentence a very short time before he was about to begin that sentence. That was an extraordinarily serious case that involved leaking the name of a covert CIA operative for a political purpose, and the decision to communicate that leak was made by President Bush, despite objections from the prosecutor, despite objections from the victim, and despite objections from the public. I do not recall any Republicans objecting to President Bush's decision.

Now, they say they are objecting to something President Clinton did. I do not want to suggest in any way that the objections are partisan, but they certainly are not consistent.

I know Republicans set the standard as to who should be Attorney General. They voted unanimously for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Afterwards, many quietly talked to the White House about getting rid of Attorney General Gonzales because he was not up to par, but they were not going to vote against him. Now we have somebody far more qualified, and the Republicans talk about voting against him.

On the subject of the FALN, I should not that we have already had many hearings on this issue. I, for one, was critical of the commutations made by President Clinton, but let's look at the record and let's look at the facts. As Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Holder had no final decision-making power to grant clemency or pardons. Mr. Holder's memo to the White House made no recommendation on clemency for the prisoners. It simply provided the analysis that is expected to be provided to the White House with multiple options for each prisoner. None of the FALN members offered clemency by President Clinton were present when individuals were killed or injured. The prisoners who were offered clemency were released under strict supervision by Federal probation authorities. None have caused any future harm. The only ones who were given clemency were

those who announced their willingness to renounce violence and had already served from 17 to 19 years. This was not a get-out-of-jail free card.

The clemency provided by President Clinton was supported by various Members of Congress; numerous religious, human rights, labor, Hispanic, civic and community groups; as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and other Nobel prize recipients. I would note that many of the law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officials who were critical of the FALN clemencies given by former President Clinton are the same prosecutors who had prosecuted those cases and who came forward and strongly and unequivocally endorsed Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States.

So we can talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and set up double standards. The fact is, the people most knowledgeable about what happened argued in favor of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

On the Republican time?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I appreciate his support. I understood there were going to be other Senators from this side coming to speak. I note that the time is running, and they will lose their time if they do not come to speak soon. I also add, while we are waiting, that I have had a special and significant interest in the Department of Justice from the time I was a law student. I watched so many attorneys general who have served at the Justice Department, some have been very good, but many have not. There is nobody--certainly, since I have been old enough to vote--who has been Attorney General with the potential to be as great an Attorney General as Eric Holder.

Like others in the Senate, I supported him when President Reagan nominated him for a judgeship, and he was unanimously confirmed. With many others in the Senate, I supported him when he was nominated to be a U.S. Attorney. He was unanimously confirmed. I also supported him when he was nominated to be Deputy Attorney General and for weeks he was held up on the floor by an anonymous hold. For some reason, there was an anonymous hold against Eric Holder. When that hold was finally lifted, lo and behold, nobody voted against him. He was again unanimously confirmed.

I see the distinguished Senator from Maryland, one of the most valuable members of the Judiciary Committee, on the floor of the Senate. How much time would the Senator like?

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I have no objection, but it will have to come from the Republican side, of course.

Mr. President, I was withholding saying anything because I thought there were other Republicans coming to speak. I see none.

During the three different times I have been chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have presided over the confirmations of three Attorneys General. In my 35 years in the Senate, I have voted on many more. No nomination for Attorney General has filled me with greater pride than this one, and it is time for the Senate to complete its consideration of President Obama's historic nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States.

In an article I co-authored with the Judiciary Committee ranking member, Senator Specter, before last November's election, we wrote--and we were writing to whomever would be President:

The Attorney General's duty is to uphold the Constitution

and the rule of law, not to circumvent them.

We wrote further:

The President and the American people are best served by an

Attorney General who gives sound advice and takes responsible

action, rather than one who develops legalistic loopholes to

serve the partisan ends of a particular administration.

We could not have made that job description better for anyone than Eric Holder. That is what kind of an Attorney General he will be.

It was seven score and four years ago that this Nation answered the fundamental question President Lincoln posed in his Gettysburg Address, and the world learned that liberty, equality, and democracy could serve as the foundation for this great and united Nation.

The American people have had cause and occasion to reflect during the past several weeks about our great country. The inauguration of our new President was two weeks ago tomorrow, and two

weeks ago today was the holiday our country has set aside to celebrate and rededicate ourselves to the cause of freedom and equality.

Three and a half weeks ago, the day of Mr. Holder's hearing, was the 80th anniversary of the birthday of the extraordinary man for whom that holiday is named. With this confirmation, we take another step up the path toward the time Dr. King foresaw when people are judged by the content of their character. Eric Holder has the character to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. He passes any fair confirmation standard.

America's diversity when drawn together is the source of our Nation's strength and resilience. Americans have to be able to trust their Justice Department. That trust must not be squandered or taken for granted. We need leaders who are prepared to take up the laboring oars of a Justice Department whose dedicated law enforcement professionals have been misused and even demoralized. Eric Holder is such a leader.

With this confirmation, we mark the distance from when an Attorney General of the United States did not believe that the Constitution of the United States allowed an African American to be considered a citizen of the United States to an Attorney General who knows that the Constitution is our country's great charter of freedom and equality for all people.

It was former Attorney General, Roger Taney, who wrote the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision denying the humanity of slaves, former slaves, and free people. It is perhaps the worst legal opinion ever rendered in this country. That is not what the Constitution said, and it is not the promise of America.

Today, each one of us, acting pursuant to our constitutional responsibilities as U.S. Senators, can, by our votes and by the overwhelming endorsement of this institution for this nomination, demonstrate how far we have come as a nation.

The election of Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the President's nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States provide an historic opportunity for the country to move beyond the partisanship of the past decades. We can make a real difference if we come together to solve the Nation's problems, protect against serious threats, and meet the challenge of our time.

Let us honor the wishes of the American people who in November broke through debilitating divisions to join together in record numbers. Let us acknowledge that our inspirational new President has moved forward promptly to assemble an extraordinarily well-qualified and diverse group of Cabinet officers and advisers. And let us move away from petty partisanship in order to serve the greater good.

Of course, any Senator is free to oppose a nomination and vote against confirmation. In this instance, I think they will be on the wrong side of history. I believe that when we take a step back and look at the big picture and the best interests of the country, Eric Holder is someone who deserves our support and merits our votes. In order to serve effectively as Attorney General he will also need our help. The challenges are too great not to join together to confirm Mr. Holder and proceed promptly to consider the entire Justice Department leadership team that President Obama has selected.

I urge all Senators to join together to do what is right and approve this extraordinary public servant to the critical post for which President Obama has nominated him. Go on the right side of history and vote for Eric H. Holder, Jr. to be the 82nd Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator wants to use the rest of the Republican time; is that what you meant?

How much time remains on both sides, Mr. President?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I intend to use the rest of my time. If you want another minute or two, I will give you two minutes of my time, but then I intend to use the rest of it.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

How much time remains for the Republicans?

Would the Senator like 2 minutes of my remaining time?

Mr. President, I have a feeling we are all going to be spending hours talking about the stimulus package. Right now, I am more concerned to talk about the Holder nomination.

I have heard a great deal about the second amendment. I couldn't help but think during the hearing, when he was asked about the second amendment and how he would support the rights of those who are gun owners, and I looked down at some of those asking from the different States. I looked at the States that are represented on the Senate Judiciary Committee--Wisconsin, California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Utah, Iowa, Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, and Oklahoma, as well as the State of Vermont. There is only one of those States that does not have restrictive gun laws--the State of Vermont. We do not have any gun laws in effect, except during hunting season. We limit the number of rounds you might have in your semiautomatic during deer season. It is supposed to give the deer a chance. Anyone who wanted to carry a loaded concealed weapon without a permit in the State of Vermont, the distinguished Senator from Virginia or anyone else, could.

I mention that only because several of the Senators who have come from States with very restrictive gun laws went after Eric Holder on gun laws. So I asked him: ``Would you, as Attorney General, support legislation that would require Vermont to change its gun laws?'' And thus make Vermont as restrictive as these Senators who were giving him grief on his support of the second amendment. He said: Absolutely not. I asked him if there was any question whether he would steadfastly protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to purchase, transport, and use guns. He said he would. I asked if he would follow the law, including the Supreme Court decision in the recent case in the District of Columbia versus Heller. He said, of course he would follow the law.

I mention that because I put into the Record already 130 or more organizations. Every single law enforcement organization of any significance in this country is supporting Eric Holder. Civil rights groups are supporting Eric Holder. Past prosecutors, including those of the Bush and Reagan administrations, have supported Eric Holder. Current prosecutors, the members of the immediate past President, President Bush's administration, have endorsed him.

I say this because I think we are seeing straw men put up here--straw men who are saying they do not want Eric Holder as Attorney General; yet these same people voted unanimously for Alberto Gonzalez, an Attorney General who left in disgrace.

This man restores the lustre of the Department of Justice. This man will be as independent as the Attorney General I talked with in his office when I was a young law student and we were talking about what it would be like to come to the Department of Justice. I asked that Attorney General if he would allow anybody in the White House, up to and including the President, to interfere with any criminal prosecution or civil rights prosecution. He said absolutely not, and I have told the President that. That Attorney General I was talking with was Robert F. Kennedy. He was talking about his brother John F. Kennedy. And when it came time to prosecute a man who had been critical to his brother's election as President of the United States, Robert Kennedy prosecuted him.

I left as a young law student, tempted to stay in Washington, but my wife Marcelle and I went back to Vermont, where we were both born and where we wanted to be. But I have never forgotten that discussion with Attorney General Kennedy. That has been the touchstone for me. I don't want another Attorney General who sits in the room while others in our government approve secretly wiretapping Americans in violation of our law, or engaging in torture. I want an attorney who stands up for the rule of law and our long cherished American values.

That is the kind of Attorney General Eric Holder would be. Come on the right side of history. Come on the right side of history. Reject what we saw in the past. Vote for Eric Holder.

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

I thank all my colleagues who took part in this debate over the past several weeks. It is a historic nomination. And of the last four--I have to check back--the last four attorneys general, Eric Holder had the largest ``aye'' vote of any of them.

I think it is a good sign for the country. It is a good sign for the Department of Justice. And this former prosecutor is very happy.

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

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. At a time when our country is moving in a new direction, it is fitting that we are considering this important measure among the first bills considered this Congress. I believe the extension of CHIP will stand out as one of the great accomplishments of this body. By passing this legislation, we would state clearly that the health of children in this country is an issue too important to be dealt with as business as usual.

Last time the Senate considered an expansion of CHIP, the measure passed with bipartisan support and represented what can happen when members from both sides of the aisle come together to form a consensus. Unfortunately, providing health coverage for millions of kids was not a priority of our former President and he vetoed the measure. By standing in the way of this legislation, nearly 4 million children have had to wait to receive critical health coverage. With families struggling more than ever to make ends meet, passing this legislation is essential to protecting our Nation's children.

This legislation is a matter of priorities, and I see no more important issue than caring for our kids. Regrettably, there are some who remain opposed to this legislation. I have heard some argue that this bill should be opposed because it raises taxes. Anyone who opposes the bill on these grounds is choosing big tobacco over children's health.

Others have argued against including a provision that allows States to waive the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrant children. These children, who are lawful immigrants and who will eventually be U.S. citizens, already have the ability to receive CHIP services. Requiring kids to wait 5 years for health care is unconscionable and could create life-long consequences for children. I have heard some claim that allowing legal immigrant children to receive public health care services would violate the conditions on which they entered the United States. This argument is contrary to the position taken by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which does not believe an immigrant's use of health care services such as Medicaid and SCHIP constitutes a violation of these conditions. An immigrant can only become a public charge if they receive direct

cash benefits, such as welfare, for their income. Health benefits are expressly removed from this category. During hard economic times, we should give states the ability to remove the restrictive barriers for legal immigrant children and allow them to receive critical health care services. Investing in early health care for all children is sound policy.

I support this bill because I believe it is a travesty that in the richest, most powerful, country in the world, there are more than 47 million people without health insurance. That is an absolutely shocking number. It represents roughly one in six people who are going without regular trips to the doctor, forgoing needed medications and are forced to use the emergency room for care because they have no where else to turn. These are our friends, our neighbors, and millions of our children.

The legislation before us will extend and renew health care coverage for over 10 million children. After years of increases to the number of uninsured in this country, this is a solid step in the right direction. Our recent economic crisis has left more Americans jobless and without health coverage for themselves and their family members. No one is arguing that this bill is the solution to our health care crisis, but this bill represents significant progress. It covers 4 million more kids and represents the first important step to begin reforming our health care system.

In my home State of Vermont, we have been a national leader on children's health care. Even before the creation of CHIP, we knew that this was the right thing to do. Because of our early action, Vermont has one of the lowest rates for uninsured kids in the country. This bill will get us even closer to the goal of covering the thousands of eligible kids in our State who remain uninsured. Further, the provisions in this bill will reverse the Bush administration policies to cut kids off the program and will ensure that thousands of Vermont kids will still have health care.

We are faced with many choices here in the Senate. When it comes to our Nation's kids, the choice is clear. This is a must-pass bill that takes important steps to cover all children who deserve to have every opportunity to lead a healthy and productive life. I urge all my colleagues to stand with the children and support this bill.

Mr. President, I have listened to the debate on the amendment offered by Senator Martinez to reverse President Obama's decision to overturn the Mexico City policy. I have been struck by the statements of proponents of the amendment that the President's action means Federal funds will now be used for abortions overseas. That is nothing more than a scare tactic and a flagrant misrepresentation of fact.

As those who make such statements know well, U.S. law has banned the use of Federal funds for abortion overseas for more than 30 years and that is the law today. Most recently, it can be found in title III of the fiscal year 2008 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, should they choose to refresh their memories. Whether or not the Martinez amendment passes, no U.S. funds are available for abortion, even in countries where, like the U.S., abortion is legal.

The irony of this debate is that the Martinez amendment would prevent funding to private organizations that, thanks to the President's action, would be eligible to receive U.S. funds for contraceptives which prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Yet they claim that unless we pass the Martinez amendment the number of abortions will increase. It is a counterintuitive, disingenuous argument that has been consistently proven to be false. The facts are indisputable. Where family planning services are available, the number of abortions declines.

Another false claim by proponents is that unless we pass this amendment U.S. funds will be used to support coercive family planning policies in China. They know that is not true. The Mexico City policy has nothing to do with coercion, pro or con. Another provision, also in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, provides the President with the authority to prohibit funds to any organization that supports coercion. And the law explicitly prohibits the use of U.S. family planning funds in China. The President's action reversing the Mexico City policy does not change that.

We all want the number of abortions to decline. But one would hope that even as we disagree on how best to achieve that, those who oppose the President's decision would stick to the facts and not try to distort or misrepresent U.S. law.

The Mexico City policy is discriminatory, it would be unconstitutional in our own country, it would deny women in poor countries access to family planning services, and it would increase unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The amendment should be defeated.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 75

Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

I understood from my earlier conversation with the distinguished majority leader, and also a conversation with the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, that once we finish this tomorrow--because of the real need to get somebody in our top law enforcement office, which is a privileged matter--that we would go to the nomination of Eric Holder tomorrow, even if it requires tomorrow evening, and go for a vote. I note he passed after a lengthy time. He has been waiting much longer than the past three Attorneys General did, from the time he was announced to the time he got out of the committee. He passed the committee by 17 to 2 today.

I had understood and actually told Mr. Holder and others, based on my conversation with the distinguished leader, that we would go to Mr. Holder tomorrow once this bill was finished.

Mr. President, if I might respond to the distinguished majority leader, my friend from Nevada, if somebody wants to vote against Mr. Holder, let him speak and vote against him. But I do not know, if there are only one or two people who want to hold him up, why should we have to hold it up? We do not have an Attorney General now. We aren't able to put in all the other spots. It is the premier law enforcement office in this country. I would hate to think, over the weekend, we had some major law enforcement crisis. I hope that with a person who has been endorsed by every single law enforcement agency across the spectrum in this country, we could go to him sooner. I am happy to be here Friday. I am happy to be here Saturday if that is what it takes to vote.

I hear the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I was supposed to lead a delegation to Davos, the World Economic Summit. I have canceled that. I am prepared to go. Obviously, the leader is the one who could bring up a privileged matter. I find it very frustrating we are not going to go forward.

Mr. President, obviously the leader could bring it up any time. If he wants to do it differently than we had discussed earlier, that is his option. I am disappointed.

Amendment No. 77