Promoting Mortgage Responsibility Act

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the soon to be pending issue of the budget. We are told that the Democratic membership of the House and Senate reached agreement last night on the budget proposal. They didn't seek our advice or counsel on it. It is pretty much the outline of the budget as requested by the President.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the President inherited a terrible situation. I think he did, from a fiscal standpoint. He has had difficult issues to confront relative to stabilizing our financial industry and trying to get the economy going and addressing the issues which most Americans are concerned about, which is their jobs, the value of their homes, the ability to pay their bills, and to send their kids to college.

What the President inherited is important, but what he is bequeathing to the next generation is even more important. This budget he proposed is an outline of where he sees the Government going and where he sees this Nation going.

Regrettably, the budget as proposed by the President, which has been worked on here by the Senate Democrats and the House Democrats, puts forward a picture that basically almost guarantees our children will be inheriting a nation with a government that is nonsustainable. The President's budget proposed a trillion dollars of deficit, on average, for the next 10 years. That is a number that is hard to comprehend. But to try to put it into perspective, the effect of that number is that the debt of the United States will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. If you want to put it in another perspective, take all the debt created since the founding of our Nation, from George Washington through George W. Bush--all that debt that has been added to the backs of the Nation's people--and President Obama's budget doubles that debt in 4 years, which is a staggering event.

The implications are pretty dramatic for the next generation. The public debt of the United States will go to 80 percent of GDP fairly quickly under this proposal. The historic public debt of this country has been 40 percent of GDP. That means the amount of debt out there in relation to the size of the economy will have doubled.

That has dramatic ramifications. For example, at that level of public debt through the economic activity in our country, we as a nation would not be allowed to enter the European Union because we wouldn't meet their standard for fiscal responsibility. Countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine, which all have very serious issues, might qualify for the European Union, but we would not because of the fact that our debt was so high as a percentage of our economy. It means our people, who have to pay that debt, will have to pay an inordinate amount of taxes in one of two ways to pay that debt off. Either they will have to pay more taxes because the Federal Government will inflate the money supply in order to pay off this debt, which is the worst tax there is--inflation--because it takes away the savings of all of the American people or you will have to significantly increase taxes on every American, not just the high-income Americans, as was represented by this President that he wants to do, and the Democratic Congress and Senate said they want to do; all taxes will have to go up astronomically in order to pay for the debt.

What is driving this massive expansion of debt our children and we are going to have to pay as a result of this budget that is proposed by the President? Well, it is spending. Very simply, it is spending. The President proposed, and the Democratic Congress will bring forward, a budget that significantly increases the spending of the Federal Government. Historically, the spending

of the Government has been about 20 percent of the GDP. Under this budget, it goes to 22 percent, 23 percent, 24 percent, 25 percent--it gets up to levels that have never been seen, except during the time of World War II. They are unsustainable levels of spending. It is being done with a pure purpose, which is, I guess, to Europeanize the American economy and the American Government, to basically have the Government become the largest and most significant player in our economy and to dominate all aspects of our economy because of its size.

The President is very forthright about this. He says he believes that by growing the Government significantly, he can create more prosperity. Those on our side of the aisle disagree with that. We believe a government has to be affordable for a nation to have prosperity. We also think prosperity doesn't come from the Government, it comes from individuals who are willing to take risks and go out and create jobs by taking those risks. This is a fundamental disagreement. This budget lays that out precisely.

We are going to hear from the other side of the aisle the most disingenuous discussions about how they have been much more responsible on the budget, while they claim they are doing exactly what the President is doing in his budget. The reason they make that statement is because they cook the books. At least the President was forthright and he came forward with a budget--except in the area of defense--which set forth in a reasonably honest way what the costs to the Government were going to be and, as a result, it reflected the fact that because of his huge commitment in new spending programs, the cost of Government was going to be extraordinary, and the amount of debt that was going to be added to the books of the Government and the backs of the American people was going to be untenable and unsustainable.

The other side of the aisle, I guess because they recognize they are going to be up for election before the President, doesn't want to have those numbers out there. So they have gone back and played a lot of games with the numbers the President sent up. For example, the President honestly represented the fact that we are not going to get revenues from the alternative minimum tax, because every year we basically limit the amount of applicability of the AMT. But the baseline reflects a huge income of the AMT. It says 20 million people are going to pay it. But we are not going to allow that to happen, because it wasn't designed to affect 20 million people but the top income producers in this country--probably less than a million people. So every year we basically change the law so that for that year the AMT doesn't apply. The President was forthright and said I know that will happen and I am not going to account for this revenue that never comes in. So he scored the AMT fairly. The other side of the aisle games that number.

In the area of the doctors' fix, every year we know we are going to have to pay doctors a reasonable amount for their services under Medicare. Unfortunately, we have a law in place that keeps cutting that amount. This year it will be cut almost 20 percent over the baseline, in an arbitrary and foolish way. We should fix this permanently, but we don't have the courage to do it because of the effects on the budget. So we have used all sorts of gimmicks over the years--and everybody admits to this--so that we didn't have to fix that over a long period of time and correct that problem, even though we know every year we are going to adjust and make that payment to doctors.

Well, the President was forthright and he said, listen, that is not fair, honest accounting. We are going to tell you exactly what the doctors' fix costs, and we are going to account for it in the budget.

What does the other side of the aisle do? They hide that number again. They go back to the old rules. Those two items alone represent $100 billion of annual spending, which is being put under the rug. The President was honest enough to talk about it, but this Democratic Congress and Senate, in an attempt to obfuscate the issue for the American people, because they don't want to tell the people how much money they are spending, they stick that $100 billion under the rug.

Then there is the health care reform. At least the President--even though I disagree with some of his philosophies, and I hope we can have a bipartisan approach, and I support the Wyden-Bennett bill floating around this Congress--at least the President, in proposing his health care reform, said he was going to account for paying for half of it-- $600 billion he put into the budget to pay for his health care reform. He acknowledges that is about half the cost of a $1.2 trillion program over the time of his budget.

What does the other side of the aisle do when they bring this budget forward? They don't account for any of it--none of it. It disappears off the books. Not only is the $1.2 trillion not there, the $600 billion is not there. How outrageous, to claim they are going to bring the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP in 2014, when they have basically hidden under the rug the AMT cost, the doctors' fix cost, and the most significant fiscal issue, health care reform. It is so disingenuous, it is almost unbelievable. But they are going to do that, and I suspect it won't be covered in any depth. To claim they are going to cut the deficit in half, which is a classic example of language over substance, will be the mantra of the day. They say they are going to cut the deficit in half. They claim they are going to cut it by 75 percent, because they are going to take a $1.8 trillion deficit and allegedly cut it to $550 billion in 4 years.

Let me point out to you that $550 billion is too big. It is like saying we are going to take six steps backward and two steps forward and claim we are moving in the right direction. Of course they are not. Equally important, the $500 billion number is a total fraud. It is a fraud on the American people brought forward in this budget.

Please, please, please do not subject the American people to this sort of disingenuousness. At least have the integrity the President had when he presented the budget of accounting for what we know are real numbers, such as AMT, the doctors fix, and the health care reform initiative proposed by the President and supported by the other side of the aisle.

That is the substantive problem with this budget; that it creates all this debt, all this spending. It takes the Government of the United States and lurches it to the left. It Europeanizes our Nation, for all intents and purposes, and passes on to our kids a government that is not sustainable.

It is ironic that we hear from the Budget chairmen, both in the Senate and the House, that the outyear numbers are unsustainable under this budget. The outyears are so unsustainable under their budget that they eliminated the last 5 years of the budget. The President sent up a 10-year budget to have some integrity around here. The other side of the aisle said: My goodness, we can't tell the American people what is going to happen to them over the second 5 years. It is bad enough what we are going to do to them in the first 5 years. We are going to eliminate the second 5 years and do a 5-year budget and not tell them about the second 5 years.

Both Democratic chairmen of both committees in the House and Senate have said we are on an unsustainable path. What do they do about the unsustainable path? They hide the numbers under the table, they do not admit to the spending, they allow the spending to go up radically, and there is absolutely zero--zero--savings on the spending side of the ledger, especially in the entitlement accounts which is at the core of what is driving the outyear problem.

Ironically, a couple of the ideas the President sent up to save money were dropped, simply dropped. For example, he proposed some savings in the agriculture accounts which were very reasonable. They disappeared. He proposed some savings in the Medicare accounts which were very reasonable. They disappeared. But that is a minor story compared to the trillions of dollars of new debt that is going to be put on the backs of our children.

By the time this budget has run its course, it will have added well over $9 trillion, under the President's calculations, to the debt of the United States. Who is going to pay that? Who is going to pay that? First off, who is going to lend us the money? At some point, the countries that are lending us this

money, the international community that looks to us and lends us money so we can run these massive deficits, is going to say: Why? Hold it. We don't know if they can pay off all this debt. At that point, the value of the dollar is at risk. At that point, the ability of us to sell debt is at risk. At that point, our Nation starts a downward fiscal spiral which will be extraordinarily disruptive and dangerous for us as a nation. This is not a good path to be on.

There are also a couple technical points that should be pointed out because they are procedural points that have massive policy implications. First, of course, is this really pyrrhic claim they are using pay-go as a disciplining mechanism. How many times have we heard that pay-go is going to be used to discipline spending. My goodness, in the last Congress, which was dominated by the Democratic Party, if I recall correctly, the House and Senate both being democratically led, pay-go, which was supposed to discipline the fiscal process around here, was waived almost 20 times--either waived, avoided or circumvented almost 20 times. Those exercises cost us almost $400 billion in spending that should have been offset. So pay-go became ``Swiss cheese-go.'' It had no value and was a worthless purpose, other than to make a political speech and claim on the stump: Oh, I am for fiscal discipline. I am for pay-go. Of course, when you voted in the Senate over the last 2 years, if you made that speech and up for reelection and you were a Democrat, you basically waived pay-go, circumvented pay-go or avoided pay-go to the tune of $400 billion in new spending.

Now we have the House Blue Dogs saying: We are going to get tough pay-go language back in place. I have to explain something to the House Blue Dogs: They didn't get it. They didn't give it to you. The budget that is going to come to the floor of this Senate is going to have structural changes which allow pay-go to be avoided for up to $2.5 trillion, at least that is what the House budget had in it, and the Senate budget was pretty close. Mr. President, $2.5 trillion will circumvent pay-go.

The most egregious exercise will be in the health care area, where they have formally ended pay-go's applicability during the first 5-year window. They basically say openly: We are not going to comply with pay- go on health care.

Health care is going to be the single biggest fiscal event this Congress has probably taken up in the last 20 years, maybe 30 years, maybe 40 years, maybe ever. Restructuring the health care of this country is a pretty doggone big exercise since it represents 17 percent of our economy. To say they are not going to apply pay-go to that exercise, to that effort, to that undertaking is to drive a hole through the pay-go concept that is so big it becomes not ``Swiss cheese-go'' but a great big, huge onion ring; there is basically nothing left but air in pay-go.

When the Blue Dogs on the other side of the aisle start marching around: We have pay-go, we have pay-go, somebody ought to point out to them that their banner does not have a flag on it. Pay-go was taken down under health care rules and under the rest of this bill. It may make for a good press release, but it sure as heck doesn't have any substance to it.

The second procedural event, of course, is this issue of reconciliation, which is a major issue for us on our side of the aisle, and it should be for the Senate. When the Senate was constructed, when our constitutional form of Government was put together, the idea was to have balance so we had a House of Representatives where things might happen quickly, but when it got to the Senate, there would be an airing, a hearing, consideration, and there would be due diligence on issues. That is why it was George Washington who described the House as the cup with the hot coffee in it and the Senate as the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured so it can be cooled down a little bit.

The Senate is institutionally and constitutionally structured to be the place where we have debate, we have discussion, and we have amendments. That is the whole concept behind the Senate, especially on issues of massive public policy implications, and there is probably nothing we are going to take up on the domestic side of the ledger that has a bigger public policy implication than the rewriting of our entire health care system.

Yet what is being proposed is that this rewrite of the entire health care system be done in a way that allows the Senate only 20 hours of debate, with essentially no amendments and with an up-or-down vote, yes or no, on something that affects 17 percent of the gross national product of this country, that affects every American in every walk of life in a very significant way, and that is how is their health care system delivered.

Why wouldn't we want to have a full and clear, hopefully, and significant discussion of what we are doing to the American public and what the policy implications of health care reform are on the floor of the Senate? If we are going to get a good piece of legislation, we are going to have to have bipartisanship and going to have to have the American people believe it is fair. You cannot pass something as significant as health care and do it in a crammed-down manner, in a manner where it is totally partisan. Yet reconciliation is structured to accomplish just that.

You have to have every stakeholder at the table. Granted, we are not going to win all our points, but we may have some points that are constructive to the debate. Let us at least be at the table and make those points on the floor of the Senate through the amendment process. Don't shut this Senate down and don't make us into the House of Representatives and don't essentially convert our constitutional form of Government, which is checks and balances, into a parliamentary form of Government, where there are essentially no checks and balances on the majority once it has an overwhelming position. That is what is being proposed in the bill when it pushes reconciliation as an option for the majority party in the area of health care reform. It is unfortunate.

I appreciate the courtesy of the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls during debate on the Sebelius nomination be equally charged to both sides.

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

Mr. President, hate crimes harm innocent victims, terrorize entire communities, and threaten the very fabric of our nation. They send a poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are or who they are perceived to be. Hate crimes offend the fundamental ideals on which Nation was founded. They can not be tolerated in any free society, and it is long past time to enact legislation to correct the deficiencies in the current federal hate crimes statute.

For far too long, law enforcement has been forced to investigate hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Now is the time to change this. This bill strengthens the Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It removes the excessive restrictions currently existing in federal law. It offers Federal assistance for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes to State and local law enforcement. It provides training grants for local law enforcement to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

The first Federal hate crimes statute was passed over 40 years ago in 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It authorized the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute crimes committed against individuals because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. The original statute was a major advance in the march of progress, but it is now a generation out of date.

The time has come to stand up for all victims of hate crimes--victims like Matthew Shepard, for whom this bill is named. Matthew died a horrible death in 1998 at the hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation. Since Matthew's murder, his mother has worked courageously to make sure that we never forget the suffering that her son endured, and to remind Congress that it has a responsibility to protect individuals like her son. Yet today, more than 10 years after Matthew's death--10 years--we still have not modernized our hate crimes laws. How long are we going to wait?

The bill we are introducing today expands the current hate crimes statute

and gives Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities greater ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes effectively. The bill closes flagrant loopholes in the current statute that prevent or undermine the prosecution of the individuals who commit these vicious crimes.

This bill broadens the original Federal hate crimes statute by prohibiting crimes based on a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

According to FBI statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation make up approximately 17 percent of all hate crimes. Considering that gays and lesbians make up approximately 3 percent of the population, the FBI statistics suggest that gays and lesbians are victimized at a rate approximately 6 times higher than that of the average American. Research suggests that hate-motivated violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens is particularly extreme. As these statistics and the research make clear, hate crimes are a very real danger to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens. We must act--without further delay--to correct these unacceptable deficiencies in current law and protect all citizens from these brutal crimes.

Our bill also increases the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate crimes. It removes the prerequisite that a victim be engaged in a ``federally protected activity'' before the Federal Government can prosecute an offender under the statute. This restrictive provision is outdated, unwise, and unnecessary, particularly when one considers the unjust outcomes that can result from limiting prosecution to offenders to target victims participating in one or more of the following 6 narrow categories of federally protected activity: attending or enrolling in a public school or public college; participating in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity administered by a state or local government; applying for or working in private or state employment; serving as a juror in a state court; using a facility of interstate commerce or a common carrier; or enjoying public accommodations or places of exhibition or entertainment. We know that individuals may be victimized while engaging in activities that are not included in this list of activities--they could be victims while engaging in routine activities, going about their normal day. Americans should be protected from hate crimes in everything they do. There should be no distinction between hate crimes occurring while a victim is engaged in a routine activity or one of the six specified federally protected activities described above.

This bill corrects a gap in the current hate crimes statute that limits prosecution to offenders who interfere with a victim's participation in certain federally protected activities. In June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. The teenagers knew one another from involvement in community activities and have come together to celebrate a birthday. As the group entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted the teenagers, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. Two of the men were tried under the current Federal hate crimes law and were acquitted. The jurors said they acquitted the offenders because the Government failed to prove that using a restaurant was a federally protected activity. The result in this case is just one example of the inadequate protections provided under current law. The bill we introduce today will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement and give jurors greater ability to convict all perpetrators of hate crimes.

The bill modernizes the Federal Government's ability to prosecute hate crimes, but it fully respects the primary role of state, local, and tribal law enforcement authorities in responding to hate crimes in their jurisdictions. The bill protects these local interests with a strict certification process, which requires the Federal Government to consult with state and local officials before prosecuting a Federal case. In accord with certification, it is our belief that the vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the State and local level.

In addition, our bill authorizes the Justice Department to increase the number of Department personnel to prevent and respond to hate crimes. This increase will enable Federal authorities to develop the manpower necessary to act effectively to prevent and respond to hate crimes.

The bill also authorizes the Justice Department to provide needed investigative resources to state and local law enforcement during these challenging economic times. This expansion of federal assistance is meant to supplement, not supplant, the efforts of state and local law enforcement authorities, so that hate crimes can be effectively investigated and prosecuted in the future.

Hate crimes investigations tend to be expensive, requiring considerable law enforcement effort, and extensive use of grand juries. The bill expands the Justice Department's opportunity to provide support for these expenses. It authorizes the Attorney General to offer grants of up to $100,000 to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials manage the high costs of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It also authorizes the Justice Department to award grants to State, local, and tribal authorities for programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs designed to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes. These measures will help ensure that state and local authorities have the resources necessary to successfully combat and prosecute hate crimes.

Collecting data on hate crimes is important for analyzing crime trends and tailoring effective criminal policy. Our bill increases the Federal Government's ability to monitor hate crimes by requiring the FBI to increase the statistics it collects about such crimes. Currently, the FBI collects hate crimes data on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, and disability. Our bill requires the FBI to collect new statistics on hate crimes based on an individual's gender or gender-identity, and hate crimes committed by juveniles. By increasing the amount of data collected by the FBI, we will be able to better understand the gravity of the hate crimes committed in our communities.

Hate crimes are a festering problem, causing terror in neighborhoods across America. According to the most recent statistics released by the FBI, there were at least 9,527 victims of hate-motivated crimes in 2007. Based on that number, an average of 26 victims per day were terrorized as a consequence of their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. The FBI's statistics reveal that race-related hate crimes are the most common type of hate crimes, comprising approximately 50 percent of all hate crimes reported to the FBI. That said, crimes based on religion, sexual orientation, and ethnic background occur with alarming frequency as well.

These hate crimes statistics are disturbing, but they represent only the tip of the iceberg of hate crimes occurring in America. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign, and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics agree that the FBI's hate crimes numbers do not reflect the actual number of hate crimes occurring in our communities each year. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the annual number of hate crimes committed in the U.S. is close to 50,000. In addition, the Human Rights Campaign states that a hate crime occurs every 6 hours. Survey data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' biannual National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that an average of 191,000 hate crime victimizations take place each year. Based on this survey, over 540 people are victimized each day, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability--more than 22 victims per hour. These statistics are not just shocking--they are shameful. It is time for Congress to specifically address the serious problem of hate crimes in America.

In addition to the legal impact of this bill, its symbolic impact is equally important. This bill emphasizes the devastatingly unique nature of hate crimes. It says we recognize that hate crimes provide aggressors with the means to attack an entire community

through a single act of violence, and send a message of fear that vastly transcends the immediate crime and its victim. It shows we understand that hate crime offenders should be prosecuted for committing a crime against an entire community. After so many years of inaction, we in Congress have an obligation to demonstrate that we understand how hate crimes affect our nation's communities.

It takes only a brief survey of any major news outlet to find horrifying stories of hate crimes and the inability of law enforcement to prosecute offenders for their acts of hate. The 1999 murder of four women in Yosemite National Park graphically illustrates the need to include gender in our hate crimes statute. These four women were murdered by a man who admitted having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. These women lost their lives for one reason-- because they were women. We need to send a clear message that we will not accept such acts of hate. Without this bill, however, such a crime cannot be federally prosecuted as a hate crime.

Gender identity must also be included in our definition of those characteristics protected by a hate crimes statute. Many are familiar with the story of Brandon Teena, who was raped and beaten in Humboldt, Nebraska in 1993 by two male friends after they discovered that he was living as a male but was anatomically female. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death.

A more recent, less well-known incident occurred when Fred C. Martinez Jr., a Navajo transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party. Fred was killed for one reason alone--because he was a transgender youth. By passing this bill, the Senate will send a strong message that hate crimes based on sexual identity are unacceptable and perpetrators of such crimes will face tough criminal penalties under Federal law.

Hate crimes against disabled Americans are very disturbing and deserve protection at the Federal level as well. In October 2002, two deaf girls, one of whom was wheelchair bound due to cerebral palsy, were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. The girls were attacked because they were disabled and unable to defend themselves. Although the alleged perpetrators were prosecuted, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because no State or Federal protections for disability-based hate crimes existed in Federal or State law. This must change.

These are only a few examples of the hate perpetrated against individuals in America based on their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. We can no longer allow any of these communities to live in fear. Crimes based on an individual's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability must be prosecuted for what they are--crimes of hate.

Individuals should not only be protected from hate crimes because of their actual characteristics; they must also be protected from hate crimes based on the inaccurate perceptions of others. Last year in Brooklyn, New York, Jose Sucuzhanay was walking arm in arm with his brother, Romel Sucuzhanay, after attending a church party. According to officials, about half a block from Jose's home, a black sports utility vehicle drove by and the two men in the vehicle began shouting what witnesses described as vulgarisms against Hispanics and gay men. The car stopped and one of the two men approached Jose and smashed a beer bottle over the back of his head. The other man then took an aluminum baseball bat from the rear of the vehicle and repeatedly struck Jose on his shoulder, ribs, and back. Once Jose fell to the ground, he received several full-forced, crushing blows to his head with the aluminum baseball bat. Jose, a father of two and local real estate agent, died 5 days later because of the hate-motivated attack. He did not deserve to lose his life because he was perceived to be gay. That is why the bill we are introducing today criminalizes crimes based on the perceived characteristics of a victim.

We also know that hate crimes covered by current Federal law--based on race, religion, national origin, and color--still occur and must be prosecuted. Following the 2008 presidential election, three men in New York went on a rampage attacking African-American residents of Staten Island in response to the historic election of President Barack Obama. The men attacked one 17-year-old African-American man with a metal pipe and collapsible baton. They attacked another African-American man by pushing him to the ground. They assaulted still another man, whom they mistakenly believed was African-American, by mowing him down with a car while yelling racial epithets at him. Clearly, this demonstrates that race-based violence is continuing at an unacceptable level, and we must act to help law enforcement more vigorously deal with hate crimes.

Hate crimes legislation has the support of President Obama, a majority of Congress, 26 State Attorneys General, and a broad coalition of law enforcement, civic, religious, and civil rights groups. Recent history shows that Congress is ready to make hate crimes legislation into law. In 2007, the Senate voted 60 to 39 in support of a similar hate crimes bill. An equally powerful statement was made by the House when it voted 237 to 180 for the hate crimes bill introduced that year. As a Senator, President Obama voted to support hate crimes legislation. Now, as President, he has included the expansion of hate crimes in his civil rights agenda. The political will of our Nation is clear--it is time for this bill to become law.

Over 300 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations have endorsed our bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti- Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Interfaith Alliance. All these diverse groups have come together to say that now is the time for us to protect our fellow citizens from the brutality of hate-motivated violence. They strongly support this legislation because they know it is a balanced and sensible approach that will bring greater protection to our citizens, along with much-needed resources for local and State law enforcement fighting hate crimes.

Passing this bill will send a message, loud and clear, that those who victimize individuals because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability will go to prison. In addition, passing this bill will provide Federal, State, local, and tribal authorities with stronger means to prosecute crimes of hate. It has been over 10 years since Matthew Shepard was left to die on a fence in Wyoming because of who he was. It has also been 10 years since this bill was initially considered by Congress. In those 10 years, we have gained the political and public support that is needed to make this bill become law. Today, we have a President who is prepared to sign hate crimes legislation into law, and a Justice Department that is willing to enforce it. We must not delay the passage of this bill. Now is the time to stand up against hate-motivated violence and recognize the shameful damage it is doing to our Nation.

Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senator Carper in reintroducing a bill that will improve agency performance and Congressional oversight of major federal information-technology, IT, projects. We introduced this bill last Congress and offer it for consideration again because it will strengthen oversight of technology investments to help prevent the waste and misuse of taxpayer dollars.

The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT projects like the FBI's Virtual Case File initiative.

The 2010 Census is notable among projects that have drawn our attention, not only because of its great scope and expense, but because of its history of unheeded cautions. For years, warnings of potential dangers came from experts sought out by the Census Bureau itself and from the Commerce Department's own Inspector General.

The implications of this lack of proper planning and oversight are evident in the burgeoning estimate for the life-cycle cost of the 2010 Census. The Bureau initially estimated that the 2010 Census would cost the taxpayers about $11.3 billion dollars; today, the estimated cost is more than $14 billion.

Another example is the Department of Homeland Security's, DHS, efforts since 2004 to integrate its financial management systems. DHS spent approximately $52 million on one failed attempt before abandoning the project nearly two years later. According to GAO, this attempt likely failed because DHS had not developed an overall financial management transformation strategy that included financial management policies and procedures, standard business processes, a human capital strategy, and effective internal controls. DHS spent approximately $52 million and now has little, if anything, to show for it.

The Department of Homeland Security is now attempting another consolidation of its financial information technology systems. It is essential that, this time, the Department sufficiently plan and monitor its cost, schedule, and performance targets.

During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs investigated the botched automated record-keeping project for the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan, TSP. This project was terminated in 2001 after a four-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was charged to the accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second vendor needed an additional $33 million to bring the system online, years overdue and costing more than double its original estimate.

In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Board characterized the project as ``ill-fated,'' and acknowledged the importance of careful planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk management--all of which were lacking on that project.

Large IT project failures have cost US taxpayers literally billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the government's ability to defend the nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance.

Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, continues to report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs of possible trouble.

The GAO reported that the Federal Government spent over $71 billion in fiscal year 2009 on IT projects. Most of that spending was concentrated in two dozen agencies that have approximately 800 major projects underway.

When the GAO reviewed a random sampling of these major Federal IT projects, they found that 85--nearly half the sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been rebaselined 6 times.

Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays.'' All major federal agencies have rebaselining policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.''

The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers' money.

Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires agencies to track the Earned Value Management index, a key cost and performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall below a defined threshold.

The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen. Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic to hide troubled projects. Where severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, agencies are prohibited from committing additional funds to the project until the required corrective actions are taken.

Our bill would not make Congress a micro-manager of Federal projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology. But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with follow-up reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project alternatives when the original projects have run off course.

The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage, and not just when execution begins.

In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making

core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements; and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements, including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase.

To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill also provides two new support mechanisms.

First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT- management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and risk.

Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator would be required to establish an IT Tiger Team of experts and independent consultants that can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent contractor to report on the project.

These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems arise, and promote prompt corrective action.

In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20 percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have six months to take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending until those steps are completed.

If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census. The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that ultimately landed on high-risk lists.

I urge every Senator to support this much-needed and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today would authorize the establishment of the Cures Acceleration Network, CAN. This new $2 billion agency would provide funds to translate research discoveries from the bench to the bedside and would operate as an independent agency. It would not be part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The CAN would make awards outside of the traditional funding stream to accelerate the development of cures and treatments including but not limited to drugs, devices, and behavioral therapies. The CAN would have a flexible expedited review process to get monies into the hands of the grantees as quickly as possible. These development

funds would complement the research dollars provided to the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and would not compete or take monies away from the NIH.

The bill also would raise the authorization level of the National Institutes of Health to $40 billion in fiscal year 2010, elevate the Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities to Institute status, and implement a new conflict-of-interest provision.

While the NIH funds much of the basic biomedical research at universities across the country, the CAN would take those findings found through basic research and provide funding to fill the gap between laboratory discoveries and life-saving medical therapies. This funding gap--often referred to as ``the valley of death'' arises after Federal basic-science support ends and before investors are willing to commit to a promising discovery. Very often finding funds to fill this gap is a daunting challenge, especially during a period of economic downturn, when investors have fewer resources to invest. This has had a severe impact on America's biotechnology industry.

The need for the CAN is clear: Capital raised by America's biotechnology companies fell 55 percent in 2008 compared to 2007. Also relative to 2007, 90 percent of small public biotechnology companies are now operating with less than 6 months of cash on hand. In the last 5 months alone, at least 24 U.S. public biotech companies have either placed drug development programs on hold or cut programs altogether. These companies have postponed clinical trials to treat melanoma, cervical cancer, lupus, chemotherapy side effects for breast cancer patients, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and atherosclerosis, drug trials to treat non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, testing of pandemic flu vaccine, trials to treat plaque psoriasis and heart disease, and a treatment for mesothelioma.

In short, without adequate funding--these companies will be unable to take these products to the development stage, the basic research done by the NIH will be lost, and many patients will die waiting for drugs and devices to give them a better quality of life.

The CAN would fund two types of grant awards, each with an authorization of $1 billion in the first year and additional funds in succeeding fiscal years.

The Cures Acceleration Grant Awards will provide grant awards of up to $15 million per year per project with out-year funding available. These awards would be available to applicants who do not have access to private matching funds.

The Cures Acceleration Partnership Awards also would provide grants for up to $15 million per year per project with additional funds available in the out-years. However, grant awards would require a match of three Federal dollars to one grantee dollar, as a way to partially offset development costs.

For both grant types, the CAN Board may waive the award limitation as well as modify the matching requirement.

Eligible grantees would include public or private entities such as institutions of higher education, medical centers, biotechnology companies, universities, patient advocacy organizations, pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions.

To provide for expedited FDA approval, the grantees must also establish protocols that comply with FDA standards to meet regulatory requirements at all stages of development, manufacturing, review, approval and safety surveillance of a medical product.

The provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act would apply.

The CAN grant proposals would be evaluated by a 24-member board comprised of experienced individuals of distinguished achievement, and representative of a broad range of disciplinary interests including: venture capitalists and business executives with experience in managing scientific enterprises; scientists with expertise in the fields of basic research, biopharmaceuticals, drug discovery, drug delivery of medical products, bioinformatics, gene therapy or medical instrumentation, regulatory review and approval of medical products; and representatives of patient advocacy organizations.

The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the CAN shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The term of office of each member of the Board shall be 2 years. The CAN board also will include ex-officio members representing the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Science Foundation. The CAN board will meet four times each calendar year, with 12 board members and representatives of the ex-officio members present at each meeting. The board will be supported by an executive director and other employees that the Board deems necessary to ensure efficient operation of the CAN.

The Chairman of the CAN shall have authority to enter into an interagency agreement with the Center for Scientific Review at the National Institutes of Health to utilize advisory panels to review applications, and to make recommendations to the CAN.

The increases that have been made in medical research over the past 20-30 years have dramatically improved the survival rates for many diseases--deaths from coronary artery disease declined by 18 percent between 1994 and 2004. Stroke deaths also fell by 24.2 percent during that same time period. The five-years survival rates for Hodgkin's lymphoma have increased from 4 percent in the 1960s to more than 86 percent today. Survival rates for localized breast cancer have increased from 80 percent in the 1950s to 98 percent today. Over the past 25 years, survival rates for prostate cancer have increased from 69 percent to almost 99 percent. So we are seeing real progress. But for many other maladies, the statistics are not so good.

These medical advances do not happen overnight. It takes time and money for research institutions to develop scientists skilled in the latest research techniques and to develop the costly infrastructure where research takes place.

Regrettably, Federal funding for NIH has steadily declined from the $3.8 billion increase provided in 2003--when the 5-year doubling of that agency was completed. Had we provided sustained increases of $3.5 billion per year, plus inflation since 2003, we would have $23 billion more in funding for today. The shortfall due to inflationary costs alone is $5.2 billion. This flagging investment in medical research, many believe, served to discourage bright young investigators from entering this field of study.

The $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health that was included in stimulus package provided an immediate infusion of new research dollars for medical research. While these funds will only make up for a portion of what was lost since 2003, it is a step in the right direction. But much remains to be done. Additional dollars must be found for the 2010 appropriation and beyond.

The $40 billion contained in the legislation that I am introducing today will help to re-energize our investment in medical research, support a new generation of young scientists and invest in the health of our Nation.

The bill also contains a provision which requires the Director of NIH to enforce conflict-of-interest policies, requiring primary investigators with financial interests to provide a detailed report how the grant recipient will manage the investigator's conflict-of- interest.

The legislation also elevates the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities to Institute status, a designation that will lead to more resources to address the health status of minority and other medically underserved communities.

While some might argue that at a time when our economy is struggling we cannot afford to invest more in medical research. The fact is that research offers the only hope of saving lives, allowing our citizens to lead longer, more productive lives and saving billions of dollars in health care cost. To those critics I would say we cannot afford not to invest in medical research. This is not simply good social policy; it is good economic policy as well.

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

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

Mr. President, what is the order of business? Are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I have a statement that will take about 15 minutes on Governor Sebelius.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the nomination of Governor Kathleen Sebelius to serve as our next Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. I will not be able to support Governor Sebelius's nomination to this position and will be voting no. I wish to take a few minutes to explain my opposition to her confirmation.

First, I have always been pro life. I believe that life begins at conception and that every life is precious. I believe that we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. That

is why I am so strongly opposed to abortion. Abortion kills the most fragile, most vulnerable, and most needy among us. These children cannot defend themselves, so they desperately need us to protect them.

To me, abortion is about whether defenseless babies have a right to live. The answer, clearly, is, yes, they do. I don't understand how people can come away with any other conclusion than that one. Unfortunately, too many people do. According to the National Right to Life, there have been more than 49 million abortions in the United States since 1973, with about 1.2 million in 2005, the year they have the most recent data. These numbers are staggering and saddening.

I cannot support the nomination of someone to be the leader of our Health and Human Services Department who does not respect human life. That is why I will be voting against Governor Sebelius. Her record as Governor of Kansas on abortion issues is dismal. She has vetoed multiple pieces of legislation passed by the Kansas legislature dealing with abortion, including bills in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008. In fact, last week she vetoed yet another bill.

These were commonsense bills that I think most Americans could agree with, such as creating standards for abortion clinics that require clean and sterilized rooms and equipment, counseling before and after abortion, and medical screening for patients. Several of the bills dealt with changes to the Kansas late-term abortion laws, including one vetoed last week. That bill required certain information to be reported to the State when doctors perform late-term abortions, including the specific medical reason the abortion was performed. Another bill would have given women about to undergo an abortion the opportunity to listen to the baby's heartbeat and see an ultrasound of their child, along with several other provisions. Governor Sebelius vetoed all of these bills.

I am also greatly concerned about Governor Sebelius's relationship with Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor from Wichita, who specializes in late-term abortion. On Dr. Tiller's Web site he says that his clinic has ``more experience in late-term abortion services over 24 weeks than anyone else practicing in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, or Australia.'' This is not something to be proud of.

I know that pro-abortion supporters like to make the argument that unborn babies are a clump of cells and not yet a human being. They couldn't be more wrong. These unborn babies are developing, growing, can feel pain, and certainly have the will to live. Let me briefly give a description of the development milestones that babies reach as they grow to 24 weeks. This is according to the Mayo Clinic's Web site--the Mayo Clinic: At 5 weeks, the heart begins to beat. At 8 weeks, eyelids are forming, along with the ears, upper nose, fingers, lips, and toes. At 9 weeks, the baby begins to move. At 12 weeks, fingernails and toenails are forming. At 16 weeks, the baby's eyes are sensitive to light. At 18 weeks, the ears start working and the baby can be even startled by loud noises. At 19 weeks, the kidneys are working. At 20 weeks, most mothers can feel their babies move. At 22 weeks, taste buds are forming. At 23 weeks, the baby begins to practice breathing so she will be ready once she is born. At 24 weeks, the baby weighs about a pound and a half, has footprints, and fingerprints, and starts to have regular waking and sleep cycles.

The Web site says that babies formed at 24 weeks have a 50 percent chance of survival. And this is where Dr. Tiller steps in and aborts the baby. How can you hear these development milestones and believe these babies are expendable; that these babies' lives are less important than someone else or that they simply can be killed and thrown away?

Think of the difference between two babies at 24 weeks--one is wanted, one is not. For the child born early, whose parents love and want her, she would be rushed to a neonatal intensive care unit after delivery, where she would be given round-the-clock intensive medical care until she was big and strong enough to go home. Every day in this country, premature babies cling to life and fight for survival. I think most of the parents of premature babies would tell you that their child's will to live is courageous and inspiring.

For the poor babies who have parents who choose to abort them, their life is about to end. According to Planned Parenthood, a procedure called dilation and evacuation--or D and E--is generally performed in pregnancies over 16 weeks. Let me read how the National Right to Life organization describes this procedure:

Forceps with sharp metal jaws are used to grasp parts of

the developing baby, which are then twisted and torn away.

This continues until the entire baby is removed from the

womb. Because the baby's skull has often hardened to bone by

this time, the skull must sometimes be compressed or crushed

to facilitate removal.

That is disgusting, and anyone who tries to justify it should be ashamed. Abortion and the callous disregard for human life in this country is a real tragedy. George Tiller's work greatly concerns me. Governor Sebelius's ties to George Tiller greatly concern me. The late- term abortion doctor has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Governor Sebelius, and she has even honored him at the Governor's mansion in Kansas.

Governor Sebelius hasn't always been upfront about their relationship as well. In answering questions before the Finance Committee, Governor Sebelius originally said that Tiller had donated about $12,000 to her. A few days later, she had to go back to revise that amount because somewhere an additional $23,000 in donations from the abortion doctor had been overlooked and not accounted for. While she said this was an inadvertent omission, it seems to me that you would remember that sum of money from one of your most controversial donors.

I certainly realize that President Obama would not nominate someone to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services who is pro life. However, Governor Sebelius's record on right-to-life issues along with her ties to the late-term abortion Dr. Tiller cannot be overlooked. The leader of the Department of Health and Human Services should be balanced and reasonable. There is nothing in Governor Sebelius's record that makes me think she is either when it comes to protecting the life of the unborn.

The second major reason I am opposing this nomination is that I don't believe Governor Sebelius has the experience to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS is an enormous bureaucracy, responsible for everything from the Medicare Program to the National Institutes of Health, to the Food and Drug Administration. The Department has 11 operating divisions, over 64,000 employees, and a budget of $707 billion. According to HHS's Web site, it allocates more grant dollars than all of the other agencies combined. This is a tremendous responsibility, and the Department needs someone with hands- on experience.

As Governor of Kansas, she appointed someone to run their health and human services department and was not directly responsible for the day- to-day operation. As Congress considers major health care reform legislation this year, we need someone with extensive experience in setting health policy for the entire country.

I fundamentally disagree with Governor Sebelius on life issues, and I do not believe she has the experience to lead such a large department. I will be voting no on her nomination.

I yield the floor.