Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue, for his dedication to this cause, his perseverance and persistence in support of democracy.

This resolution, in fact, is all about democracy in a land that has been deprived of it for far too long. Unless Americans think this cause of democracy is far removed and inconsequential to their lives, Americans know elections have consequences. In this instance, the consequences have ramifications across the world because it is

the authoritarian, undemocratic regime of Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons without regard to the well-being of its people.

If it does not answer to its people, if it is undemocratic and authoritarian, it can continue to pursue this nonsensical, thoughtless, lawless course of seeking to arm itself with nuclear weapons. That is bad not only for the Iranian people but for the American people and for the people of the world.

I rise today in support of the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution calling for free and fair elections in Iran and condemning the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its ongoing violation of human rights.

On June 14, Iran will hold what looks to be yet another round of elections that are not fair, not free, and certainly not democratic--a sham, a charade that demeans even the pretense of democracy. On June 14 Iranians will elect a new president, but they will do so in an environment filled with systematic fraud and manipulation. They will be faced with a ballot hand-selected by the Supreme Leader, because he and his aides have prohibited literally hundreds of candidates from running. They have accepted only eight candidates for this election.

They are doing so in a country with severe restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly and without media freedom. We ought to note and, as my colleague Senator Hoeven says so well, remind the world that the real power in Iran continues to rest with the Supreme Leader who controls foreign policy and defense and can veto any decision made by the President or the Parliament. The Supreme Leader has been in power since 1989. He has never been subject to an election or popular referendum of any kind. That is why Senator Hoeven and I are again offering this resolution supporting political reform and freedom in Iran, and strongly siding with the Iranian people on behalf of the American people in the struggle for democracy. I thank Senator Hoeven and so many of my colleagues who worked with us before when we sponsored a similar resolution last year condemning the 2012 elections which were neither free nor fair.

We rise again to speak this truth to power. The Iranian people are denied basic and fundamental universal human rights and continue to suffer a repressive leadership that denies the validity of their views. As a global leader on human rights and a beacon to the world on democratic values, this body has an obligation to stand with the people of Iran and demand accountability from their leaders.

Other countries around the world are struggling for democracy, and our ally in the Middle East, Israel, exemplifies it as a shining model. I am reminded of how many people in that region are denied rights and freedoms. But we should reaffirm at every opportunity our commitment to democracy and urge the Iranian Government to hold free elections, end arbitrary detentions, stop harassing people who fight for basic rights and freedoms, and reform their political process.

I also want to commend President Obama for tightening sanctions on Iran's currency and auto industry, which should prevent the government from procuring some equipment used in nuclear programs. I support continuing efforts to show Iran that we are serious when we say they must halt their nuclear weapons development program. People look to the United States for democracy and freedom. They watch what we do and what we say on this floor of the greatest deliberative body in the world.

We must be unequivocal and remind the world how important it is to stand with the people of Iran, which is what the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution does. I thank again my colleague Senator Hoeven.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for her excellent work on the amendment she is offering which takes to another level the fight against tobacco addiction that has so plagued this country. She has been such a champion of the victims of nicotine and tobacco addiction. Her work certainly has been a model for many of us who have been involved in this fight.

(The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 1041 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will, in fact, but I want to first discuss the resolution that now for the third time essentially has been brought to this body, and I am here to speak and object for a third time but not out of disagreement with the basic goal that has been well articulated by my friend from Pennsylvania.

I think I am quoting him directly from his remarks just now in saying that the goal is to do a lot more to ensure that the laws violated by Kermit Gosnell are vigorously enforced. I am here to say, yes, let's condemn the kinds of practices that resulted in the conviction of Kermit Gosnell and his sentence, in effect, to life in prison. Let's do more to ensure that laws are vigorously enforced that protect innocent patients in any setting, whether it is a doctor's office, a hospital, or a nursing home; whether it is by a nurse, a doctor, or another kind of caregiver, or by a vicious, conscienceless practitioner like Kermit Gosnell.

Let's stop this kind of despicable medical conduct even if it may be only a tiny fraction of all the caregiving that occurs in the United States by an even tinier fraction of a great and noble profession, by extraordinarily experienced and expert members of our medical profession.

We need to talk about all of the kinds of malpractice and criminal misconduct that can cause death or injury or the threat of death or injury.

We ought to be equally outraged by the doctors and the nurses in States such as, for example, hospitals and nursing homes in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania--in 2006, a nurse was sentenced to multiple life sentences for

killing at least 29 patients by intentionally overdosing them with medication. There was simply no justification for those actions, and they are equally as heinous and unforgivable as the crimes that resulted in the conviction of Kermit Gosnell.

We need to talk about the nurse who was charged with killing 10 patients in a hospital in Texas by injecting them with a medication to stop their breathing. She pleaded no contest and is now serving life in prison.

I want this body to adopt a resolution that addresses those kinds of lapses in basic decency, ethics, and morality, as well as law.

We ought to be talking about the doctor who worked in hospitals in seven States--New Hampshire, Kansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Georgia--and exposed almost 8,000 patients to hepatitis C. He knowingly injected patients with his own infected blood and exposed them to a life-threatening disease.

The resolution I am going to ask this body to adopt speaks to those violations of trust, decency, and law.

In this place, I have talked about other similar violations--the Oklahoma dentist who exposed as many as 7,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis B and C through unsanitary practices. In Nevada, practitioners at an endoscopy center exposed 40,000 patients to hepatitis C through their unsanitary practices, and it went on for years.

My resolution speaks to those basic violations of trust and morality.

Kermit Gosnell's case has run its course. Our criminal justice system has done its work.

I have a resolution, and I ask unanimous consent that it be adopted.

I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 134 and that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the Blumenthal amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I object to the resolution offered by my colleague from Pennsylvania and ask him and my colleagues to join me in support of this alternative resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Crime Victims Rights Act of 2013. There are 26,000 victims of sexual assault in the military every year; at least last year there were that number estimated. But only a fraction, some 3,000-plus, were reported.

This measure encourages more accurate and complete reporting of all kinds, by guaranteeing all victims of crimes in the military the basic rights that victims have in civilian courts under current law. These rights are not a matter of discretion, they are a legal right that victims of crimes in our Federal courts enjoy. My proposal is essentially to apply these same rights, guarantee them, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice fails to afford these basic rights. They are rights of decency and fairness to crime victims. It requires many of these victims to endure humiliating and insulting obstacles in their quest for justice, so it naturally discourages them from coming forward and reporting these acts, most especially the act of sexual assault.

Those rights that I believe should be applied under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are, for example, the right to protection from the accused, notice and opportunity to speak at trial, the right against unreasonable delay in trial proceedings. Those are a few of the rights that would be guaranteed. They are standards of decency and fairness that are essential to effective prosecution and the goals of good order and discipline in the military.

These fundamental rights are well-established in the civilian courts and well-esteemed by prosecutors and defendants as well as the victims, because they enable the justice system to function more fairly and effectively. Few would imagine going into a civilian court in a criminal trial without the statutory right to be protected from the accused, protection against physical threats or intimidation. Few would imagine going into a civilian court and being denied the right to appear and to speak when one's history, one's personal and sexual history is an issue in the trial. Few would imagine the denial of a right to be heard in the course of sentencing. Few would imagine unreasonable delay and permission for the accused to actually leave the country and be unavailable for the trial and thereby have that unreasonable delay. Yet in the military court, these events are routine and expected. This bill would correct that failing.

There is no reason military sexual assault victims should be given less respect or fewer rights than civilian victims of the same offense. The key to deterring crime is prosecuting and punishing it effectively, which requires reporting by victims. More than reporting, it requires cooperation. We know for a fact that victims denied rights and respect will simply not report sexual assault in the military. They fear retaliation and discouragement of many kinds in reporting serious crimes of all kinds. If sexual assault is not reported, it cannot be prosecuted. If it is not prosecuted, it certainly cannot be punished or deterred.

I became involved in this issue of victims rights in the military because of a constituent who came forward to me. I became involved in her case because she was denied basic justice. Her case was delayed. She was a victim of sexual assault in the apartment of an officer stationed in Rhode Island. She never had the opportunity to speak in court in a timely way. Her credibility was directly put at issue. She had no opportunity to rebut, in effect, the charges

brought against her. So often the victim is the one on trial. So often she or he is forced to relive that brutal, vicious predatory act of criminal conduct simply to bring charges and seek justice.

She is seeking justice not only on her own behalf but on behalf of the Nation, because it is clearly the experience, as proven by solid evidence, that a sexual offender repeats that offense. The rate of recidivism is higher for sexual offenses than any other kind of crime.

Last year I requested that the Department of Defense investigate both their failures to afford victims the right to be heard during public proceedings and victims' rights to be free from unreasonable delay and the lack of remedies available to victims. The report I received as a result of that request explained, in February, that the Department of Defense does not include the full list of crime victims rights in its directive because it references a repealed statute, one from 1990, rather than the more recent one passed by Congress, the United States Justice for All Act of 2004.

That is why still today our military services, each of them, is operating on out-of-date and inadequate victim protection. The reason is not military necessity; it is simply ignoring the law that exists right now in spirit if not in letter. My bill would correct the letter of the law to guarantee these rights.

I appreciate the investigation conducted by the Department of Defense General Counsel Robert Taylor and the military's commitment to revising their out-of-date directives and instructions, but we need a statutory remedy now, so people whose rights are violated will have a remedy, so they will have a recourse and relief when their rights are violated.

This victims bill of rights has proved feasible and effective in the civilian justice proceedings involving the very same offenses.

The rights are not novel or untested, they are well established and esteemed.

I ask today for support from my colleagues in passing this measure. It is a basic, commonsense measure. It requires a military judge--just like their civilian counterparts--to take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's rights right away. It requires an ombudsman within the Department of Defense just like the ombudsman for crime victims' rights in the Department of Justice. It requires training for judge advocates and other appropriate members of the Armed Forces and personnel of the Department to assist them in responding more effectively to the needs of victims' rights. It requires trial counsel in a military case to advise the victim that he or she can seek the advice of their own attorney with respect to these rights.

We have an opportunity and an obligation to stand for those who stand for us and defend us, and I refuse to disappoint them. I look forward to working on enacting this proposal with my colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. military. And I would welcome the views of the response systems panel established by Congress when they have views they wish to impart.

We have the best and strongest military force in the history of the world, in the history of our Nation. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military justice system worthy of their excellence.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Crime Victims Rights Act of 2013. There are 26,000 victims of sexual assault in the military every year; at least last year there were that number estimated. But only a fraction, some 3,000-plus, were reported.

This measure encourages more accurate and complete reporting of all kinds, by guaranteeing all victims of crimes in the military the basic rights that victims have in civilian courts under current law. These rights are not a matter of discretion, they are a legal right that victims of crimes in our Federal courts enjoy. My proposal is essentially to apply these same rights, guarantee them, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice fails to afford these basic rights. They are rights of decency and fairness to crime victims. It requires many of these victims to endure humiliating and insulting obstacles in their quest for justice, so it naturally discourages them from coming forward and reporting these acts, most especially the act of sexual assault.

Those rights that I believe should be applied under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are, for example, the right to protection from the accused, notice and opportunity to speak at trial, the right against unreasonable delay in trial proceedings. Those are a few of the rights that would be guaranteed. They are standards of decency and fairness that are essential to effective prosecution and the goals of good order and discipline in the military.

These fundamental rights are well-established in the civilian courts and well-esteemed by prosecutors and defendants as well as the victims, because they enable the justice system to function more fairly and effectively. Few would imagine going into a civilian court in a criminal trial without the statutory right to be protected from the accused, protection against physical threats or intimidation. Few would imagine going into a civilian court and being denied the right to appear and to speak when one's history, one's personal and sexual history is an issue in the trial. Few would imagine the denial of a right to be heard in the course of sentencing. Few would imagine unreasonable delay and permission for the accused to actually leave the country and be unavailable for the trial and thereby have that unreasonable delay. Yet in the military court, these events are routine and expected. This bill would correct that failing.

There is no reason military sexual assault victims should be given less respect or fewer rights than civilian victims of the same offense. The key to deterring crime is prosecuting and punishing it effectively, which requires reporting by victims. More than reporting, it requires cooperation. We know for a fact that victims denied rights and respect will simply not report sexual assault in the military. They fear retaliation and discouragement of many kinds in reporting serious crimes of all kinds. If sexual assault is not reported, it cannot be prosecuted. If it is not prosecuted, it certainly cannot be punished or deterred.

I became involved in this issue of victims rights in the military because of a constituent who came forward to me. I became involved in her case because she was denied basic justice. Her case was delayed. She was a victim of sexual assault in the apartment of an officer stationed in Rhode Island. She never had the opportunity to speak in court in a timely way. Her credibility was directly put at issue. She had no opportunity to rebut, in effect, the charges

brought against her. So often the victim is the one on trial. So often she or he is forced to relive that brutal, vicious predatory act of criminal conduct simply to bring charges and seek justice.

She is seeking justice not only on her own behalf but on behalf of the Nation, because it is clearly the experience, as proven by solid evidence, that a sexual offender repeats that offense. The rate of recidivism is higher for sexual offenses than any other kind of crime.

Last year I requested that the Department of Defense investigate both their failures to afford victims the right to be heard during public proceedings and victims' rights to be free from unreasonable delay and the lack of remedies available to victims. The report I received as a result of that request explained, in February, that the Department of Defense does not include the full list of crime victims rights in its directive because it references a repealed statute, one from 1990, rather than the more recent one passed by Congress, the United States Justice for All Act of 2004.

That is why still today our military services, each of them, is operating on out-of-date and inadequate victim protection. The reason is not military necessity; it is simply ignoring the law that exists right now in spirit if not in letter. My bill would correct the letter of the law to guarantee these rights.

I appreciate the investigation conducted by the Department of Defense General Counsel Robert Taylor and the military's commitment to revising their out-of-date directives and instructions, but we need a statutory remedy now, so people whose rights are violated will have a remedy, so they will have a recourse and relief when their rights are violated.

This victims bill of rights has proved feasible and effective in the civilian justice proceedings involving the very same offenses.

The rights are not novel or untested, they are well established and esteemed.

I ask today for support from my colleagues in passing this measure. It is a basic, commonsense measure. It requires a military judge--just like their civilian counterparts--to take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's rights right away. It requires an ombudsman within the Department of Defense just like the ombudsman for crime victims' rights in the Department of Justice. It requires training for judge advocates and other appropriate members of the Armed Forces and personnel of the Department to assist them in responding more effectively to the needs of victims' rights. It requires trial counsel in a military case to advise the victim that he or she can seek the advice of their own attorney with respect to these rights.

We have an opportunity and an obligation to stand for those who stand for us and defend us, and I refuse to disappoint them. I look forward to working on enacting this proposal with my colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. military. And I would welcome the views of the response systems panel established by Congress when they have views they wish to impart.

We have the best and strongest military force in the history of the world, in the history of our Nation. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military justice system worthy of their excellence.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I have absolutely no objection.

Madam President, in the past couple of weeks we have seen some major encouraging efforts in the Senate to rid our military of sexual assault, to punish it more aggressively and effectively, to deter it, and to aid victims who may suffer from sexual assault-- victims of both sexes who may be survivors of this spreading scourge. Last year alone, an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact; only about 3,300 of them reported. So the key to more effective prosecution and deterrence is more reporting as well as swifter, surer punishment and a better program within the military to deal with it.

I will be proposing over the next few weeks additional measures. I have already cosponsored the Military Justice Improvement Act, a very important measure sponsored by our colleagues Senators Gillibrand and Collins that would transfer prosecuting and charging authority from military commanders to a separate, trained, experienced cadre of prosecutors in the military.

I have also cosponsored the Combating Sexual Assault in the Military Act proposed by my colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Ayotte; again, very important legislation providing special victims counseling to survivors or victims of sexual assault, and the Ruth Moore Act sponsored by my colleague Senator Tester, that provides aid for disabled veterans who suffer from this problem.

Today I rise to praise Secretary of Defense Hagel for his decision and his leadership in avoiding furloughs of any of the civilian sexual assault prevention personnel as a result of the sequester. As we know, the sequester has caused furloughs of many civilian employees at the Department of Defense as well as some similar personnel decisions across the Federal Government. I wish to say that all of us who are advocating this cause did express appreciation to our Secretary of Defense for his leadership as well as to the military leadership at all levels for their focus on this issue. These measures are good, their intention is commendable, but it is not yet enough, as many of them would acknowledge very candidly and have done so to all of us in the Senate who are interested in this issue.

We need to hire more civilians trained and qualified to help victims, not just avoid the furloughs of the advocates and sexual assault response coordinators we have in place right now, but to hire more of them.

I raise this issue because--and here is the statistic everyone should keep in mind--the U.S. Army has hired only 80 out of the 446 whom it should have in place right now among the sexual assault prevention personnel--80 out of 446.

Let me give a little bit of the history. At the end of 2011, Congress set in Public Law 112-81 that new requirements should be expanded in the provision of victims advocates and that they either be in uniform or civilian employees who have the proper training and qualifications to perform this important service. The Army announced in June of last year--almost a year ago--that it would have 829 victims advocates. Of those, 446 would be civilians. As a result, each brigade and equivalent-sized unit would be covered by a full-time victims advocate and below that level have the role of victims advocate performed as a collateral duty.

So I was troubled to hear in April of this year, just a couple months ago, when Secretary McHugh testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the Army's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program--known as SHARP--had hired only 63 of that number; in other words, 63 out of 446. I understand the most updated number is 80 out of 446.

These civilian sexual assault prevention personnel, very simply, are needed

today. The military and our leadership know that this problem is a scourge that is a direct threat to the good order and discipline of our military personnel. It has confronted this problem in many commendable ways. But hiring victims advocates and sexual assault response coordinators is vital to the effort. It is vital to encouraging both men and women victims to come forward and have the courage and strength to report these incidents when they occur.

These incidents are more than just disciplinary infractions. They are vicious, predatory criminal acts. They should be punished as vicious, predatory criminal acts. Victims of them need advocates and counselors to have that strength and courage to come forward and participate in the grueling and often painful process of supporting a successful prosecution. Without successful prosecutions, there can be no punishment, and successful prosecutions require witnesses and cooperation and support from the victim.

My hope is that the Army will swiftly stand up this force, that it will do more than just avoid furloughs, that it will, in fact, recruit actively and successfully. Other branches of our military service should also be asked: How are you doing in this process? And if you are doing better, what are the keys to your success?

All across the military there must be a robust SHARP program, Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program. It is a mouthful. It is a long term, but it stands for a program that must be successfully and carefully built and sustained.

I will be introducing legislation tomorrow focusing on victims' rights and what can be done to bolster not only the substance of those rights but the remedies to make those rights real.

For today, I say thank you to the Secretary of Defense for the step he has taken and hope we can count on additional steps to make these rights real, to guarantee successful prosecution, to make sure our military rules and remedies against sexual assault and abuse are worthy of the greatest, strongest, best military in the world, staffed by men and women second to none in their training and dedication. The system of military justice must be worthy of their service and sacrifice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this resolution and to thank our colleagues Senator Graham and Senator Menendez for their leadership and to thank them also for giving me the privilege of working with them over the last years on this vitally important national security issue. It is vital not just to the existence of Israel--it is an existential issue for Israel--but to the national security of the United States.

I believe Israel is a crucial ally of the United States and a successful democratic state in the Middle East. Recent turmoil in that region adds urgency and importance to ensuring that Israel remains a secure, stable, independent state.

This resolution is a reaffirmation of the readiness of the United States of America to assist Israel, our steadfast partner in the region, to thwart any measure of aggression made toward Israel by Iran.

It is also a reaffirmation of the policy long supported by this body--by our colleagues here, by all of us in a very personal and direct way--that we have the back of the President of the United States in his insisting on strong sanctions against Iran as long as it continues its development of a nuclear capability.

In the coming days, I will be introducing, along with my colleague the senior Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Hoeven, a resolution that calls for free and fair elections in Iran. Regardless of the outcome of these elections--and they are likely to be sham elections--we can't avoid the sad fact that Iran has maintained its course and commitment to nuclear development. The centrifuges are spinning, they are going, and more are brought online every day in this breakout for nuclear capacity. So we have to be wary of false signals of hope and remain vigilant in our constant effort to secure against Iran faithfully pursuing nuclear weapons.

Fruitless negotiations can't be our reason to call a halt to these sanctions. That can come only with compliance--verified compliance. We have to remain vigilant and remember that Iran has threatened to attack not only Israel but the United States. It has substantiated those words with attacks on our troops in Iraq and on American civilians visiting or living in Israel.

It is Israel who helps diffuse those threats from Hamas and Hezbollah and all who have targeted America. If Iran chooses to declare war on Israel, if it ignores the path of peace the international community has repeatedly laid down for it, they must know they do it at their peril.

The United States supports our strategic partner Israel, and that is why I support S. Res. 65, because it demonstrates our full, unyielding, unstinting support for Israel if the unthinkable and the avoidable happens.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember Jim McCusker of Clinton, CT. The State of Connecticut has lost a great public servant, former first selectman, and loyal Marine. Jim was an inspiring leader and model of public service, and I am grateful for our friendship. My heart goes out to Jim's wife, Judy, and their children and grandchildren, whom he loved tremendously. Countless friends, touched by his generosity and big heart, will also miss him deeply.

Jim will be remembered always for his lifelong dedication to the town and people of Clinton. As first selectman, he expertly managed the town budget and contributed tremendously in energy and spirit. He had a magnetic gift of connecting with his community and neighbors.

In addition to his leadership as first selectman, Jim spent more than a decade on both the Clinton Board of Finance and the Clinton Board of Selectmen. He was also involved with the Clinton Education Federation, Families Helping Families, Meals on Wheels, and St. Mary's Knights of Columbus.

In tribute to Jim's service to his country as a United States Marine, flags were hung at half staff. He was always there to give a smile and engage in earnest conversation. Jim loved to sing Irish songs on St. Patrick's Day. As a patriot and veteran, he will be particularly missed this Memorial Day. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring Jim McCusker's long-time, selfless service. Although missed, he will not be forgotten. Jim's sense of humor, warmth with others, and dedication to country will be felt throughout Clinton for years to come.

Mr. President, today I have the great privilege of presenting a poem in memory of LCpl Lawrence R. Philippon of West Hartford, CT, who gave his life 8 years ago this May while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom as a courageous member of the United States Marines. In the Marine Corps color guard, Lance Corporal Philippon carried the flag at the funeral for President Reagan, but yearned to be on the front lines. It was there, as a brave member of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine expeditionary force that he made the ultimate sacrifice for his country.

As Memorial Day nears, we dedicate ourselves in gratitude to our heroes--our servicemen and women, both recent and throughout history-- who have sacrificed and served for our freedom, protecting the founding principles we hold dear.

This special poem was written by Albert Carey Caswell, a longtime member

of the Capitol Guide Service, and prolific poet whose work has been recited many times on the Senate floor. It is a privilege to present Bert's touching piece, written in memory of Lance Corporal Philippon. I invite my colleagues to remember and honor Lance Corporal Philippon and all current and former members of the military, and their families, today and always.

This Is My Blood

This . . .

This Is My Blood,

that I so bled!

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wish to point out that the incident that led to this resolution--the Kermit Gosnell prosecution--indeed resulted in a successful prosecution. He was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. That case is closed. The criminal justice system has done its part, and the three life sentences without the possibility of parole means that the interests there--the very important public interests--will be served and he will never again harm women, infants or anyone else through his version of medical practice, that distorted and unfortunate betrayal of trust that he called a medical practice.

We need very much to focus on the kind of abuse of trust--unsanitary, abusive, unsafe medical practices--across this country, no matter what kind of procedure is involved, and that is the reason I think this resolution is too narrow in its focus on violations of the standard of medical care when they occur in medical practice, which most certainly was involved in the Gosnell case and involved, unfortunately, in thousands of cases across the country every year.

As Senators, we have a responsibility to focus on that betrayal of trust and care when it occurs. That is the reason I have offered a resolution--S. Res. 134--to express the sense of the Senate that all incidents of abusive, unsanitary, illegal, unhealthful medical practices should be condemned and prevented, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as Gosnell was.

There are, unfortunately, many instances already publicly disclosed of these abuses of standards, and one of them, for example, I cited on the floor just very recently--last week. I remind my colleagues of the Oklahoma dentist who exposed as many as 7,000 patients to the HIV and hepatitis B and C viruses through unsanitary practices. So far, 60 of his patients have tested positive for these viruses. Those are 60 people who trusted a health care provider in a position of authority to provide safe, quality care. Those patients now face life-threatening diseases. In Nevada, practitioners at an endoscopy center exposed 40,000 patients to hepatitis C through their unsanitary practices, which went on for years. My resolution speaks to these kinds of abuses--unsafe, unsanitary practices--no matter what the medical procedure involved may be. So I urge my colleagues to support my resolution, and I do object to the proposed resolution of the Senator from Utah.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 134, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the Blumenthal amendment to the preamble, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

If I may respond to my friend's remarks--and I certainly not only sympathize with his motivation but also with the result--I just think it is too narrow a result--to investigate one form of medical practice, no matter how egregious the violation of standard of care may be. In this instance, it involved murder. We can say it now, no longer with the word ``alleged'' before murder, as we did last week. It is now proven. It is heinous and unacceptable. But so are the practices that involve exposing patients to very severe illnesses; and, likewise, the nursing home director in California who inappropriately administered an antipsychotic medicine to residents simply for convenience and which resulted in the death of one patient. Those kinds of practices may be equally egregious in the results and impact they cause, and my resolution would be broader and more inclusive and fairer not only to those victims' families--and I want to express my sympathy to the families of those victims who were so deeply and irreparably harmed by Gosnell--but also with the families and victims of other kinds of medical malpractice and to respect the States that have an independent responsibility to ensure adherence with those standards of care and ought to have the ability to enforce their laws, which might be impeded by the resolution that has been offered by my friend from Utah.

Again, I renew my objection. Let me say, my two colleagues have made excellent closing arguments to the Gosnell jury. I would expect that to be the case since they are two well-trained, excellent lawyers. But the Gosnell case is over. It is done. He has been sentenced--or he will be shortly. These kinds of abuses ought to arouse outrage wherever and whenever they occur. Anytime, anywhere a doctor endangers a patient in violating standards of care, we ought to condemn them. So I urge my colleagues to join

me in the outrage I feel about the dentist in Oklahoma or the endoscopy center in Nevada or the nursing home director in California. In any case where prosecution is appropriate, an investigation should be done properly by State authorities who have jurisdiction, and they should condemn such practices. I ask them to join me in resolution S. 134.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 142, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m. on Thursday, May 16, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 91, the nomination of Ernest J. Moniz, under the previous order.

There will be a rollcall vote at approximately 2 p.m. on confirmation of the Moniz nomination.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Reserving the right to object, I will have a request with another resolution momentarily, but I understand the resolution of my friend from Utah. I believe this problem is broader than the one cited in his resolution. In fact, looking to the conduct of the Philadelphia instance, I would prosecute that case to the fullest extent of the law. I think the conduct--or, more correctly, misconduct--in that instance was absolutely despicable and abhorrent.

I am concerned about patient safety in a variety of areas. They may be a small fraction of the total number of health care cases in this country, but anytime, anywhere patients are endangered or threatened by criminal conduct or malpractice, people should be prosecuted and disciplined to the full extent of the law. These cases shock and horrify our sense of decency and we understand the responsibility of health care practitioners anywhere, anytime.

My resolution, which I intend to offer after the Senator from Utah concludes his, will call upon our colleagues to condemn these actions in all health care settings, whether clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, or dental offices across the country.

So with that, I object.

Mr. President, I wish to offer the resolution that I and Senator Boxer, who is a long-time champion of better health care for the citizens of our country, and Senator Shaheen, expressing the sense of the Senate that these practices will not be tolerated in any setting, regardless of personal beliefs about the type of health care being offered.

This resolution is broader than the resolution of the Senator from Utah. I understand and sympathize with the basic objectives which, as I understand it, are to improve health care generally and to make sure the kinds of abuses being prosecuted in Philadelphia will not occur anywhere in this country.

I offer my resolution calling on the Senate to condemn such practices in all health care settings, be they clinics or hospitals, dental offices, anywhere in this country. They may be a small fraction and, hopefully, are a very small fraction, of the kinds of cases we would want to condemn. But we should condemn them wherever they occur, not just in one instance, not just singling out one case, but everywhere, anytime.

I might add as a former U.S. attorney that while this case is before the jury, I think we need to be very careful about what we say in a public forum as respected as this one about the facts of that case and about potentially prejudging the result. My understanding is the jury has not yet come back. If the allegations are true--if the jury concludes they have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt--then the punishment should certainly be sufficiently severe and serious to fit those circumstances and well deserving of our condemnation. But equally deserving of our condemnation are any circumstances where health care patients are put in danger, where safety is in peril, where the consequences do damage, or threaten damage, to the recipients of health care. Whatever the kind of health care, whatever we may think of it personally in terms of the merits and the type of care provided, we ought to condemn it, and that is the purpose and sense of the resolution I am offering.

So if I may, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a Senate resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding all incidents of abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices be condemned--the text is at the desk; and I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Again, Mr. President, I accept and sympathize with the goals of the resolution offered by my friend from Utah. What I am suggesting is a resolution that includes those criminals who may be posing as health care practitioners in one field of practice but extends the condemnation to all areas of practice.

I hope Senator Lee, my friend from Utah, will share my outrage at reprehensible and illegal actions that occur, unfortunately and tragically, in other areas of practice. Let me mention a few.

We ought to speak about the tragedy at the Pennsylvania clinic, where these incidents occurred, but we also should talk about the Oklahoma dentist who exposed as many as 7,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis B and C through unsanitary practices. Thousands of his patients are being tested to see if they have been infected. So far 60 of his patients have tested positive for these viruses. That is 60 people who trusted their dentist, a health care provider in a position of trust and responsibility, relying on him to respect and care for them safely and responsibly, and, instead they are now facing potentially life- threatening diseases that are as abhorrent and despicable in the lack of responsibility and care as what happened in Pennsylvania. We ought to talk about that incident with the same outrage that we talk about what happened, allegedly, in Pennsylvania.

We ought to speak about the health care practitioners at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada who exposed 40,000 patients to hepatitis C through unsanitary practices. These unsanitary practices went on for years, and that is why this clinic may have hurt as many as 40,000 people. We are talking about 40,000 people, again, exposed to unnecessary danger because of the lack of trust and responsibility on the part of their health care provider.

We also ought to talk about the nursing director at Kern Valley nursing home in California who inappropriately medicated patients using antipsychotic drugs for her own convenience, resulting in the death of at least one patient.

We should be talking about the compounding pharmacies in Massachusetts and elsewhere in this country that provided products that killed and harmed thousands of people.

These incidents, as alleged, are willful violations of law, violations of human dignity and decency, that ought to shock the conscience of the Nation every bit to its core as much as the alleged misconduct and potential criminal activity in Pennsylvania.

These standards of care--or more appropriately and correctly, the violation of them--are simply unacceptable and intolerable, which is why my resolution would take as common ground the alleged Pennsylvania misconduct and include many other instances where standards of care-- basic standards of decency and trust--are violated. I ask my friend from Utah to join me in espousing a resolution that establishes this kind of common ground.

Thank you, Mr. President.