Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Division F of this omnibus conference agreement provides funding for the State Department, Foreign Operations, and related programs. I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Gregg, and his very capable staff, Paul Grove and Michele Wymer, for once again working with me and my staff in a bipartisan manner to produce this conference agreement. I also want to thank Chairwoman Nita Lowey and Ranking Member Kay Granger, and their staffs, for working so cooperatively with us throughout this process. The fiscal year 2010 State Foreign Operations conference agreement provides $48.8 billion in discretionary funding, a $3.3 billion decrease from the President's budget request of $52 billion. The bill is $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 level, including supplemental funds. This is an important point that needs to be understood by all Senators, because yesterday a Senator on the other side of the aisle criticized this bill for being 31 percent above fiscal year 2009. That is misleading, because it does not account for the billions of dollars in fiscal year 2009 ``emergency'' supplemental funding that was the standard way of doing business under the previous administration. To ignore those costs to American taxpayers is disingenuous. President Obama has made clear that he intends to fund these programs on budget, not through supplemental gimmicks. That is what the Congress urged him to do, and now he is being criticized for doing so. If you compare apples to apples, this bill provides $1.2 billion less spending than in fiscal year 2009. Some Republican Senators have made speeches against this omnibus package on account of earmarks they don't like, even though some of them requested their own earmarks. In fact, earmarks comprise a tiny fraction of the total package. Like past years, the State-Foreign Operations conference agreement does not contain any earmarks as defined by the Appropriations Committee. We do fund many programs that are priorities of Democrats and Republicans, including assistance for countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and longstanding allies like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. In addition, the conference agreement provides $5.7 billion to combat HIV/AIDS, including $750 million for the Global Fund. Funds are provided to combat other diseases, like malaria, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases, The agreement provides $1.2 billion for climate change and environment programs, including for clean energy programs and to protect forests. The agreement provides $1.2 billion for agriculture and food security programs, with authority to provide additional funds. There are provisions dealing with corruption and human rights, funding for international organizations like the United Nations, NATO and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to promote democracy, economic development, and the rule of law from Central America to Central Asia. The conference agreement provides the funds to support our embassies and diplomats around the world, public diplomacy and broadcasting programs, the Peace Corps, and many other programs that promote United States interests. I don't support everything in this omnibus package any more than anyone else does. I had hoped, as I know did Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, that we could have brought each of the bills in this omnibus, including the State-Foreign Operations bill, to the Senate floor individually. But a handful of Senators on the other side have made clear that they will do whatever is procedurally possible to slow down or prevent consideration of these bills. Despite that, I can say that the State Foreign Operations conference agreement was negotiated with the full participation of both House and Senate chairmen and ranking members. It was in every sense a collaborative process. It is a balanced agreement and should be supported by every Senator who cares about U.S. security and the security of our allies and friends around the world.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to briefly discuss a subject that should interest all Senators concerning the country of El Salvador, which recently elected a new President and last month suffered extensive loss of life and devastating property damage as a result of torrential rains caused by Hurricane Ida. First, I congratulate the people of El Salvador on the election, which was historic in that President Funes is the country's first President since the end of the civil war who is a member of the FMLN, which after the 1992 Peace Accords evolved from an armed insurgency into a political party. I am encouraged by what I have heard about President Funes' policies and wish him the best. Second, the destruction caused by Hurricane Ida was extensive. Exceptionally heavy and constant rain fell on November 7 and 8, resulting in flooding and landslides that killed 192 people. Another 80 were reported missing, and more than 14,295 others were displaced from their homes. Thousands of homes, as well as roads, bridges, and other public buildings, were damaged or destroyed. On November 10, U.S. Charge d'Affaires Robert Blau declared a disaster in response to the damage, and the U.S. Agency for International Development has so far allocated some $280,851 in humanitarian aid. An assessment of the total damage is underway, but it is expected to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. Congressman Jim McGovern and I have urged the administration to provide additional aid. We remember how the U.S. Government all but forgot about El Salvador after the war ended, and this is a time to help the Salvadoran people recover from this tragedy. Third, an issue that has deeply concerned me for many years is the problem of corruption and impunity in El Salvador. The police and the courts lack the training and resources they need, crimes are rarely solved and perpetrators are rarely punished. Violent crime and corruption have become endemic. El Salvador's democratic and economic development will continue to be impeded by a justice system that is incapable of enforcing the rule of law, and in which the Salvadoran people and foreign investors have little confidence. One of the courageous Salvadorans who is trying to change this is Ms. Zaira Navas, inspector general of the National Police. She has a woefully inadequate budget and too few staff. But despite that, from everything I have heard she is doing an outstanding job for justice and the people of El Salvador. I mention Ms. Navas because of the critical importance of the job she is doing, and because she has recently received death threats and I am concerned for her safety. I urge officials at the U.S. Embassy to discuss with President Funes what steps can be taken immediately to provide her the security she needs, and to increase the budget of her office. El Salvador is a small country but one with which the U.S. has a long history. We both have newly elected presidents, and I am hopeful that we will see a renewed effort to work together to broaden our relations. Nothing, in my view, is more important than strengthening the rule of law and supporting people like Ms. Navas, but we should also expand our collaboration in health, education and exchanges, the environment, trade and investment, science and technology, the arts and culture.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, I challenged Senate Republicans to do as well as Senate Democrats did in December 2001 when we proceeded to confirm 10 of President Bush's Federal judicial nominees. Regrettably my plea has been ignored. Since the confirmation of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen last Tuesday to fill a vacancy on the Federal bench for the Central District of California; Republican objections and delay have prevented progress on any of the nine judicial nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. Judge Nguyen was herself delayed almost 6 weeks, from October 15 until she was at last confirmed on December 1. When Republicans finally agreed to allow a vote, she was confirmed unanimously, 97 to zero. Why the 6-week delay? Why the stalling? That question was not answered. In fact, during the time reserved for debate on this nomination no Republican spoke a word about it. I know how hard pressed the Federal judges in Los Angeles are, and only wish we followed the action on Judge Nguyen's nomination by proceeding, as well, to the confirmation of another nominee for a vacancy on that court. Dolly Gee's nomination to the Central District of California remains pending before the Senate. She was reported by voice vote and without dissent from the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 15, as well. Once confirmed, she will be able to go to work helping to eliminate the backlog and delays in that court. I was glad we were finally allowed to proceed with Judge Nguyen's nomination, but urged at that time that Senate Republicans allow votes on the other nominations as well. That has not happened. I noted that we had shown what we can do when we want to make progress. The Senate confirmed Judge Christina Reiss of Vermont and Judge Abdul Kallon of Alabama before the Thanksgiving recess, and 17 days after their hearing. That prompt action by the Senate demonstrates what we can do working together in good faith. It should not take weeks for the Judiciary Committee to report nominations, and additional weeks and months before Senate Republicans allow nominations to be considered by the Senate. There remain nine judicial nominations that have been given hearings and favorable consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee but that remain stalled before the Senate. They are: Beverly Martin of Georgia, nominated to the Eleventh Circuit; Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey, nominated to the Third Circuit; Edward Chen, nominated to the Northern District of California; Dolly Gee, nominated to the Central District of California; Richard Seeborg, nominated to the Northern District of California; Barbara Keenan of Virginia, nominated to the Fourth Circuit; Jane Stranch of Tennessee, nominated to the Sixth Circuit; Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania, nominated to the Third Circuit; and Louis Butler, nominated to Western District of Wisconsin. These nine nominees all await final action by the Senate. Some have been waiting since being reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee as long as 12 weeks ago. Acting on these nominations, we can confirm 10 nominees this month. That is what we did in December 2001 when a Democratic Senate majority proceeded to confirm 10 of President Bush's nominees, and ended that year having confirmed 28 new judges nominated by a President of the other party. We achieved those results with a controversial and confrontational Republican President after a mid-year change to a Democratic majority in the Senate. We did so in spite of the attacks of September 11; despite the anthrax-laced letters sent to the Senate that closed our offices; and while working virtually around the clock on the PATRIOT Act for 6 weeks. It is now December 9 and the Republican minority has consented to allow votes on only nine of President Obama's nominations to fill district and circuit court vacancies. We confirmed a tenth, Judge David Hamilton, after invoking cloture to overcome a Republican leadership- led filibuster. In comparison, by this date in 2001, we had confirmed 21 of President Bush's nominations, including six to fill circuit court vacancies. We will certainly fall well short of the total of 28 judicial confirmations our Democratic Senate majority worked to confirm in President Bush's first year in office. This year we have witnessed unprecedented delays in the consideration of qualified and noncontroversial nominations. We have had to waste weeks seeking time agreements in order to consider nominations that were then confirmed unanimously. Judge Nguyen is the most recent example. We have seen nominees strongly supported by their home state Senators, both Republican and Democratic, delayed for months and unsuccessfully filibustered. I have been concerned that these actions by the Republican leadership signal a return to their practices in the 1990s, which resulted in more than doubling circuit court vacancies and led to the pocket filibuster of more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. The crisis they created eventually led even to public criticism of their actions by Chief Justice Rehnquist during those years. I hope that instead of withholding consent and threatening filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees, Senate Republicans will treat the nominees of President Obama fairly. I made sure that we treated President Bush's nominees more fairly than President Clinton's nominees had been treated. In the 17 months that I served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations. I want to continue that progress, but we need Republican cooperation to do so. I urge them to turn away from their partisanship and begin to work with the President and the Senate majority leader. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has reached out, reached across the aisle to work with Republican Senators in making judicial nominations. The nomination of Judge Hamilton, which the Republican leadership filibustered, was supported by the most senior Republican in the U.S. Senate, my respected friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar. Other examples are the recently confirmed nominees to vacancies in Alabama supported by Senators Sessions and Shelby, in South Dakota supported by Senator Thune, and in Florida, supported by Senators Martinez and LaMieux. Still others are the President's nomination to the 11th Circuit from Georgia, supported by Senators Isakson and Chambliss, his nomination to the 6th Circuit from Tennessee, supported by Senator Alexander, and his recent nominations to the 4th Circuit from North Carolina, supported by Senator Burr. President Obama has reached out and consulted with home State Senators from both sides of the aisle regarding his judicial nominees. Instead of praising the President for consulting with Republican Senators, the Republican leadership has doubled back on what they demanded when a Republican was in the White House. No more do they talk about each nominee being entitled to an up-or-down vote. That position is abandoned and forgotten. Instead, they now seek to filibuster and delay judicial nominations. They have also walked back from their position at the start of this Congress, when they threatened to filibuster nominees on which home state Senators were not consulted. We saw with Judge Hamilton that they filibustered a nominee supported by Senator Lugar. When President Bush worked with Senators across the aisle, I praised him and expedited consideration of his nominees. When President Obama reaches across the aisle, the Senate Republican leadership delays and obstructs his qualified nominees. I fear that Senate Republican delaying tactics will yield the lowest judicial confirmation total in modern history. If Senate Republicans continue their delaying tactics, the total could be as low as that during the 1996 session, during President Clinton's first term, when a Republican Senate majority would only allow 17 judicial confirmations, none for circuit courts. Although there have been nearly 110 judicial vacancies this year on our Federal circuit and district courts around the country, only 10 vacancies have been filled. That is wrong. The American people deserve better. As I have noted, there are nine more qualified judicial nominations awaiting Senate action on the Senate Executive Calendar. In addition there are another four pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee that have been given hearings and could be reported to the Senate before Christmas. They will be available to be considered by the Senate once approved by the Judiciary Committee. The Senate should do better, and could if Senate Republicans would remove their holds and stop the delaying tactics. During President Bush's last year in office, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a Presidential election year. Judicial vacancies have now spiked. There are currently 97 vacancies on our Federal circuit and district courts, and 23 more have already been announced. This is approaching record levels. I know we can do better. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I spoke about the situation of Aminatou Haidar, a Sahrawi human rights activist who has been on a hunger strike since shortly after November 13 when her passport was confiscated by Moroccan authorities and she was deported to the Canary Islands. She is now in the third week of her hunger strike, and her health has seriously declined. An agreement between the Spanish and Moroccan governments was reportedly reached on Friday, but it fell through at the last minute and Ms. Haidar remains at the Lanzarote Airport. Given this dire situation and the damage it is causing to efforts to resume good-faith negotiations on the future status of the Western Sahara, I want to repeat my appeal to the Moroccan authorities to reinstate Ms. Haidar's passport and allow her to return home to her family. Morocco and the United States are friends and allies. The denial of citizenship and forcible exile of Ms. Haidar is inconsistent with international human rights norms to which Morocco is a signatory and will accomplish nothing positive. It also raises the question, as do the recent arrests of other Sahrawi activists, of whether the United Nations' mandate in Western Sahara should be expanded to include human rights monitoring. I believe the State Department should seriously review this issue when the UN mission's term comes up for extension in the Security Council in April. There is still time, but it is running out, to resolve this issue in a manner that serves Morocco's interests and protects Ms. Haidar's rights.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Montana. Amendment No. 2927 Mr. President, let me wear my hat as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and talk about the amendment we are going to vote on to cap attorney fees. It is a one-sided amendment. It does not hurt attorneys. It hurts injured Americans who seek to recover damages in our court system. It may not be obvious to the nonlawyers listening to this debate that many ordinary Americans who suffer an injury through another's negligence cannot afford to pay for the legal representation they need to go to court. Our legal system allows for a plaintiff and an attorney to negotiate to determine what the compensation is going to be. In these cases, the parties sign a contract where the attorney may agree to work on a case with no compensation at all unless the victim ultimately receives compensation from the doctor or hospital responsible for the injury. This is called a contingency fee. In other words, a judge and a jury have to agree that person was injured and deserves this compensation. The parties do not do that. This allows all Americans, not just the wealthy, to have their day in court. It should also be noted that if a judge believes a compensation agreement is unfair to the victim, or if they believe it is disproportionate, the judge has the power to reduce the fee. I believe this is the same in virtually every State in this country. States have regulated the area of attorney compensation extensively, striving for reasonableness. States have done this. Doesn't that make the most sense that the States decide? Let's not forget that lawyers only are compensated if the client's case is successful and if a jury finds that a wrong was committed and if that jury finds they should be compensated. This is not some kind of windfall. It is the result of an attorney's very hard work to redress a wrong. The pending amendment would override all of these traditional considerations. It would impose a flat cap on all attorney fees for significant injuries. But the amendment would not cap the attorney fees of those representing a negligent hospital or doctor. That hospital, those doctors--their insurance companies could pay any amount of money they wanted, for example, in the case--and there have been cases like this--where the wrong leg was amputated by mistake or a person was given the wrong medicine and they end up paralyzed. But this amendment says, if that person who was paralyzed wants to sue, we are going to cap the amount of compensation that could be possibly paid to their attorney. But for the person who wants to escape liability for giving the wrong medicine that paralyzed a patient--their insurance companies, their hospitals--they can pay all however much they want for attorneys. They can pay their own counsel 10 times what a plaintiff's attorney might get in their effort to prevent a hospital or doctor from being held liable for that horrible mistake. Trust me, this gives a defendant every incentive to prolong litigation. Why should they settle? Why should they admit wrongdoing? They have the deep pockets. Yet through this amendment, a plaintiff would be limited by the actions of the Senate--made up of 100 people who can afford a lawyer, unlike many of the people who are injured? And so are we going to say that the Senate has capped what a plaintiff's lawyer can get? By the way--wink, wink, nudge, nudge--if you are the hospital, the insurance company for a doctor or somebody who has done a grievous wrong, just keep this thing rolling long enough because you have the money and you can just beat it down. When a patient receives more than $150,000 in medical expenses or compensatory or other damages, it is because the injury is severe and ongoing or because it resulted in death. Those patients are going to have a tougher time finding someone to hold the person who harmed them accountable. Adding this insult to injury does not further the laudable goals of the pending health care bill. We should be increasing patient safety and health, not punishing those who have already been injured by wrongdoing. I understand that yesterday the junior Senator from Nevada identified several prominent Democrats as having supported a similar amendment offered by Senator Kennedy a decade ago in a Republican-controlled Senate. I am not surprised by this tactic, given the disappointing tenor of the debate. Of course, upon a review of the actual vote, anyone would see that several Senators in this Chamber, including this one, opposed a motion to table Senator Kennedy's amendment. That is hardly the same as advocating a cap on fees. It is also worth noting that in 1995, the Senate was considering a draconian products liability bill, not a health care bill. At that time, the then-Republican majority was attempting to go further than any other Congress in history to prevent injured Americans from recovering damages from the corporations that hurt them or their children. I am relieved that legislation in 1995 never became law. I can see why some might have wished it had. Maybe they knew what was going to come because after that, what came to light were many recent incidents of harmful products that had been introduced into commerce--many of them toys for little children--and nothing could have been done about it had that bill become law. If that bill had become law, I fear we would have seen many more deaths or serious injuries among children as a result of faulty products. I find it ironic, given the often-professed loyalty to the sovereignty of the States and the sanctity of private contracts, many on the other side of the aisle now seem to have no concerns about the vast Federal intrusion into these areas of traditional State control that this and other medical malpractice reform proposals represent. Basically they are saying: Oh, we are all for States rights and sovereignty of the States except when it may cost some of the big insurance companies some money. We are all in favor of the sanctity of private contracts--except when it may cost some of the big insurance companies some money. So I am going to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Ensign. It is unfair. It will only hurt Americans who have already been injured by making it more difficult for them to gain access to our court system. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object. If the Senator receives an extra minute, then we will have an extra minute on this side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is hard to respond to all the inaccuracies in the statement of the junior Senator from Nevada. One, incidentally, he may be interested in knowing, as I was leaving Burlington, VT, this morning after saying goodbye to a number of our Guard members I ran into Howard Dean. He hopes we will pass the bill that is on the floor. Second, the motion he talks about and those who voted, including this Senator, was a procedural motion on a question of tabling Senator Kennedy's amendment. We thought he should be allowed to have a vote. It was not a vote in favor of caps. Lastly, if you look at what he has done with this amendment, he is saying that the insurance companies and the hospitals or somebody who may have cut the wrong leg off or paralyzed you by giving you the wrong medication, they can spend all the money they want to stop you from getting any relief. You, however, will be limited and the Federal government will override the laws of your State and tell you what you can contract for on fees with your attorney. In other words, the people who caused the damage can spend any amount of money they want to escape liability from the damage. The poor individual who has been damaged would not have an equal chance at recompense. Come on. Is the Senate actually going to vote for something like that? I would hope not.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today confirmed Victoria Espinel as the Nation's first intellectual property enforcement coordinator. This position was created by legislation that I introduced last year and is vital to protect the intellectual property interests of United States innovators and companies. Intellectual property rights promote innovation and creativity, and the protection of those rights is critical during this time of economic uncertainty. Ms. Espinel is extremely well qualified to serve as the President's intellectual property enforcement coordinator. She has an extensive background in intellectual property issues, both foreign and domestic, and has experience in government and in the private sector. Ms. Espinel served in the Bush administration as the Assistant United States Trade Representative for Intellectual Property and Innovation. This is a nomination that deserves bipartisan support. American innovation and our intellectual property protection should not be a partisan issue. The legislation by which we created this position took a comprehensive approach to intellectual property protection by providing Federal, State, and local law enforcement with the tools and resources they need to combat intellectual property theft. The legislation created an interagency advisory committee to develop a more efficient and cohesive approach to protecting American intellectual property. I am confident that Ms. Espinel will work well with that committee. I look forward to working with Ms. Espinel to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our intellectual property enforcement efforts. I know her family, and was delighted to chair her confirmation hearing. I congratulate her on her Senate confirmation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of Senators who may not already be aware, a situation that has been unfolding in Morocco and the Canary Islands. Last year, I had the privilege of meeting Ms. Aminatou Haidar, called by some the ``Saharawi Gandhi,'' who received the 2008 human rights award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. Ms. Haidar is a focus of attention again today because she is on a hunger strike in the Canary Islands after being summarily deported by the Moroccan Government on her way home to Western Sahara from the United States, where, coincidently, she had been to receive the ``Civil Courage Prize'' from the Train Foundation. Ms. Haidar is no newcomer to difficulties with the Moroccan authorities. She was first imprisoned in 1987 when she was a 20-year- old college student, after calling for a vote on independence for Western Sahara. When she was released after 4 years, during which she was badly mistreated, she continued her advocacy for the right of the Saharawi people to choose their own future. Arrested again in 2005 and separated from her two daughters, she led a group of 37 other Saharawi prisoners on a 51-day hunger strike for better prison conditions, investigations into allegations of torture, and the release of political prisoners. Since her 2006 release, she has continued her nonviolent struggle, which has brought widespread attention to the cause of the Saharawi people. The United Nations Security Council has repeatedly endorsed a referendum on self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. On November 13, when Ms. Haidar arrived at the airport in El-Ayoun, she was detained by Moroccan authorities. She was told that by insisting on writing her place of residence as ``Western Sahara'' on her immigration form, she was in effect waiving her Moroccan citizenship. Her passport was taken, and she was forcibly put on a plane without travel documents to the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago located 60 miles west of the disputed border between Morocco and Western Sahara. She remains there at the airport, separated from her daughters, in the 17th day of a hunger strike, and her health is reportedly rapidly deteriorating. She has refused an offer of a Spanish passport, insisting that she will not be a ``foreigner in her own country,'' and the Moroccan Government refuses to reinstate her passport. She is, in effect, a stateless person. This is unacceptable. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Morocco has ratified, states in part, ``Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. . . . No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.'' The situation in Western Sahara is a difficult one for the Saharawi people and the Moroccan Government. It is a protracted dispute in which the international community has invested a great deal to try to help resolve, without success. I recall the time and energy former Secretary of State James Baker devoted to it. The solution he proposed was rejected by the Moroccan Government. Morocco and the United States are friends and allies, and I have commended the Moroccan Government for positive steps it has taken in the past to improve respect for human rights and civil liberties. On a recent trip to North Africa, Secretary Clinton was complimentary of Morocco's efforts to reach a peaceful solution in Western Sahara. But the Saharawi people, including Aminatou Haidar, have passionately advocated for the right to self- determination, and the international community, including the U.N., has long supported a referendum on self-determination, which has thus far been blocked by the Moroccan Government. I have no opinion on what the political status of Western Sahara should be, but I am disappointed that the Moroccan authorities have acted in this way because it only adds to the mistrust and further exacerbates a conflict that has proven hard enough to resolve. Nothing positive will be achieved by denying the basic rights of someone of Ms. Haidar's character and reputation, or restricting the right to travel of other residents of Western Sahara, as the Moroccan authorities have increasingly done in the last 2 months. In the past, the United States has opposed proposals to extend the U.N.'s mandate in Western Sahara, currently limited to peacekeeping, to human rights monitoring. The recent crackdown on Ms. Haidar and other Saharawis who continue to insist on a referendum on self-determination suggests that human rights monitoring is needed and should be seriously considered when the U.N. mission comes up for renewal in April. I encourage the Department of State to review this question and to consult with the Congress about it. I am confident that our relations with Morocco, already strong, will continue to deepen in the future. We share many important interests. But the United States was also instrumental in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and while we sometimes fall short ourselves, we will continue to strive to defend those whose fundamental rights are denied, wherever it occurs. I appreciate the efforts the Department of State has made to try to help resolve this situation. I urge the Moroccan Government to reconsider its decision to deport Ms. Haidar, which will not advance its interests in the conflict over Western Sahara. It should return her passport, readmit her, and let her return to her home and family.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, our Nation is in the midst of a historic debate about how to reform our health insurance system. Three House committees and two Senate committees have spent countless hours trying to answer the question of how best to introduce competition and make health insurance affordable for all Americans. I applaud their efforts, and I applaud the efforts of the many Senators who have fought to bring this important debate to the Senate floor. I have pushed and will continue to push for provisions that accomplish the ``three C's'' of health insurance reform: choice, competition, and cost control. I recently reaffirmed my support for a public option. A public option would give consumers more choices to purchase an affordable and quality health insurance plan and will help drive down overall health care costs. I will continue to push for inclusion of a public option in the final Senate bill. Amid this discussion of how best to introduce competition into the health insurance industry, it is important to remember that today the health insurance industry does not have to play by the same rule of competition as other industries. Due to a six decade-old special interest exemption, the business of insurance is not subject to the Nation's antitrust laws. If there was ever a good reason for such an exemption, it no longer exists. While there are divergent views on the best way to introduce choice and competition into health insurance market, we can surely agree that health and medical malpractice insurers should not be allowed to collude to set prices and allocate markets. Today, I am filing the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 as an amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This legislation, which I introduced in September and which is cosponsored by 18 Senators, will repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance providers, and ensure that the basic rules of fair competition apply to the industry as part of the reforms that the larger health care bill will enact. Our Nation's antitrust laws exist to protect consumers, and it is vital that the health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies are subject to these laws. These laws promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices and receive more choices. The Majority Leader, an original cosponsor of this legislation, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that ``[i]t is of the upmost importance that we make sure the insurance industry is playing by the same rules as everyone else, and that they are subject to competition.'' I could not agree more, and I encourage the leader to schedule a vote on this amendment early in this debate. The President also recently supported Congress's efforts to determine whether any justification remains for permitting price fixing. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the United States are subject to the Federal antitrust laws. However, a few industries have used their influence to maintain a special, statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. The insurance industry is one of those few remaining industries. In the markets for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance, patients and doctors are paying the price, as costs continue to increase at an alarming rate, while patients and small businesses suffer. This is wrong, and this amendment fixes this problem. The Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act is supported by a cross-section of groups interested in promoting competition, including the Consumer Federation of America, Health Care for American Now, and the American Hospital Association. I also received a letter from a coalition of 10 State attorneys general who voiced their specific need for this legislation. The top law enforcement officers in those States argue that ``Repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption would enhance competition in health and medical malpractice insurance by giving state enforcers, as well as federal enforcers, additional tools to combat harmful anti-competitive conduct.'' The letter goes on to state that ``The McCarran-Ferguson exemption serves no plausible public interest.'' This amendment will prohibit the most egregious anticompetitive conduct--price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations--conduct that harms consumers, raises health care costs, and for which there is no justification. Subjecting health and medical malpractice insurance providers to the antitrust laws will enable customers to feel confident that the price they are being quoted is the product of a fair marketplace. The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and this amendment is a first step towards ensuring that health insurers and medical malpractice insurers are subject to fair competition. I hope all Senators will join me in support of this important amendment. Madam President, I note my amendment removes the outdated, antiquated, unnecessary antitrust protection given to our insurance companies, a protection which, instead of allowing them to thrive and give us lower premiums, has perversely acted in such a way that our premiums continue to rise 15 percent in the last year alone. This will help change that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I understand the Senator from California desires some time. I yield her 5 minutes, beginning now.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I absolutely concur with the comments of the distinguished senior Senator from California in support of the nomination of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen to serve on the Federal Court in the Central District of California. I supported Judge Nguyen in the committee and I am glad we are able to act on her nomination today. Judge Nguyen participated in a confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee on September 23. Hers was a historic hearing at which, for the first time, three Asian Pacific American judicial nominees appeared together--Judge Nguyen, Dolly Gee and Judge Edward Chen. Indeed, three Asian Pacific American judicial nominees have never been confirmed in the same year. Of the 876 active judges serving on our Federal courts, only 8 are Asian Pacific American. We also held a November hearing for Judge Denny Chin, a well- respected judge on the Southern District of New York, whom President Obama has nominated for elevation to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Chin was the first Asian Pacific American appointed as a Federal district court judge outside the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed to the Second Circuit, he will be the only active Asian Pacific American judge to serve on a Federal appellate court anywhere in the country. It is unbelievable that with 179 Federal appellate court judgeships in our country, none are currently held by an Asian Pacific American. More than 14 years have passed since an Asian Pacific American was nominated to a Federal appellate court. This progress is long overdue. I commend President Obama for following his commitment to nominate men and women to the Federal bench who reflect the diversity of America. Diversity on the bench helps ensure that the words ``equal justice under law,'' inscribed in Vermont marble over the entrance to the Supreme Court are a reality, and that justice is rendered fairly and impartially. Judge Jacqueline Nguyen will be the first Vietnamese American to serve as a Federal district court judge in the United States, and the first Asian Pacific American woman to serve as a Federal district court judge in the State of California. Today is an important milestone not only for Judge Nguyen, the Vietnamese American community and the Asian Pacific American community, but for all Americans. Judge Nguyen, Ms. Gee, and Judge Chen were reported favorably to the Senate on October 15, more than 6 weeks ago. I am glad we are proceeding with Judge Nguyen but urge Senate Republicans to allow the other nominations to proceed to Senate debate and votes, as well. When she is confirmed, Ms. Gee will be the first female Chinese American Federal district court judge in the Nation. When he is confirmed, Judge Chen will be the first Asian Pacific American Federal district court judge in the history of the Northern District of California. Judge Chen is already the first Asian Pacific American to serve in that district as a magistrate judge. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated the three of them unanimously as ``well qualified,'' their highest rating. I thank the committee's ranking member, Senator Sessions, for his cooperation in securing the recent confirmations of Judge Christina Reiss of Vermont and Judge Abdul Kallon of Alabama before the Thanksgiving recess. They were confirmed 17 days after their hearing. That prompt action by the Senate demonstrates what we can do when we work in good faith. It should not take weeks for the Judiciary Committee to report nominations and additional weeks and months before Senate Republicans allow nominations to be considered by the Senate. We have shown what we can do. Following the model we have established for Judges Reiss and Kallon, the Senate should be able to consider and confirm all eight of the judicial nominations currently on the Executive Calendar awaiting final action by the Senate, the additional five judicial nominees included at confirmation hearings in November, and Justice Thompson of Rhode Island, who had her hearing this morning. Acting on these nominations, we can reach a total of 23 Federal circuit and district court confirmations this year. That is well short of the total of 28 a Democratic Senate majority worked to confirm in President Bush's first year in office, 2001, but better than the 9 confirmations achieved in the first 11 months of this year. This year we have witnessed unprecedented delays in the consideration of qualified and noncontroversial nominations. We have had to waste weeks seeking time agreements in order to consider nominations that were then confirmed unanimously. We have seen nominees strongly supported by their home state Senators, both Republican and Democratic, delayed for months and unsuccessfully filibustered. I have been concerned that these actions by the Republican leadership signal their return to their practices in the 1990s, which resulted in more than doubling circuit court vacancies and led to the pocket filibuster of more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees. The crisis they created eventually led to public criticism of their actions by Chief Justice Rehnquist during those years. I hope that instead of withholding consent and threatening filibusters of President Obama's judicial nominees, Senate Republicans will treat the nominees of President Obama fairly. I made sure that we treated President Bush's nominees more fairly than President Clinton's nominees had been treated. In the 17 months that I served as chairman of this Committee during President Bush's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominations. We should continue that progress, but need Republican cooperation to do so. I urge them to turn away from their partisanship and begin to work with the President and the Senate majority leader. During the month of December in 2001, a Democratic-led Senate confirmed 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees, bringing the total number of nominations confirmed that year to 28. We will have to exceed that number this month in order to get to 20 confirmations, and a possible total of 23 this year. I fear that Senate Republican delaying tactics will, instead, yield the lowest total in modern history. If Senate Republicans continue their delaying tactics, the total could be as low as that during the 1996 session when a Republican Senate majority would only allow 17 judicial confirmations all session, including none for circuit courts. Today, with the confirmation of Judge Nguyen, we will finally move into double digits in the confirmations of Federal circuit and district court judges--hers is our 10th this year. Although there have been nearly 110 judicial vacancies this year on our Federal circuit and district courts around the country, only 10 vacancies have been filled. That is wrong. The American people deserve better. It has not been for lack of qualified nominees. As I have noted, there are seven more nominations awaiting Senate action on the Senate Executive Calendar and another six who have had their confirmation hearings and can be considered once approved by the Judiciary Committee. The Senate should do better and could if Senate Republicans would remove their holds and stop the delaying tactics. During President Bush's last year in office, we reduced judicial vacancies to as low as 34, even though it was a presidential election year. Judicial vacancies have now spiked. There are currently 98 vacancies on our Federal circuit and district courts, and 23 more have already been announced. This is approaching record levels. I know we can do better. Justice should not be delayed or denied to any American because of overburdened courts and the lack of Federal judges.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been requested on this nomination?

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on a subject that many Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have had an abiding interest in over the years. Throughout this week, delegates from countries around the world will gather in Cartagena, Colombia, to participate in the Second Review Conference of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction. The Cartagena review conference would have been the perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to announce its intention to join the 156 other nations that are parties to the treaty, including our coalition allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, every member of NATO and every country in our hemisphere, except Cuba, is a party to the treaty. The United States is one of only 37 countries that have not joined, along with Russia and China. By announcing our intention to join the treaty in Cartagena, this administration would have signaled to the rest of the world that the United States is finally showing the leadership that has been wanting on these indiscriminate weapons that maim and kill thousands of innocent people every year. The U.S. military is the most powerful in the world. Yet we have seen how civilian casualties in Afghanistan have become one of the most urgent and pressing concerns of our military commanders, where bombs that missed their targets and other mistakes have turned the populace against us. Despite this, one of the arguments the Pentagon makes for resisting calls to join the Mine Ban Treaty is to preserve its option to use landmines in Afghanistan, even though we have not used these indiscriminate weapons since 1991. Since the Pentagon has never voluntarily given up any weapon, including poison gas, which President Woodrow Wilson renounced in 1925, perhaps this is to be expected. But can anyone imagine the United States using landmines in Afghanistan, a country where more civilians have been killed or horribly injured from mines than any other in history? A country which, like our coalition partners, is itself a party to the treaty? A country where if we used mines and civilians were killed or injured the public outcry in Afghanistan and around the world would be deafening? Can anyone imagine this President, who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize which only a few years ago was awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, having to publicly defend such a decision? I wonder if anyone at the Pentagon has thought of the military and political implications of that. Last Tuesday, the State Department spokesman announced that the administration had completed a review on its landmine policy and had decided to continue supporting the Bush administration's policy, which was, in key aspects, a retreat from the policy of President Clinton. This was a surprise to me and others, as I had encouraged the administration to conduct such a review and then heard nothing for months. In fact, I had spoken personally with President Obama about it just a few weeks before. I did not hesitate to express my disappointment, as did many others. Thereafter the State Department corrected itself, and announced that a ``comprehensive review'' is continuing and reaffirmed its earlier decision to send a team of observers to the Cartagena review conference this week. It is unfortunate that the State Department spokesman misspoke. However, the administration's approach to this issue until this past weekend had been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing to those of us who expected a serious, thorough reexamination of this issue. One hopes that an administration that portrays itself as a global leader on issues of humanitarian law and arms control recognizes this is an opportunity. A serious review should begin by examining the extensive history of the negotiations that led to the treaty, and the technical issues that were debated and addressed. It should involve consulting our allies, like Great Britain and Canada, whose militaries have operated in accordance with the treaty's obligations for a decade, including with our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to determine what their experience has been. It should involve consulting with the Pentagon, of course, but also with retired senior U.S. military officers and diplomats, many of whom have expressed support for the treaty. It should involve consulting with Members of Congress, and with the humanitarian and arms control communities who have extensive expertise on all aspects of the treaty and its implementation. Unfortunately, none of these obvious steps was taken. Instead, an opaque process involving limited consultations with the Pentagon simply resulted in a regurgitation of the Bush administration's talking points. That is not what we expected of this administration, and I welcome the announcement that a comprehensive review will be carried out. The United States has not exported anti-personnel mines since 1992. We have not produced anti-personnel mines since 1997. And the United States has not used anti-personnel mines since 1991-- when many of them malfunctioned. In effect, we have been in de facto compliance with the treaty for 18 years, with the exception of not yet destroying our stockpile of mines. And in the interim we have invested millions of dollars to develop alternatives to indiscriminate landmines, to replace them with munitions that include man-in-the-loop technology, so they are not victim-activated. Indiscriminate landmines, whether persistent mines or those that are designed to self-destruct or deactivate, are nothing more than booby traps. They cannot distinguish between an enemy combatant, a U.S. soldier, a young child, or a woman out collecting firewood. They do not belong in the arsenal of any modern military. I have supported President Obama and I look forward to supporting him on many issues in the future. I believe this can be one of those issues. I am confident that after a proper review is conducted, and the President considers the equities, he will conclude, as our allies have, that the humanitarian benefits of banning anti-personnel landmines far exceed their limited military utility. Ultimately, this is a decision President Obama will need to make himself, as President Wilson did almost a century ago. I want to commend the Government of Colombia, a country where landmines have taken and continue to take a terrible toll on civilians, for hosting the review conference. Colombia joined the treaty years ago. I also appreciate that the State Department has sent a team of observers to Cartagena. I hope they use this opportunity not only to highlight the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. has provided for humanitarian demining and assistance for mine victims over the years, but also to learn from the delegations of countries that are parties to the treaty. I want to pay tribute to the leadership of Canada, and my friend Lloyd Axworthy, who as Foreign Minister showed the extraordinary vision and leadership that culminated in the Mine Ban Treaty, and to the other nations that have joined since then. The treaty has already exceeded the expectations of even its strongest advocates. The number of mine casualties has decreased significantly. The number of countries producing and exporting mines has plummeted. And at the same time, none of the arguments of the treaty's naysayers have come to pass. The United States is the most powerful nation on Earth. We don't need these indiscriminate weapons any more than our allies who have abandoned them. We have not used landmines for many years. We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines. It is time for the United States to join the right side of history.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on November 16, 2009, the New York Times published an article entitled ``A U.S. Visa, Shouts of Corruption, Barrels of Oil,'' that describes corruption in Equatorial Guinea, which is a major oil producing country. Specifically, the article highlights the comings and goings of Teodoro Obiang, son of Equatorial Guinea's President, who is also the country's agriculture minister. Mr. Obiang has been a regular traveler to southern California, where he owns an estate reportedly worth some $35 million. He also, according to the article, owns a private jet and various luxury automobiles. How, one might ask, did he acquire such extraordinary wealth, in a country where many children die before the age of 5? Perhaps he is an exceptionally talented businessman, as Equatorial Guinea's Washington lobbyists have suggested, who, when he isn't running the agriculture ministry on a modest government salary, is earning huge profits that can be legitimately explained. It is fair to say that at least, and probably more, likely is that he has used his family connections to steer a portion of the country's oil revenues into his own pockets. Mr. Obiang's case is not unique. To the contrary, it is a common practice in countries where the extraction of natural resources-- whether oil, gas, timber, or minerals--is the primary source of income. From Angola to Kazakhstan, government officials and their families have abused their power and influence to enrich themselves by siphoning off a portion of the proceeds of the revenues from concessions and leases for the extraction of natural resources, and from the sale of the crude oil or raw timber or minerals. Billions of dollars that could otherwise have been used to meet the basic needs of the people in these countries--health and education-- have instead gone into foreign bank accounts, including in the United States. The beneficiaries have enjoyed lives of comfort and privilege, while their people live in squalor. The land where oil is drilled, or where gold, cobalt, columbite- tantalite, and other valuable minerals are mined, or where the forest is cut down, is often left in ruins. Soil and water poisoned by oil spills and other toxic chemicals, and drought from deforestation, is left for those who have nowhere else to live, and for future generations. It is often also the revenues from the exploitation of natural resources that fund the purchase of weapons that fuel civil wars over control of those same resources in these counties. The protracted conflict in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where thousands of civilians, and particularly women and girls, have been brutalized, is a prime example. Those who have protested this type of corruption, environmental destruction and waste, and exposed the theft by government officials of income from natural resources that is rightfully owed to the people of these countries, have often been harassed, arrested, tortured, and even killed. I remember Ken Saro-Wiwa, who courageously led peaceful protests against the environmental devastation caused by oil spills and gas flaring in Nigeria's delta region. He was ultimately hanged, despite last minute appeals from people around the world, by the corrupt and cruel dictator Sani Abacha. That was in 1995, but the corruption, waste, and abuses continue today in countries where too often the rule of law does not apply to those in power. In 2004, President Bush issued Presidential Proclamation 7750, which suspended entry to the U.S. of current and former public officials whose corrupt acts have or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. In 2007, I included a similar but more targeted provision in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, currently section 7086 of Public Law 111-8, which requires the Secretary of State to deny admission to the United States to any foreign government official and their immediate family members who the Secretary has credible evidence have been involved in corruption related to the extraction of natural resources. The purpose of the law is clear: If you, as a government official or a member of your immediate family, are involved in the corrupt exploitation of natural resources, you are not welcome in the United States. Unfortunately, despite, I believe, well-intentioned people at the State Department who support the goals of the law, it has not been applied as vigorously as it could and should be. They do not have the resources to conduct their own investigations, so they rely on other agencies like the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, which do not always share information and have their own standards of proof. The fact that someone like Mr. Obiang is traveling freely to and from the United States, I believe makes a mockery of the law. This is not a partisan issue. Senators of both parties have spoken out about the corrosive effects of corruption. We saw the effects of it in our own assistance program in Iraq, where no-bid contracts and lax oversight resulted in enormous fraud and waste of taxpayer funds, and we are witnessing the effects of rampant corruption in the Afghan Government. It is overdue for the State Department to apply section 7086 with the vigor that Congress intended. It is about promoting good governance, the rule of law, the sustainable use of natural resources, and stopping the squandering of revenues from the extraction of those resources that are urgently needed to help reduce poverty. It is time to apply the law in a manner that resonates far and wide in support of each of those goals.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2009, at 12 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2009, at 10:15 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am glad to see my colleague and neighbor from New York in the chair, an extraordinarily hard-working Member of the Senate. I am not surprised, on a Saturday morning, that she is here. Before I begin, I wish to state my appreciation for the kind words from the majority leader for the Senator from Vermont. He and I have been friends for decades. I am glad to see the work he has done in bringing this bill to the floor. I intend to work closely with him. Decision time is near on health insurance reform. I will vote today to end the filibuster so the Senate can begin this important, historic debate to improve and reform our Nation's health insurance system. Let's not duck the debate. Let the debate begin. Let's not hide from votes. Let's have the courage to vote. Stand up and vote on the amendments. Let the American people know where we stand and not say: Well, it never came up because of the filibuster. We can end the filibuster today. We can get going. We can let every American know where we stand. The sentries of the status quo again have spared no effort to kick the can down the road, as they have done before. The country suffers when there is a failure to act on serious challenges that millions of ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. This is a defining moment for the Senate and for the country. I rank this along with other major decisions such as the creation of Social Security and Medicare and the Civil Rights Act. We have been talking about health insurance reform for more than 70 years, before I was born. The Senate should not now prevent a real debate on health reform by hiding behind the figleaf of a procedural filibuster. A bill worthy of this debate has been produced, after months of arduous work. Opponents of reform, unfortunately, have wasted much of the public's time by provoking arguments over their distortions about what health reform means. Spurious rumors were spread about death panels. One mailing opposing this bill claimed that reform would mean denying care to people based on their voting records. How desperate can these entrenched powers get, those who want to stop health care reform? These are the tactics of obstruction in the service of the status quo. Meanwhile, what the American people yearn for are constructive solutions. They want an honest debate, not a filibuster. That is what they deserve, and that is what we owe them. A Vermonter came by my office to talk about health reform, as so many have over the last several months. I hear this every time when I am home in Vermont. If I am in the gas station putting gas in my car, if I am in the grocery store, if I am coming out of church on Sunday, I hear this. This Vermonter is a physician. He has a special perspective from inside the system. He recalled stories about his father, also a very respected doctor, who practiced in the days before Medicare. He remembered the devastation his father felt when he was forced to turn away elderly Vermonters because they did not have health insurance. It may be difficult today to even imagine this, but before Medicare, older Americans were routinely driven into poverty during their retirement years by health expenses. Before Medicare was launched in 1964, nearly half of seniors over 65 had no health coverage and more than one in three lived in poverty. Today, because of Medicare, virtually everyone 65 and older has health insurance. The poverty rate among seniors has plummeted. More than 100,000 Vermonters have Medicare insurance. The arguments that were made against creating Medicare may sound familiar. Opponents of Medicare, when it first came up, tried to demonize the plan. They claimed it would never work. How could government run a program like this? They ignored those older Americans living in poverty. But eventually Members from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, worked together. They passed a bill that is one of the most successful and popular programs in America today. Vermont's entire congressional delegation, which at that time was Republican, supported passage of that landmark legislation. Today, we have a health system with contradictions. Federal investments in research and private investments in development have produced modern medical marvels in the equipment, training, techniques, and drugs that are available to many Americans. Yet in the prices we pay, in the lack of access to basic medical care, in the loopholes and the redtape that plague ordinary Americans in our health insurance system and in overall results in so many categories, we get far less for our enormous health care spending than do the citizens of countries whose health care costs are only a fraction of what ours are. Tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance at all. Employers who want to offer health insurance to their workers are being priced out of even having that option anymore. Self-employed Americans must pay dearly to afford any insurance, and they can lose their coverage at the whim of an insurance company's bureaucracy. In no modern nation except ours are families actually driven into bankruptcy by illness. In fact, medical expenses are one of the top reasons for bankruptcy in America today. In the absence of a fair and sensible health insurance system, families, businesses, and taxpayers have been dragged along by an inflationary curve that only worsens with time. Next year, small businesses, already suffering from skyrocketing medical costs, will see their premiums rise by an average of 15 percent. That is twice the rate of last year's increases. Drug companies have boosted prices of brand- name drugs by about 9 percent over the last year--the steepest increase in years. All you have to do is look at the huge salaries paid to their executives, and you know where that money is going. It is not going to help the health care of the average American. Can't we fashion an American-made solution so our citizens can have high-quality, affordable care and access to basic health insurance? Of course we can. We are Americans. We can develop that. The bill introduced this week by the majority leader and by Senators Baucus, Dodd, and Harkin will give millions more Americans access to quality, affordable health care. It would end discriminatory treatment of those who change jobs or have preexisting conditions. I have pushed and will continue to push to accomplish the three c's of choice, competition, and cost control, as we reform our health insurance system. I am encouraged that the Senate bill includes a public option that I have strongly supported. I might say, the majority of Americans strongly support it. I will stand with others as we make our case for keeping it in the reform plan as part of this process. I was proud to join Senator Brown and a core group of more than 20 other Senators who introduced a resolution affirming our support of a public option. A public option would give consumers more choices to select affordable and quality health insurance plans, while helping to drive down overall medical costs through real competition in the health insurance market. To further enhance the advantages of a competitive market, I have introduced the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. This would repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance providers. Closing this loophole in our antitrust laws is long overdue, and I will offer my legislation as an amendment to the bill to do that. Antitrust enforcement promotes competition. It helps to lower prices and expand consumer choice. Another factor that contributes to the rising medical costs all Americans face is fraud within the health insurance system. The scale of health care fraud in our system today is staggering. Studies estimate that between 3 percent and 10 percent of all our health care spending, both public and private, is wasted through health care fraud. That is somewhere between $60 billion and $220 billion each year--money we should have for health care, not going in the pockets of crooks. To help wring this waste out of our system, Senator Kaufman and I and others have proposed the Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act. Our bill would toughen sentences for those who commit health care fraud, strengthen support for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of health care fraud, and sharpen the legal tools we need to go after this fraud. It would prevent waste in spending. It would hold accountable those who do the stealing. Experience shows antifraud efforts give taxpayers a superb return on investment, with a payback of between $6 and $14 for every dollar we spend on enforcement. I am pleased the majority leader included provisions in this bill to address the issue of health care fraud. I will work with Senator Kaufman and others to strengthen that bill. Vermont has helped pave the way for some of the reforms included in this bill, and now, for the third year in a row, Vermont has been ranked as the healthiest State in the Nation. Vermont is one of the earliest leaders in expanding the State Medicaid Program, under reforms led by former Gov. Howard Dean and others. Yet under the current form of this bill, Vermont would not share the enhanced Federal match to be offered to other States. That would amount to a regressive policy with adverse practical ramifications for Vermont, a State that is a leader in expanding access to health care. I was heartened in my conversation this morning with the majority leader when he told me he will try to correct that problem. But we cannot correct any of these problems until we debate the bill. Let's not hide under our desks because we are afraid to stand up and vote and debate. The people of Vermont have given me the honor of representing them in the Senate for 35 years. I have joined in many debates that were contentious yet ultimately productive. I have been on the winning side. I have been on the losing side. But as we leaf through the pages of history, we can read of many times when the Senate has shown its remarkable ability to rise up to reflect the conscience of the Nation. Those moments were forged in the crucible of national need, against the anvil of the tempered will of the Senate's membership. This Senate can do that again. Our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, said it so well in the letter about the health reform imperative that President Obama read to a joint meeting of Congress. This is what Senator Kennedy reminded us: What we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country. This is such a time. It is my hope and belief the Senate I love will once again rise to the occasion. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will consider and confirm Judge Christina Reiss to a seat on the U.S. District Court in Vermont. Judge Reiss will be the first woman to serve on that Court. As the senior Senator from the State of Vermont, I was honored to recommend Judge Reiss to President Obama for this post. She has considerable criminal and civil experience, and is extremely qualified. For the past 5 years, she has been a State trial court judge in Vermont--a position to which she was appointed by Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, and confirmed unanimously. She formerly was a partner in two Vermont law firms. Judge Reiss earned her B.A. from my alma mater, Saint Michaels College, and earned her J.D. with high honors from University of Arizona College of Law, where she was editor-in-chief of the law review. Judge Reiss has been nominated to fill the vacancy created when my good friend, Judge Garvan Murtha, announced his intention to take senior status on the court. It is the first vacancy on this court since 1995, when the Senate confirmed Judge Murtha and Judge William Sessions. Judge Reiss will make an excellent addition to that court. She has already demonstrated as a state court judge her ability to relate to litigants of many backgrounds, and knows how important it is for judges to possess an understanding of the effects of legal rulings on people's lives. In making this recommendation, I looked to Vermont's Judicial Nominating Commission, a practice I started with the late Senator Robert Stafford, a Republican, and a practice I have continued to follow. The Commission that helped select Judge Reiss was comprised of a nine member non-partisan panel appointed by me, Senator Sanders, and the Vermont Bar Association, and we were aided in the selection process by input from Congressman Peter Welch. The non-partisan, merit-driven process is a good fit for our approach to government in Vermont. Senators of both parties have clearly seen that Judge Reiss has all of the qualities that are important on the Federal bench. Earlier this week, Judge Reiss's nomination was reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee without dissent in a voice vote. I am confident that Judge Reiss is the right person for this position. The Senate will also consider and confirm Abdul K. Kallon to the Northern District of Alabama, the home state of the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Kallon's nomination has the support of both Senator Sessions and Senator Shelby, and was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week with approval by voice vote. I congratulate Judge Reiss, Mr. Kallon and their families on their confirmations today.