Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 454 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I wish to say as manager of my side of the aisle that we support this. We think both of these amendments are good amendments and that we ought to move forward. I appreciate very much the majority working with us to accomplish this goal. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, supporting what the chairman has just said, outside of the fact that there might be one or two controversial nongermane amendments to this legislation, we have to look at the underlying product. The underlying product is very bipartisan. Most economic interests within our country are supporting this patent reform legislation. Everybody agrees it is something that probably should have been passed a Congress ago. I join my Democratic manager and the chairman of the committee in urging Senators on my side of the aisle who have either germane amendments or nongermane amendments to come to the floor and offer them so the underlying piece of legislation can be passed and sent on to the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the serious problems of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Over the last 9 years, the Finance Committee has held more than 20 oversight hearings dealing with Medicare and Medicaid fraud. These hearings highlighted the flaws in how the Federal Government administers Medicare and Medicaid. They also stress the need to create disincentives for those who seek to defraud these vital programs. Every dollar lost to Medicare or Medicaid fraud is a dollar that is not available for beneficiaries. Of course, we ought to be very cognizant of that considering the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. In 2009, the Federal Government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379 billion on Medicaid. It is estimated that between $40 billion and $70 billion was lost to fraud that year. However, officials from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice announced last month that their health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered $4 billion in fraud. So compare that $4 billion with the $44 billion to $70 billion, and it means we still have a very long way to go. When it comes to public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it is clear the Federal Government needs to be more effective in combating waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Government has simply made it too easy for bad actors to steal from each of these programs. It says a lot when we hear that organized crime has moved into health care fraud because it is more lucrative than organized crime. Medicare and Medicaid also attract more criminals because the profits of fraud greatly outweigh the consequences if you get caught. Then there are those who don't even get caught. Taxpayer dollars should only go to bona fide providers and medical suppliers. But the reimbursement system is set up so that the Federal Government pays first and asks questions later. In other words, the system is based on a program we call the pay-and-chase system. Over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more authority to improve enforcement of fraud, waste, and abuse laws. During health care reform, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Many of these proposals are in the bill I introduced in the last Congress, S. 2964, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act, and many were even included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions did not draw opposition from either side of the aisle. Tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas where there is widespread agreement. But our work does not end with the passage of legislation. Congress needs to keep the pressure on Federal officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud. There is also more Congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the government's ability to fight this fraud. We need to ensure that phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers cannot simply bill Medicare millions of dollars in just a few months and then get out of town scot-free. Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to use the tools already available to them to make sure claims are legitimate before they are paid. But even with all of that, we must remain vigilant in our oversight efforts, which is the constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch of government, because tomorrow's criminals will find ways to get around the laws and regulations we put in place today. That is why I am introducing the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act of 2011. This bill contains the remaining proposals from S. 2964 that are necessary to enhance the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It builds on reforms we made in the last Congress. The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public similar to other Federal spending disclosed through www.USAspending .gov. This Web site lists almost all Federal spending, but it doesn't include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually every other government program, including even some defense spending, is more transparent, or responds to the citizens' right to know, than spending by the Medicare Program. So that differential between defense spending and most other government programs and what we allow the public to know about the Medicare tax dollars being spent is too big of a gap and one we should not tolerate anymore because a taxpayer dollar spent on Medicare isn't any different from the public's right to know about a taxpayer dollar spent on defense programs. Let's say even for this Senator, with my background in farming and participating in a family farm operation, the public can read in the newspapers of Iowa, as they can for every State, the amount of money a certain Senator--or I shouldn't say Senator--a certain farmer gets from the farm program. It is all taxpayers' dollars. In addition, this bill also goes on to create a national clearinghouse of information so that we can better detect, prevent, and thereby deter medical identity theft. This is about the Federal Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system. The bill would also change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay providers quickly regardless of the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Under current law, the government is required to make payments for what is called a clean claim within 14 to 30 days before interest accrues on the claim. That is not enough time for the limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if a claim is legitimate before a payment has to be made. The result is that this what we call prompt-payment rule requires that Medicare pay bad actors first and ask questions later, which leads to that pay-and-chase system I previously mentioned. So this bill would add to the tools Congress provided to the executive branch last year to prevent fraudulent payment on the front end. It would extend the time payments must be made if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines there is a likelihood of fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, the bill would expand the Health and Human Services inspector general's authority to exclude an individual from participating in the Federal health care program. I wish to give an example. The inspector general would be able to exclude an individual if the individual had ownership or control interests in an entity at the time the entity engaged in misconduct such as health care fraud. Now, I know that is common sense to the taxpayers of America, but it is not something the inspector general can do today. I still have other areas my bill addresses, and one is in the area of illegal, unapproved drugs. Just last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration is struggling to keep unapproved drugs off the market. It reported that ``in many cases, the agency doesn't even know what the drugs are or where they are.'' This is another example of how the Federal reimbursement system creates an incentive for bad actors to get around the rules. In this case, those rules are the Food and Drug Administration requirements for putting a drug on the market. Medicaid pays until the Food and Drug Administration identifies a drug or class of drugs as not approved for marketing and then takes formal action. Under such circumstances, the Federal Government doesn't even have the option to chase after the previous payments. My bill would stop such payments, unless the State Medicaid Programs first verify with the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is being legally marketed. Again, that may sound like common sense, but it is something that can't be done without a change in the law. The changes I am proposing would go a long way to deter those who would defraud our health care system. It also would provide greater protections to the taxpayers. Fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is vital to the sustainability of each program. My bill will help add to the reforms we passed last year. It will fix some of the blatant problems that incentivize and reward waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 100 million Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance. Right now, these programs, as we all know--every Member of the Senate knows and most of the public knows--these programs are on an unsustainable path. My bill takes necessary steps to move these programs toward sustainability. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help me by cosponsoring it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the serious problems of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Over the last 9 years, the Finance Committee has held more than 20 oversight hearings dealing with Medicare and Medicaid fraud. These hearings highlighted the flaws in how the Federal Government administers Medicare and Medicaid. They also stress the need to create disincentives for those who seek to defraud these vital programs. Every dollar lost to Medicare or Medicaid fraud is a dollar that is not available for beneficiaries. Of course, we ought to be very cognizant of that considering the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. In 2009, the Federal Government spent $502 billion on Medicare and $379 billion on Medicaid. It is estimated that between $40 billion and $70 billion was lost to fraud that year. However, officials from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice announced last month that their health care fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered $4 billion in fraud. So compare that $4 billion with the $44 billion to $70 billion, and it means we still have a very long way to go. When it comes to public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it is clear the Federal Government needs to be more effective in combating waste, fraud, and abuse. The Federal Government has simply made it too easy for bad actors to steal from each of these programs. It says a lot when we hear that organized crime has moved into health care fraud because it is more lucrative than organized crime. Medicare and Medicaid also attract more criminals because the profits of fraud greatly outweigh the consequences if you get caught. Then there are those who don't even get caught. Taxpayer dollars should only go to bona fide providers and medical suppliers. But the reimbursement system is set up so that the Federal Government pays first and asks questions later. In other words, the system is based on a program we call the pay-and-chase system. Over the years, Congress has given the executive branch more authority to improve enforcement of fraud, waste, and abuse laws. During health care reform, Senator Baucus and I developed a bipartisan set of legislative proposals to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Many of these proposals are in the bill I introduced in the last Congress, S. 2964, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act, and many were even included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions did not draw opposition from either side of the aisle. Tackling fraud, waste, and abuse in health care is one of the areas where there is widespread agreement. But our work does not end with the passage of legislation. Congress needs to keep the pressure on Federal officials to do everything possible to prevent and stop fraud. There is also more Congress must do in ways of reform to enhance the government's ability to fight this fraud. We need to ensure that phantom doctors, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers cannot simply bill Medicare millions of dollars in just a few months and then get out of town scot-free. Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services need to use the tools already available to them to make sure claims are legitimate before they are paid. But even with all of that, we must remain vigilant in our oversight efforts, which is the constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch of government, because tomorrow's criminals will find ways to get around the laws and regulations we put in place today. That is why I am introducing the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act of 2011. This bill contains the remaining proposals from S. 2964 that are necessary to enhance the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It builds on reforms we made in the last Congress. The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public similar to other Federal spending disclosed through www.USAspending .gov. This Web site lists almost all Federal spending, but it doesn't include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually every other government program, including even some defense spending, is more transparent, or responds to the citizens' right to know, than spending by the Medicare Program. So that differential between defense spending and most other government programs and what we allow the public to know about the Medicare tax dollars being spent is too big of a gap and one we should not tolerate anymore because a taxpayer dollar spent on Medicare isn't any different from the public's right to know about a taxpayer dollar spent on defense programs. Let's say even for this Senator, with my background in farming and participating in a family farm operation, the public can read in the newspapers of Iowa, as they can for every State, the amount of money a certain Senator--or I shouldn't say Senator--a certain farmer gets from the farm program. It is all taxpayers' dollars. In addition, this bill also goes on to create a national clearinghouse of information so that we can better detect, prevent, and thereby deter medical identity theft. This is about the Federal Government sharing information it already has in ways that protect the taxpayer and work against those defrauding the system. The bill would also change Federal laws that require Medicare to pay providers quickly regardless of the risks of fraud, waste, and abuse. Under current law, the government is required to make payments for what is called a clean claim within 14 to 30 days before interest accrues on the claim. That is not enough time for the limited number of Medicare auditors to determine if a claim is legitimate before a payment has to be made. The result is that this what we call prompt-payment rule requires that Medicare pay bad actors first and ask questions later, which leads to that pay-and-chase system I previously mentioned. So this bill would add to the tools Congress provided to the executive branch last year to prevent fraudulent payment on the front end. It would extend the time payments must be made if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines there is a likelihood of fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, the bill would expand the Health and Human Services inspector general's authority to exclude an individual from participating in the Federal health care program. I wish to give an example. The inspector general would be able to exclude an individual if the individual had ownership or control interests in an entity at the time the entity engaged in misconduct such as health care fraud. Now, I know that is common sense to the taxpayers of America, but it is not something the inspector general can do today. I still have other areas my bill addresses, and one is in the area of illegal, unapproved drugs. Just last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Food and Drug Administration is struggling to keep unapproved drugs off the market. It reported that ``in many cases, the agency doesn't even know what the drugs are or where they are.'' This is another example of how the Federal reimbursement system creates an incentive for bad actors to get around the rules. In this case, those rules are the Food and Drug Administration requirements for putting a drug on the market. Medicaid pays until the Food and Drug Administration identifies a drug or class of drugs as not approved for marketing and then takes formal action. Under such circumstances, the Federal Government doesn't even have the option to chase after the previous payments. My bill would stop such payments, unless the State Medicaid Programs first verify with the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is being legally marketed. Again, that may sound like common sense, but it is something that can't be done without a change in the law. The changes I am proposing would go a long way to deter those who would defraud our health care system. It also would provide greater protections to the taxpayers. Fighting fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid is vital to the sustainability of each program. My bill will help add to the reforms we passed last year. It will fix some of the blatant problems that incentivize and reward waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 100 million Americans rely on Medicare and Medicaid for health insurance. Right now, these programs, as we all know--every Member of the Senate knows and most of the public knows--these programs are on an unsustainable path. My bill takes necessary steps to move these programs toward sustainability. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help me by cosponsoring it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to express my strong support for Senator Coburn's proposal to end Patent and Trademark Office fee diversion. It is a commonsense, entrepreneur friendly solution to many of the problems plaguing the Patent and Trademark Office. Over the years, we have heard numerous complaints from constituents about the long time it takes the Patent and Trademark Office to review patent applications and render a final disposition. It is my understanding that in most cases, it takes almost 3 years for the Patent and Trademark Office to make a final decision on an application which can be costly to the applicant. We have also heard from Patent and Trademark Office officials about the difficulties that have arisen because of their lack of control over the agency's funding model. There are 1.2 million patent applications currently pending at the Patent and Trademark Office but not enough resources to tackle the workload. The patent application backlog situation, while improving, is still a significant problem. Senator Coburn's proposal strikes at the heart of both of these concerns by creating a revolving fund at the Treasury Department where patent and trademark fees that are paid to the Patent and Trademark Office are directly allocated back to the office. That way those funds can be utilized in a fashion most beneficial to inventors, small businesses, and academic institutions. At his confirmation hearing in 2009, Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos told the Judiciary Committee that one of the most immediate challenges facing the office was ``the need for a stable and sustainable funding model.'' The financial crisis affecting the Patent and Trademark Office is a direct result of its current funding structure. The Patent and Trademark Office receives no taxpayer funds-- it is solely funded by patent and trademark user fees. Yet, those fees are not deposited within the Patent and Trademark Office. They are instead diverted to the Treasury Department, forcing the Patent and Trademark Office to ask for funds generated by their own office to be appropriated back to them. The Patent and Trademark Office often requests lower than the amount generated by patent and trademark fees, which results in any extra fees being diverted by Congress to address ``general revenue purposes.'' In fact, since 1992, Congress has diverted more than $750 million from the Patent and Trademark Office. For example, as recent as 2007, 12 million user-fee generated dollars were diverted from the Patent and Trademark Office for ``other purposes.'' With 1.2 million patent applications pending--735,000 of which are simply waiting for a patent examiner to take a first action-- it is clear that the Patent and Trademark Office is in dire need of those funds. I believe those fees belong to the Patent and Trademark Office and are needed by their offices to make the patent and trademark process more accessible and efficient for America's innovators. By ending fee diversion and allowing the Patent and Trademark Office to structure its own funding model, resources would be directly allocated to areas of most concern for both the Patent and Trademark Office and American innovators. The Coburn proposal does both, and ensures that the ever expanding backlog of unexamined patent applications and the timeframe for actual examination would be addressed in an efficient manner. It is time for Congress to take action and allow the Patent and Trademark Office to control the user fees that we think they deserve so they can effectively serve our Nation's inventors and small businesses. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 23. We probably have a lot of amendments, but right now we are talking about the bill. The America Invents Act is what it is called. I should express my gratitude to those others who have helped so much on this and, quite frankly, more involved on this bill than I have been, including Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, Senator Sessions, and Senator Kyl. This is a bipartisan bill. Over the past 5 years or so, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been considering comprehensive patent reform. Chairman Leahy has engaged Senators on both sides of the aisle as well as a wide range of groups on the outside. His efforts have been pivotal in bringing together diverse views and crafting a reasonable compromise bill. In fact, the bill is supported by a large number of industries and other stakeholders from the U.S. patent community. I commend the leadership of Chairman Leahy as well as the leadership of Senator Hatch for getting us to where we are at this point. Intellectual property rights are extremely important to our Nation's economy. An effective and efficient patent system will help promote innovation and technological advancement in America and make life better for us all. An effective and efficient patent system also will help provide stimulus for businesses and obviously generate many new jobs. Everyone agrees we need a well-functioning patent and trademark office within our government so that it can complete its work in a timely manner. We should find ways to help the Patent and Trademark Office speed up the patent application process and eliminate the current backlog it is experiencing. We should reduce costs and decrease abusive litigation and improve certainty in the patent process and strengthen patent quality. The America Invents Act will help do all of these things. The bipartisan bill before us will update and upgrade the U.S. patent system. It will enhance transparency and patent quality, and it will ensure that the Patent and Trademark Office has the tools and funding it needs to cut its backlog and process patent applications more quickly. The improvements to the patent system contained in our bill will help spur economic prosperity and job creation. I am pleased to support it. Specifically, the bill would improve patent quality by establishing the opportunity for third parties to submit prior art and other information related to a pending application for consideration by a patent examiner. By allowing prior art to be submitted earlier in the process and explained to the office, patent examiners will be able to issue higher quality patents. The bill would create a ``first window'' post-grant opposition proceeding open for 9 months after the grant of a patent. This would allow the Patent and Trademark Office to weed out patents that should not have been issued in the first place. This new post-grant review process--which was recommended in a 2004 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences--would enable early challenges to patents, but also protect the rights of inventors and patent owners against endless litigation. The reason we want to ensure that the Patent and Trademark Office issues high quality patents is to incentivize investment in truly innovative technological advances and provide more certainty for investors in these inventions. In addition, the bill would improve the current inter partes administrative process for challenging the validity of a patent. It would establish an adversarial inter partes review, with a higher threshold for initiating a proceeding and procedural safeguards to prevent a challenger from using the process to harass patent owners. It also would include a strengthened estoppel standard to prevent petitioners from raising in a subsequent challenge the same patent issues that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in a prior challenge. The bill would significantly reduce the ability to use post- grant procedures for abusive serial challenges to patents. These new procedures would also provide faster, less costly alternatives to civil litigation to challenge patents. The bill would institute a gatekeeping role for the court to assess the legal basis for damages and jury instructions. This would provide more certainty in damages calculation and promote uniformity and fairness. The bill also would transition the United States to a first- inventor to file system, simplifying the application process and coordinating it with our trading partners. This change will reduce costs and help improve the competitiveness of American inventors abroad. Further, the bill would provide fee setting authority for the Patent Trademark Office Director to ensure that the Patent and Trademark Office is properly funded and can reduce its current backlog of patent applications. The bill also would mandate a reduction of fees by 50 percent for small entities and 75 percent for micro-entities. I want to particularly thank Chairman Leahy for working with me and Senator Baucus on a provision that would curtail patents on tax strategies. These patents encumber the ability of taxpayers and their advisers to use the tax law freely, interfering with the voluntary tax compliance system. Tax strategy patents undermine the fairness of the Federal tax system by removing from the public domain ways to satisfy a taxpayer's legal obligations. If firms or individuals hold patents for these strategies, some taxpayers could face fees simply for complying with the Tax Code. Moreover, tax patents provide windfalls to lawyers and patent holders by granting them exclusive rights to use tax loopholes, which could provide some businesses with an unfair advantage in our competitive market system. Our provision would ensure that all taxpayers will have equal access to strategies to comply with the Tax Code. This provision was carefully drafted with the help of the Patent and Trademark Office not to cover software preparation and other software, tools or systems used to prepare tax or information returns or manage a taxpayer's finances. In conclusion, the America Invents Act will protect inventors' rights and encourage innovation and investment in our economy. The bill will improve transparency and third party participation in the patent application review process. This, in turn, will strengthen patent quality and result in more fairness for both patent holders and patent challengers. The bill will institute beneficial changes to the patent process to curb litigation abuses and improve certainty for investors and innovators. It will help companies do business more efficiently on an international basis. The bill also will enhance operations of the Patent and Trademark Office with administrative reforms and will give the office fee setting authority to reduce backlogs and better manage its business. I am pleased to support this hard fought bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are continuing in our cooperative effort to fill vacancies in the Federal judiciary that have been designated as judicial emergencies. Today, the Senate will confirm two more of President Obama's judicial nominees. I am pleased we are moving forward on consensus nominees who will lessen the burden on our overworked courts. My Republican colleagues and I continue to demonstrate our ability and desire to work with the President and the Democratic majority. We will have confirmed 7 judicial nominees in just 17 short days the Senate has been in session this Congress. We have reported out of committee a total of 15 judicial nominees, or 29 percent of the total nominees submitted. We have already held two hearings in committee on eight judicial nominees, with additional nominees scheduled for a hearing later this week. With this quick and productive pace, we have taken positive action on 55 percent of the judicial nominations sent to the committee this year. I continue to work with the chairman to ensure all nominees are afforded a fair but thorough process, in a timely manner. I have appreciated the chairman's courtesy as we work together to set schedules and agendas. It is imperative that the administration work with us, as well, to fill vacancies. I am particularly concerned about those seats designated as judicial emergencies. We continue to hear about the high judicial vacancy rate. I think the record is clear that the Senate is addressing that issue in vigorous manner. However, I continue to note that the President has failed to submit a nomination for over half of the vacancies. For judicial emergencies, over 57 percent of those seats have no nominee. The two vacancies we are filling today took some time for a nomination to be sent to the Senate. Both seats became vacant in December 2008, at the end of the Bush administration. It took President Obama over a year to name a nominee for one seat, and nearly a year and a half to nominate for the other seat. So those who are concerned about a high vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary should pay attention to the nomination process, not just Senate confirmations. I will say a few words about the nominees who are scheduled to have votes today. I thank our leadership for the reasonable arrangement that was reached to consider these nominations. First, Amy Totenberg is nominated to be a U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Georgia. She received her A.B., magna cum laude, and her J.D. from Harvard University. Upon graduation, she joined the Law Project as a partner, where she focused on Federal constitutional and employment law. She left the Law Project to become a solo practitioner where she maintained a general civil practice. Ms. Totenberg also served as municipal court judge for Atlanta, and was appointed by the Atlanta Board of Education as the first in-house general counsel for the Atlanta Public School District. Over the past decade, while maintaining a solo practice, Ms. Totenberg has spent the majority of her time as a special master, monitor, and arbitrator/monitor for the U.S. district courts in Maryland and Washington, DC. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated her ``Well- Qualified.'' Our second nominee, Steve C. Jones, is also nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Georgia. Judge Jones received his B.B.A. and his J.D. from the University of Georgia. An experienced jurist, he began his legal career as an assistant district attorney for the Western judicial District of Georgia. In 1993, Judge Jones began service as a municipal court judge for Athens- Clarke County, GA. He was appointed by Governor Zell Miller, in 1995, to serve as a superior court judge for the Western Judicial Circuit. He was subsequently re-elected four times and is the presiding judge for the Felony Drug Court. Aside from his daily duties to the bench, Judge Jones was appointed by the Georgia Supreme Court to serve on the Judicial Qualifications Commission. He also functioned as its chairman from 2002 to 2006. On and off the bench, Judge Jones has contributed to his community. He has invested time to help Georgia Legal Services, as well as a local anti-poverty initiative, Partners for a Prosperous Athens/OneAthens. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Well-Qualified.'' I support these two nominees, and congratulate them for their achievement and public service. I will continue to work with the chairman to move forward on consensus nominees, as we have done with these two nominations. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what goes on there. Our judicial system is a secret to many people across the country. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. Allowing greater access to our courts will inspire faith in and restore appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. For decades, states such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen States allow news coverage in most courts; 16 allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining 15 allow coverage with stricter rules. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts. It lets Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other electronic media. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into the courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3 year sunset provision. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of any party, and prohibits the televising of jurors. We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I reintroduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what goes on there. Our judicial system is a secret to many people across the country. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. Allowing greater access to our courts will inspire faith in and restore appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. For decades, states such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen States allow news coverage in most courts; 16 allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining 15 allow coverage with stricter rules. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts. It lets Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other electronic media. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into the courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3 year sunset provision. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of any party, and prohibits the televising of jurors. We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm two more of President Obama's judicial nominees. With this action, we are filling two seats which have been declared judicial emergencies. I am pleased we are moving forward with these important positions. I agree with the chairman's recent editorial and remarks he has made that we have an opportunity to turn the page and work together in a spirit of bipartisanship and civility. I do not view it as a productive effort to continue with the finger pointing and the negative back and forth regarding the previous pace or outcome of judicial nominations. Unfortunately, that rhetoric has frequently overshadowed the debate on the qualifications of particular nominees. I and my Republican colleagues have been very cooperative in taking action on the President's nominees. During this Congress, the President has nominated 50 individuals to the Federal judiciary. This Congress has been in session for approximately 1 month. In this brief time, we have taken positive action, in one form or another, on nearly half of those nominees. With today's votes, we will have confirmed 5 nominees. If this is not cooperation, I do not know what is. Furthermore, we have seen a high level of bipartisanship with regard to President Obama's confirmed nominees. For President Obama's confirmed district judge nominees, 94 percent of those confirmations were by unanimous votes. Only 59 percent of President Bush's confirmed district court nominees were afforded that same level of bipartisanship. So I think it is fair to say that we are cooperating in a bipartisan manner, and in a deliberate pace. I am working with the chairman to ensure nominees are afforded a fair but thorough process, in a timely manner. I have appreciated the chairman's courtesy as we have worked together to set schedules and agendas. As we do so, I assure my colleagues that I will not falter on ensuring each nominee is properly and thoroughly evaluated. We are acting to reduce the judiciary vacancy rate. There are currently 99 vacancies in the Federal courts. However, it is remarkable to me that more than half of those vacancies, 52 seats, have yet to receive a nomination. Furthermore, 25 of the 46 seats deemed to be judicial emergencies do not have nominees. It is unfair to blame Republicans for any delays with these vacancies. It is impossible to fill seats when a nominee has not been named. It is the responsibility of the President to send to the Senate consensus nominees for these positions. Let me say a few words about the nominees who are scheduled to have votes today. I thank our leadership for the reasonable arrangement that was reached to consider these nominations. First, Justice James E. Graves has been nominated to be a circuit judge for the Fifth Circuit. He received his B.A. from Millsaps College, his J.D. and an M.P.A. from Syracuse University. Justice Graves comes to the Federal bench with extensive experience in the legal field. He was a staff attorney for the Central Mississippi Legal Services for 3 years before moving into private practice. Justice Graves also spent time, first as a counsel, then as a chief legal counsel, in the office of the Mississippi attorney general. Justice Graves left the Office of the Attorney General to become director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services' Child Support Enforcement Division. Justice Graves also has considerable judicial experience. He was appointed to Mississippi Circuit Court judge in 1991 and was re-elected twice. Since 2001, Justice Graves has served on the Mississippi Supreme Court and has authored 151 majority opinions for the court and 92 concurring or dissenting opinions. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``Qualified.'' I also rise in support of Judge Edward Davila to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California. With today's vote, we will have confirmed 7 of President Obama's nominees to the district courts of California. Judge Davila received his B.A. from California State University, San Diego and his J.D. from University of California's Hastings College of the Law. A majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated him ``Qualified.'' Judge Davila began his career at the Santa Clara County Public Defender before entering private practice. He represented criminal defendants in State and Federal courts. In August 2001, Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Davila to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, a trial court of general jurisdiction. Judge Davila was re-elected without opposition twice. We are making good progress in considering judicial nominations. I am pleased the chairman and I have been able to move forward. We are filling judicial vacancies, with a particular focus on judicial emergencies. We are working in a manner that treats each nominee in a fair manner and permits each Senator to thoroughly review the qualifications of each nominee. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we often use the metaphor of credit cards to talk about uncontrolled government spending, but in some cases, wasteful government spending is quite literally enabled by the use of charge cards in the hands of government bureaucrats. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that Federal departments and agencies have in place, and keep in place, the kinds of safeguards necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with government issued charge cards. We have made a lot of progress since I first started shining the spotlight on this issue with the help of the Government Accountability Office, GAO. This legislation will secure the gains we have made to prevent any backsliding while adding in extra mechanisms to prevent and detect misuse of government charge cards. In 1998, the General Service Administration, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay program. These government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees. Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it won't stay in business. As a result, corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired. It is certainly a good idea for government to learn lessons from the business sector. However, there are certain fundamental differences between the private sector and the governmental sector that call for extra vigilance, mainly the fact that government spends other people's money. Human nature being what it is, most people are not nearly as careful spending other people's money as they would be spending their own. Sure enough, when the SmartPay program was first implemented, Federal departments and agencies did not take near the care that a private business would when handing out company charge cards. When I started looking into this with the GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending. Government employees were using their government- issued charge cards to bypass any authorization and approval procedures and purchase items that had nothing to with their official duties. We are talking about LA-Z-Boy reclining chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with government purchase cards, and with the American taxpayer paying the bill no questions asked. Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else. A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous Federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards. As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued to Federal agencies a circular that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action. In addition to requiring the most important internal controls across the government, the bill requires all Federal agencies to establish penalties for violations, including dismissal when circumstances warrant. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. The bill also increases oversight by providing that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments and audits to identify fraud and improper use of government charge cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. In crafting the very carefully thought out bill before us today, I have appreciated the help and support provided by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, who have again joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. The version I have introduced today is the same bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress and I look forward to seeing it pass both houses of Congress and enacted into law in the very near future. That day, the American taxpayers will be able to rest just a little easier knowing that at least one avenue to potentially waste their hard earned money has been blocked.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we often use the metaphor of credit cards to talk about uncontrolled government spending, but in some cases, wasteful government spending is quite literally enabled by the use of charge cards in the hands of government bureaucrats. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that Federal departments and agencies have in place, and keep in place, the kinds of safeguards necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with government issued charge cards. We have made a lot of progress since I first started shining the spotlight on this issue with the help of the Government Accountability Office, GAO. This legislation will secure the gains we have made to prevent any backsliding while adding in extra mechanisms to prevent and detect misuse of government charge cards. In 1998, the General Service Administration, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay program. These government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees. Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it won't stay in business. As a result, corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired. It is certainly a good idea for government to learn lessons from the business sector. However, there are certain fundamental differences between the private sector and the governmental sector that call for extra vigilance, mainly the fact that government spends other people's money. Human nature being what it is, most people are not nearly as careful spending other people's money as they would be spending their own. Sure enough, when the SmartPay program was first implemented, Federal departments and agencies did not take near the care that a private business would when handing out company charge cards. When I started looking into this with the GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending. Government employees were using their government- issued charge cards to bypass any authorization and approval procedures and purchase items that had nothing to with their official duties. We are talking about LA-Z-Boy reclining chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with government purchase cards, and with the American taxpayer paying the bill no questions asked. Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else. A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous Federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards. As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued to Federal agencies a circular that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action. In addition to requiring the most important internal controls across the government, the bill requires all Federal agencies to establish penalties for violations, including dismissal when circumstances warrant. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. The bill also increases oversight by providing that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments and audits to identify fraud and improper use of government charge cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards. This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. In crafting the very carefully thought out bill before us today, I have appreciated the help and support provided by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, who have again joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. The version I have introduced today is the same bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress and I look forward to seeing it pass both houses of Congress and enacted into law in the very near future. That day, the American taxpayers will be able to rest just a little easier knowing that at least one avenue to potentially waste their hard earned money has been blocked.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in addition to my support for Judge Saldana and Mr. Holmes, I rise in support of Marco A. Hernandez to be U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon. I am pleased the Senate is finally turning to this nomination. This is the third Congress to consider Mr. Hernandez's nomination. President Bush nominated Judge Hernandez to this seat in the 110th Congress. Unfortunately, his nomination stalled in the Judiciary Committee, although he had the full support of every Republican on the committee. After pending for over 5 months with no action, his nomination, at that time, was returned to the President. This vacancy has been designated a judicial emergency. Therefore, I would have expected his nomination to have been made very early in the 111th Congress. However, it was not sent to the Senate until July of last year. Because of that delayed nomination, the Senate was unable to complete action on the nomination in that Congress. At the close of the 111th Congress, the nomination was again returned to the President. Mr. Hernandez has been rated ``qualified'' by the American Bar Association. He received his B.A. from Western Oregon State College and his J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law. After graduating from law school, he served as an attorney for Oregon Legal Services, where he represented migrant farmworkers. He later joined the Washington County district attorney's office as a deputy district attorney. Mr. Hernandez is a fine nominee under President Bush's standards but also a fine nominee under President Obama's standards. I am pleased this nomination is finally before the Senate. I am, however, disappointed that we have a vacancy that could have been filled over 2 years ago. With our vote today, the President can fill this judicial emergency seat with a qualified nominee. Mr. President, I also support the nomination of Diana Saldana to be a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. She has the support of both home State Senators who spoke very highly of her at her September 29, 2010, nomination hearing. Judge Saldana received a BA in history and in government from the University of Texas. She received her JD from the University of Texas School of Law. Upon graduation, she clerked for the Honorable George Kazen. She has had a very successful career. Judge Saldana has been a staff attorney in the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a trial attorney with the Department of Justice, and served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Texas. She was appointed to be a U.S. magistrate judge in 2006. Judge Saldana was nominated by the President on July 14, 2010. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. I am pleased to support Judge Saldana's nomination to this very important seat. Not only has it been deemed to be a judicial emergency but it is also the seat to which her mentor, Judge Kazen, previously occupied. Mr. President, I also support Paul Kinloch Holmes III, a nominee to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Arkansas. A graduate of Westminster College and the University of Arkansas School of Law, Mr. Holmes has been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. After graduating from law school, Mr. Holmes became an associate at the law firm of Warner & Smith, a firm that focused on general civil practice. On August 6, 1993, President Clinton nominated him to be the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. The Senate confirmed his nomination shortly after, and he served his role with distinction until 2001. Since then, Mr. Holmes has been in private practice handling both criminal and civil litigation. Again, I am pleased to support the nomination of Mr. Holmes to this seat that has been deemed a judicial emergency. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have the sad task today of paying tribute to Specialist Shawn A. Muhr of Coon Rapids, IA, who has fallen in the line of duty in Afghanistan. Specialist Muhr was serving with the 546th Transportation Company, 264th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, 82nd Sustainment Brigade out of Fort Bragg, NC. He was 26 years old. Shawn's family described him as ``a gentle person with an adventurous spirit.'' He is remembered fondly as a happy and generous individual, and I know his loss will be felt very keenly by all who knew him. My thoughts and prayers will be with his family at this time, including his wife Winifred, his father David, and his mother Shirley as well as his brother and sisters. By all accounts, Specialist Muhr liked being in the Army and loved serving his country. He had previously served in Operation Iraqi Freedom as well as in South Korea and was serving his first tour in Afghanistan. What would we do without individuals like Shawn Muhr? Those young people who gladly serve their country, knowing the sacrifices they will be asked to make and the tremendous risk they take, are the ultimate bulwark in defense of our freedom. Shawn Muhr truly lived and died by the motto of the great State of Iowa, ``Our Liberties We Prize, Our Rights We Will Maintain.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the time has come to end secrecy on the floor of the Senate. The time has come for Senators who think they ought to put a hold on a bill to be able to continue to put a hold on a bill or a nomination, but it is also time to show that you have guts enough to let the people know who you are and, more importantly, to let your colleagues know who you are. So if there is something wrong with a piece of legislation or a nomination, we can find out what it is and move the business of the Senate ahead. This is something that is going to make the Senate a much more efficient place to work and get the people's business done, and it will do what is most important--the public's business in public. I yield the floor.