Senate Proceeding on Apr 23rd, 2009 :: 1:16:45 to 1:31:20
Total video length: 12 hours 29 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:195 Duration: 0:14:35 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

1:14:15 to 1:22:00( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jon Kyl

1:16:26 to 1:16:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: any of us contemplated that the massive billion dollar recoveries we have seen today would allow this kind of recovery to the private parties, as well. so although -- i think we all agree, whistle-blowers should be xnted when they save the government we should agree they don't diseerve to be grossly

1:16:48 to 1:17:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: overcompensated especially when that compensation comes at the expense of the federal treasury. let me just note a few cases and i'll put this entire in the record which has a lot of other cases, as well. you get the idea from a few i will mention. private realtor shared $95 million as their share of

1:17:09 to 1:17:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: $559 million civil settlement paid to the united statesy t.a.p. pharmaceutical private realtors shared $78 million as a share of $438 million federal settlement paid to the u.s. private realtor will receive

1:17:30 to 1:17:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: $47.8 as a share of a recently announced $325 million settlement paid to the u.s. government by and another will share $46.4 million as their share of a $375 million settlement paid to the united company. madam president, there are several more of these cases.

1:17:53 to 1:18:13( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: all in the $30 million million and $50 million range for payments states government as a result of this law. and the point is that within you're sharing in that were of a proceeds you are denying the taxpayers the benefit of the claims act which was, of course, intended to benefit the treasury

1:18:14 to 1:18:34( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: and not be significantly to benefit these private realtors. so again, it's fair to generously compeates them. we want them to receive an incentive, to blow the whistle on fraud or corruption but the amounts i've described here -- $95 million in just one case,

1:18:35 to 1:18:58( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: for example -- are wildly in excess of what is necessary to spur such whistle blowi amounts come at the expense of the treasury. let me indicate the kind of savings the u.s. government could achieve under this amendment. the first request that i'll today would cap the private realtor recovery at either $5

1:18:59 to 1:19:20( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: million or 300% of the expenses and costs of investigating and proving fud against the government. in other words it is a triple damages for the amount of money that y effect -- $100% of expenses and another $300% above that. and it seems to me this provides

1:19:21 to 1:19:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: more than adequate incentive for the aware of fraud and, therefore, suppose it. in the eight case -- and, therefore, expose it. in the eight cases i mentioned, private realtors receive $427 million at the expense of the government. when just o private realtors95 million,

1:19:43 to 1:20:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: the numbers add up p limit under this request i will make, the same private realtors in these eight cases would still have eved a grand total of at least $40 million from the government under my amendment, the government would have been able to keep an additional $387 million. so just think about it, amendment would have saved the

1:20:06 to 1:20:27( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: government $387 million. so madam president, let me just conclude at this point: i've been law firms but some that specialize in these cases and, obviously, they are fighting the amendment because it is a cottage industry that has grown up. i most to my colleagues that if

1:20:28 to 1:20:48( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: my recollection is not accepted, if my colleagues conclude that $5 million is government to pay a whistle-blower, then what i would suggest is we make that amount higher and i will offer subsequent requests to support a higher amount. and i would also like to note that there will be, inevitably, new cases in which outsized

1:20:49 to 1:21:10( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: awards are paid at the expense of the government's recovery. for example, just last week a federal claims act suit against quest diagnostics resulted in a $302 million recovery for the federal government. but out government was forced to pay $45 million to the private realtor. had my amendment been law the private realtor would still

1:21:11 to 1:21:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: receiv exposing the fraud but the treasury would have received and saved, therefore, an additional $40 million. so, rather than having a vote on each of and i have discussed this with the chairm

1:21:32 to 1:21:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: committee and we've had a genial discussion and i suspect i know at least the first couple of times the fate of my unanimous consent request, but, nonetheless, amendment number 989 would provide a $5 million cap and i would, therefore, ask unanimous consent that amendment

1:21:57 to 1:22:04( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: number

1:22:05 to 1:22:27( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: that the senate be on record as supporting amendment 989 with a $5 million cap. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: i will object if i take a moment to typically arizona was, came and talked to me and was very straightforward

1:22:05 to 1:25:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Patrick Leahy

1:22:28 to 1:22:48( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: what this talks about available under action. i thi false claims act is senator grasey. a senior member of the senate judiciary committee.

1:22:49 to 1:23:09( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: senator grassley opposed this, as do i, and i know there will be other distinguished senator, the distinguished republican leader, is going to bring but my reason in opposing them, and he has explained each of them to me ahead of time so as

1:23:10 to 1:23:31( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: not to have any surprise, i told him i will oppose them because feel that without blowers a lofts the billions in frau in fraud we found would not occur. without the whistle-blowers, the government, the american taxpayers would not recover so much. the false claims act, again, senator grassy and others were

1:23:32 to 1:23:55( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: the leaders in putting that together, is brought back, has br billion into the u.s. treas now, it has a balanced approach to providing incentives for such whistle-blowers. they safer in recoveries if warranted and if it by a judge. the judge has to approve that.

1:23:56 to 1:24:16( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: that has worked out this had an arbitrary cap, i would rather leave it to the judge to make the on doing the -- and simply say, well, we are limited to the times the cost, then i worry about seeing a padding of expenses in

1:24:17 to 1:24:39( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: bringing it. i think it's very well balanced the way it is and with a judge to make i agre upon -- and i am sure the senator from arizona and i agree -- we have to find fraud, we have to root it out and bring those who commit justice but what i'm thinking

1:24:40 to 1:25:02( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: about is, senator grassley has pointed out in the past, you got to given incentive to the whistle-blowers to bring the case. after all, we have seen all too often, a whistle-blower will -- well, alert us to the fraud and the first thing that happens is

1:25:03 to 1:25:27( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: they lose their job. they often in supervisors are turned in and bring out the fraud this could be a life-altering thing and could change their professional career, often for the worse.

1:25:28 to 1:25:49( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: they are looked at as the bad guys. but they are not the bad guys, they are the good guys. we ought to reward them. i will vote against it. in this case, i object to considering it. i know the senator f will have further -- but i want him to know and i want my colleagues to know what i have told him privately. in my opposition -- and i common

1:25:50 to 1:26:00( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: him for doing as he always has in cases we have had, talked to me ahead of time as i have with

1:26:00 to 1:26:50( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jon Kyl

1:26:01 to 1:26:21( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: or so i yield the floor. mr. kyl: mr. president? request is made s there an objection? mr. leahy: i the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. kyl: i appreciate the points made by the chairman of the judiciary committee. there does need to be a and there is some subjective judgment in what kind of a cap

1:26:22 to 1:26:43( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: is appropriate for the reasons that he pointed owe. and as a result, reasonable people can differ whether $5 million cap would be too much. for that reason i indicated if the chairman thought t too much i would suggest that doubling that to a $10 million cap might be appropriate.

1:26:44 to 1:26:50( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: that is actually encompassed in amendment88 so i ask unanimous consent amendment 988 be considered pending and be

1:26:51 to 1:27:01( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: adopted by unanimous consent, setting a recovers. the presiding officer: is there an mr. leahy: mr. president, as i

1:26:55 to 1:27:00( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Patrick Leahy

1:27:02 to 1:27:24( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: indicated to my friend i would object to that and i do object. the presiding officer: the objection is mr. kyl: mr. presint? the presiding officer: the minority whip. mr. l: i think it will be a little harder to object to a $20 million cap but at this time, let me ask -- again, this is subjective.

1:27:05 to 1:28:05( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jon Kyl

1:27:25 to 1:27:45( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: how much of a to cause people given we have this cottage industry of firms that have fund they can make a lot of money on these cases, it seems to me there is adequate rewd whistle-blowers who usually -- and i am sure the chairman would agree, usually come forward because they see something that's wrong and they've got the moral courage to come

1:27:46 to 1:28:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: and say, we don't think this practice i right. and they usually don't do it for the financial reward. but the law firms that are involved here do very, very well out of this. soy l request would be to consider amendment 987 as pending which

1:28:08 to 1:28:28( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: would set a $20 million cap on these awards. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: reserving the right to object, i hate to try to fix something that i don't think is bro the false claims act has worked very, very well, for the united states taxpayers. it has worked well. i know the senator from iowa

1:28:10 to 1:28:45( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Patrick Leahy

1:28:29 to 1:28:46( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: worked so hard putting this together in the first it has billion back interes the awards to a whistle-blower have to be approved by a judge.

1:28:47 to 1:29:07( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: i don that's not broken. so therefore, i wil object. and i do object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. kyl: finally, amendment 986 which is pending sets a million cap. i agree you don't want to fix something that's not broken but

1:28:50 to 1:29:30( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jon Kyl

1:29:08 to 1:29:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jon Kyl: i submit from 1986 which is a long time ago, when these multibillion dollar not have changed. and in 20 or 30 years with the passage of time a this cottage industry of litigation agree up, the kind of

1:29:31 to 1:29:53( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: awards that can be a $97 million award for example are beyond the pale. they were not contemplated. it is broken to the extent tpwhao ef upper limit in a case like that. therefore, what i would do is call amendment number 986, which is pending and would request the

1:29:35 to 1:30:35( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Patrick Leahy

1:29:54 to 1:30:14( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: yeas and nays on that amendment if the chairman wishes to respond, i'll withhold the calling for responded. the presiding officer: is the senator asking for regular order with respect to that amendment? mr. kyl: mr. president, that would be correct. yes. the presidin amendment is now pending. mr. leahy: mr. president, i know the distinguished senator from iowa wishes

1:30:15 to 1:30:39( Edit History Discussion )

Patrick Leahy: this, and we will soon have a roll call on it. i arizona and the senator from iowa could withhold just for two minute senator from wisconsin to spe for two minutes on an amendment

1:30:40 to 1:31:01( Edit History Discussion )

Herb Kohl: of his and then go back to the i'd ask consentor that. there without mr. kohl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: i would like to speak for just a few minutes with your permission. i ask to call up my amendment

1:30:40 to 1:33:20( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Herb Kohl

1:31:02 to 1:31:22( Edit History Discussion )

Herb Kohl: number 990. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the wisconsin, mr. kohl, propose an amendment numbered 990. at the appropriate place, insert the mr. kohl: i ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: mr. president, i speak today in support of an amendment that would protect older americans from