A bill to provide assistance to Pakistan under certain conditions, and for other purposes.

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 The original statute was a major advance in the march of progress, but it is now a generation out of date.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, this is National Crime Victims' Rights Week--a time when communities in Vermont and across the Nation recognize the needs of crime victims, and work together to promote victims' rights and services. There is no more important time than now to renew our commitment to address the needs of crime victims and their families.

Today, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Collins, and more than 30 other Senators from both sides of the aisle to reintroduce the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This is a bipartisan bill designed to combat crimes that have long terrorized communities and remain a serious problem in this country. This legislation is a matter of simple justice. It is past time for Congress to enact this bill and strengthen the Federal Government's role in preventing and punishing crimes motivated by hate.

I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership over the last decade in working to expand our Federal hate crimes law, and I am proud to once again be an original cosponsor of this legislation. A bipartisan majority of

the Members in the House of Representatives voted to pass this legislation in the last Congress. Unfortunately, there were partisan attempts to filibuster and prevent passage of the Senate bill. The measure was ultimately attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill with the bipartisan support of 60 Senators. While I am disappointed that the hate crime provision was taken out of that bill at conference, I am hopeful that our efforts to enact this civil rights measure into law will be successful this year.

Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that plagued race relations for more than a century, to the well-publicized slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is a story that we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my home state of Vermont, there have been two attacks in recent years that appear to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation.

Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that hate crimes are becoming more prevalent and more nationalized is a leaked copy of the Department of Homeland Security report on violent extremism in the United States. The report is nothing short of chilling.

The DHS report found that ``the economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment'' and these elements in turn have the potential to drive hate groups to carry out violence. It also found that anti-immigrant fervor by organized hate groups ``has the potential to turn violent.'' The DHS report concluded that the ``advent of the Internet'' has potentially made ``extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe.''

Of course, these findings comport with a recent Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, report on hate group activity in the United States entitled ``The Year in Hate.'' The SPLC repot found that activity by known domestic hate groups has increased by 50 percent since 2000, from 602 hate groups in 2000, to 926 hate groups in 2008. The recent and rapid growth in hate group activity is simply astonishing.

It remains painfully clear that as a Nation, we still have serious work to do in protecting all Americans from these crimes and in ensuring equal rights for all our citizens. While the answer to hate and bigotry must ultimately be found in increased tolerance, strengthening our Federal hate crimes laws is a step in the right direction.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 improves existing law by making it easier for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Victims will no longer have to engage in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a juror, to be protected under Federal law. This bill also expands Federal protections to include the problem of hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability, which is a key and long-overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance and resources to state, local, and tribal law enforcement to address hate crimes.

This bill strengthens Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a back-up, but not a substitute, for state and local law enforcement. States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate crimes, which is important to me as a former state prosecutor. In a sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from state and local law enforcement organizations across the country.

Moreover, this bill accomplishes the critically important goal of protecting all of our citizens without compromising our constitutional responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply because we disagree with it. To paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Constitution protects not only freedom for the thought and expression we agree with, but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.

We crafted this legislation after long and thoughtful consultation with many of the advocates who work so hard to promote civil rights and with Justice Department attorneys in the field who work on hate crimes prosecutions every day. It contains changes to Federal hate crime law that will improve the law's operation and implementation. I want to thank the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights First, and the more than 300 law enforcement, civil rights, religious, and other professional organizations for their assistance with and support for this legislation, and for their tireless work on behalf of hate crimes victims in the United States.

The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and those victims' families. They inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. That is wrong. All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they choose. In the past we have responded as a Nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that great and honorable tradition, and brings us one step closer towards ensuring an America that values tolerance and protects all of its people. I hope all Senators will support passing this important bipartisan bill this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills, S. 920 and S. 921, that I believe could represent the most sweeping reforms of government information technology management reform we've considered in some time.

I would like to start by addressing the IT Investment Oversight and Waste Prevention Act.

Every year, agencies spend billions of dollars on IT investments that they believe will increase productivity, reduce costs, or improve customer service. But agencies often fail to properly plan and manage their investments. Rather, nearly one third of all Federal IT investments are considered by OMB to be ``poorly planned.'' Many of these investments will be delivered over budget, behind schedule, and not performing up to agencies' original expectations.

Some might say that we just shouldn't make these kinds of investments. But many of them are critical to agency missions.

My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I chair, have held four hearings on the issue of troubled IT investments now, including one today. And what we've learned is that some agencies can't keep the expected cost of their investments down or deliver them on time as promised. Nor do these agencies, in many cases, have qualified IT experts they can turn to before a project spirals out of control. The bill I have put forward today along with a number of my colleagues addresses these issues.

Our bill starts by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to increase the transparency of funded IT investments on a public website. OMB created such a website, known as VUE-IT, this past July following one of our subcommittee hearings. Our bill would ensure that VUE-IT or whatever similar site the new Obama team creates has the cost, schedule, and performance necessary for Congress and the general public to know if a project is a success or should be scrapped.

Our bill also requires that agency plans for new IT systems must contain a clear business case and provide complete and accurate information before the OMB approves the investments. Although this sounds like a simple concept, it doesn't always happen. And OMB has historically been unwilling to turn down an agency IT request.

To correct this, our bill also empowers OMB and agency Chief Information Officers to take action if they realize a project isn't going as planned, before it spirals out of control. This action could be the assignment of highly-trained IT experts who could help bring projects back on track.

Lastly, our bill recognizes that there are a lot of innovative and hardworking federal employees that deserve recognition for the work they do in information technology. Our bill requires the Office of Personnel Management to provide agencies guidance on programs that can be set up to reward employees for their excellence.

Now, I would like to discuss my next bill titled the United States Information and Communications Enhancement Act of 2009.

Everyday, massive amounts of information are transmitted across the global information infrastructure. Some of this information is routine email between friends and family. Much of it, however, consists of highly sensitive military information, however, or commercial secrets.

As all of us can attest to, increasing global interconnectivity has greatly increased our productivity and ability to communicate. However, it has also increased our responsibility to make sure this information is protected.

The Federal Government stores within its databases some of our nation's most critical military, economic, and commercial secrets. Great harm could be caused if it were to fall into the

wrong hands. Knowing this, hackers, criminal organizations, and even other countries are spending a good deal of money and time trying to access it.

In fact, just last week we learned that someone had gone online and stolen our military's most advanced jet fighter plans with the stroke of a button. The cost to the American taxpayer for this single incident is approximately $300 billion worth of research and development, and an incalculable amount if the information were to ever be used against us.

Unfortunately, many agencies have not done as much as they should be doing to prevent these cyber intrusions. Instead they have been led to believe that producing plans about cyber security is equivalent to actually monitoring and protecting their networks. My bill will correct this.

First, my bill recognizes that there needs to be a coordinating office to oversee the multiple agencies that have a hand in cyber space. Today, the NSA and the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense all have different roles when it comes to securing cyber networks in the federal government and the private sector. Their efforts are largely uncoordinated and ineffective. This bill creates a White House office with a director confirmed by the Senate whose major responsibility would be to rectify this situation

My bill also ensures that agencies are spending scarce resources effectively. Instead of agencies wasting precious resources producing security plans that are outdated as soon they are printed, my bill requires agencies to continuously monitor their networks for cyber intrusions and malicious activities, take steps to address their vulnerabilities, and then regularly test whether the steps they are taking to secure their networks are effective.

My bill also requires the General Service Administration to harness the significant purchasing power of the federal government to purchase more secure hardware and software. This is the model the Air Force used a few years ago with Microsoft and it led to a savings of approximately $98 million in one year and an enhanced security posture. This is a successful model that we should continue throughout the federal government.

Lastly, my bill recognizes that the Department of Homeland Security has taken the lead among civilian agencies in protecting the perimeter of the federal government but lacks some of the necessary authority and technical people necessary to realize a more secure civilian cyber space. Therefore, our bill will require agencies to develop policy and guidance for coordinating with US-CERT and give the Director of US-CERT the ability to hire the personnel needed to defend our national security.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important and necessary reforms enacted before it's too late. I think everyone can agree that computers, the Internet, and cutting-edge technology have greatly benefited our government and our society. But we also need to recognize that it has greatly increased the threats we face on a daily basis.

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

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