Floor Statements

Mr. President, March 8 is International Women's Day--a day when we can celebrate the enormous advances women have made while pledging to continue to work for greater opportunity for all women.

Rooted in the long-term struggle for equality, International Women's Day has been observed since a time when American women were fighting for basic rights, such as voting or fair employment. Today, we see women breaking ground and becoming leaders in business, government, and the military--both here in the United States and overseas. While this is encouraging, many women around the world continue to face significant social and economic obstacles.

The official United Nations theme for this International Women's Day is ``Equality for women is progress for all.'' I couldn't agree more; empowering women is one of the most critical tools in our toolbox to fight poverty and injustice.

According to some reports, women represent nearly 70 percent of the world's poor. In many regions of the world, a woman's ability to earn a sustained income is severely limited by cultural norms and a lack of opportunity.

Economically empowering women is one of the most important tools we have to alleviate poverty. Women around the world participate in the political, social, and economic life of their communities and play a predominate role in providing and caring for their families. Research has shown that men only reinvest 30-40 percent of their income into their households, while women reinvest 90 percent--choosing to spend their money on food, clean water, education and health care. Greater economic opportunity and earning capacity also increases equality and mutual respect within households, reducing women's vulnerability to domestic abuse.

Until women around the world have improved access to economic, political, and social opportunities, many of the great challenges we face today, from pervasive global poverty to violent extremism, will go unresolved.

We must continue to promote women's leadership and integrate gender perspectives in our development and foreign assistance programs. Advancing gender equality and women's empowerment in this realm will not only lead to increased productivity and income for women but can have a positive impact for generations to come.

I urge all my colleagues to work together to call attention to the injustices women face around the world and to work to implement laws and policies that advance the cause of women both at home and abroad.

Mr. President, today I rise to mark the seventh anniversary of Deamonte Driver's death.

Deamonte Driver was a 12-year-old child who lived in Prince George's County, MD, whose border sits only a few miles from the U.S. Capitol Building. He died 7 years ago at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, from a brain infection caused by an untreated tooth abscess.

The Driver family, like many other families across the country, lacked dental insurance. At one time, the Drivers were covered by the Medicaid Program, but they lost that coverage when they moved into a shelter and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help the Drivers locate a dentist to treat Deamonte's cavities and tooth pain, it took more than 20 calls to find a dentist who would see him.

Around mid-January in 2007, Deamonte began to complain of severe headaches. A subsequent evaluation at Children's Hospital led beyond the basic dental care that the family had anticipated to emergency brain surgery. Deamonte later experienced seizures, and a second operation was required. After additional treatment and

therapy, Deamonte appeared to be recovering, but medical intervention had come too late. By the end of his treatment, the total cost to our health care system exceeded one-quarter of a million dollars--more than 3,000 times the $80 cost of a tooth extraction.

Deamonte Driver passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. This child's death was a national tragedy because it could have been prevented had he received timely and proper basic dental care. It was a tragedy because it happened right here in the United States, in a State that is one of the most affluent in the Nation. It happened in the State that is home to the first and one of the best dental schools in the Nation, the University of Maryland's dental school. It happened in Prince George's County, whose border is less than 6 miles from where we are standing in the U.S. Capitol.

I have spoken on the Senate floor about Deamonte Driver several times since his death, and in the intervening years, both in Maryland and nationally, we have made tremendous progress. When Deamonte's story was brought to light, I believe it was a wakeup call for our Nation. It brought home the statement of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop: ``There is no health without oral health.''

Medical research reinforces Dr. Koop's words. Scientists have discovered the nexus between tooth plaque and heart disease, that chewing stimulates brain cell growth, and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone imbalances. They have identified the vital connection between oral health research and advanced treatments like gene therapy, which can help patients with chronic renal failure. They have found that investing in basic dental care for children and adults can reduce health care expenditures down the road for costly medical interventions related to other diseases.

But for all their research findings, we also know that without insurance coverage and adequate access to providers, the needs of millions of children and adults will remain unmet, and the complications resulting from poor oral health will persist.

That is why the progress we have made over the past 7 years is so important to America's health. I have come to the floor today to talk about what has been achieved and how we can move forward as a nation to ensure even greater access to oral health care.

Since Deamonte's passing, the State of Maryland has emerged as a national leader in oral health--launching a $1.2 million oral health literacy campaign, raising Medicaid reimbursement rates for dentists in the program, and providing allied health professionals and hygienists the opportunity to practice outside clinics. The Deamonte Driver Dental Project Van, which was dedicated in front of the U.S. Capitol in May 2010, provides care in underserved neighborhoods in Prince George's County, thanks to efforts conceived and launched by members of the Robert T. Freeman Dental Society. An arm of the National Dental Association, the society is named for Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, who in 1869 became the first Black graduate of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

It was 2 years after Deamonte's death, in 2009, that Congress reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program. Some of my colleagues recalled the difficulty that Deamonte's mother had finding him care. Hers was not an isolated instance. For varied reasons, it is difficult for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees to find dental providers, and working parents whose children qualify for those programs are likely to be employed at jobs where they can't afford to spend 2 hours a day on the phone searching for a provider. So part of the CHIP Reauthorization Act requires HHS to include on its Insure Kids Now Web site a list of participating dentists and benefit information for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Also in 2009, Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which created the Healthy Futures Corps--a program that provides grants to States and nonprofit organizations so they can fund national service in low-income communities. The law's goal was to put into action key tools that can help close the gaps in health status-- prevention and health promotion. With the help of Senator Mikulski, we added language to that law specifying oral health as an area of focus. Now, the Healthy Futures Corps is recruiting young people to work in the dental profession, where severe shortages of providers exist in many urban and rural communities. The law is funding the work of individuals who can help parents find oral health care for themselves and their children. It is making a difference in the lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who work in underserved communities and in the lives and health of those who can now get care.

Then in 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which guarantees pediatric dental coverage as part of each State's Essential Benefits health care package. The ACA also established an oral health care prevention education campaign at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is targeted toward key populations, including children and pregnant women, and it created demonstration programs to encourage innovation in oral health delivery. The law also significantly expanded workforce training programs for oral health professionals.

Moving forward, the States have a critical role to play in ensuring that the ACA benefit is designed to incentivize prevention, recognize that some children have greater risk of dental disease than others, and deliver care based on their level of risk.

Among the most cost-effective ways to improve children's dental health are investments in prevention. Dental sealants, clear plastic coatings applied to the chewing surface of molars, have been proven to prevent 60 percent of tooth decay at one-third the cost of filling a cavity. So it is essential that prevention be part of every State's benefit package.

Further, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched its Oral Health Initiative, based on a bill I introduced with Senator Susan Collins. The initiative establishes a coordinated multiagency effort to improve access to care across the Nation.

One of the most effective organizations in tracking access to care is the Pew Children's Dental Campaign, which produces report cards that grade the States on eight policies that are evidence-based solutions to the problem of tooth decay. In 2011, Maryland received an ``A'' grade in both reports for meeting or exceeding these benchmarks, which include dental sealant programs, community water fluoridation, Medicaid reimbursement and enrollment, and collection of data on children's dental health. Maryland's grade is significant because in the late 1990s, my State had one of the worst records in the Nation with respect to oral health care for its underserved population. Now it is one of the top-ranked States for oral health care.

Our State has just received even more good news. The number of children in Maryland with untreated tooth decay dropped 41 percent from 2001 to 2011, and the overall oral health status of Maryland children has dramatically improved, according to a 2014 report conducted by the University of Maryland's School of Dentistry. The State assessment looked at 1,723 students in 52 schools from the five regions of the State. About 33 percent of the children had at least one dental sealant on their permanent first molars, and this milestone exceeded Federal goals by 5 percent. About 14 percent of students had untreated dental caries, a drop from 23 percent in 2000, and the State's achievement exceeded Federal goals by 12 percent. According to the assessment, 75 percent of the children surveyed had a regular dentist.

Another key player in our State's effort is the Baltimore Oral Health Impact Project, which provides care to children in Baltimore's public schools. Since February 2010, its providers have seen more than 3,500 children and treated more than 1,500 for dental disease. The program places a high value on delivering comprehensive and compassionate oral health care.

This organization has also launched the Baltimore Oral Health Academy, offering scholarships to students who choose to pursue careers as a clinical dental professional including dental assistants and hygienists, and who agree to serve in a public health setting.

Nationally, HRSA's National Health Service Corps addresses the nationwide shortage of primary care oral health

providers in dental health professional shortage areas--HPSA--by offering incentives in the form of scholarships and loan repayments to primary care dentists and registered dental hygienists to practice in underserved communities. The Corps has awarded more than 1,100 new loan repayment awards to dentists and nearly 300 new loan repayment awards to registered dental hygienists. But this is not nearly enough to erase the shortages. The NHSC has also implemented a part-time service program for providers who did not wish to make a full-time commitment, and I am hopeful that this new option will increase participation in the coming years.

Our Nation has made significant progress in improving children's dental health in the 7 years since Deamonte died, but there is still much work to be done. The access problem in some communities has become so severe that many people are forced to seek treatment for tooth pain in the Nation's emergency rooms, increasing the overall cost of care and receiving uncoordinated care in the least cost-efficient setting. In fact, more people seek treatment in emergency rooms for tooth pain than they do for asthma.

I will continue to work to increase funding for grants to States and expand training opportunities for dentists. We do not have enough professionals who are trained and available to treat children and adults with dental problems, and it is our responsibility to fix that. We must improve public reimbursement to dental providers in offices and clinics so that no one who needs treatment will be turned away.

Soon, Congress will turn again to the Reauthorization of the CHIP program, and I will be once again fighting for the strongest possible language we can get to promote children's oral health. For my colleagues who may not be familiar with CHIP's track record on oral health, I would like to leave you with three facts:

First, tooth decay is the single most common chronic disease of childhood, and it is five times more common than asthma. The complications of dental disease, which we now know can be fatal, are completely and easily preventable if we give children the care they need. Second, because of Congress's passage of the 2009 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, in 2013, more than 8 million American children had comprehensive dental coverage through CHIP. Third, CHIP has kept comprehensive coverage affordable. Under CHIP, families cannot pay more than 5 percent of their annual income in out-of-pocket costs for their children's medical and dental care.

What we have been able to achieve for children is due to support in Congress and also to the efforts of the many nonprofit organizations, universities, and providers who are also working across the Nation to make sure that we will never forget Deamonte and never forget our responsibility to improving oral health care for America's children.

On this sad anniversary, in Maryland and throughout the Nation there are signs of hope for the future of oral health care. I thank my colleagues for the role they have played in this process and look forward to working with them in the months to come to strengthen oral health care access for our Nation's children.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing with the Senior Senator from Idaho, that will help improve the long term health and abundance of United States' fish populations. Our bill takes a comprehensive approach to stopping the single greatest threat declining fish populations, by stemming the decline of healthy aquatic ecosystem habitats that are critical to all fish species.

Improving the quality of fish habitat provides benefits beyond improving the health and abundance of fish populations. Healthier aquatic ecosystems means healthier habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife as well as safer recreational waters for Americans to swim, boat and fish in.

North America is home to nearly 700 native fish species. This abundance of fish species is one of many natural treasures we must work to protect and maintain. Much like other precious natural resources in this country our wild fish populations face unfortunate anthropogenic threats. Forty percent of our native fish populations are in decline. This is due in large part to the impairment of more than half of our nation's waters including the waters of my state's, and the mid- Atlantic region's greatest treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Deliberate and targeted action is needed to stem the loss of our precious fish resources by ensuring that these important aquatic habitats are better preserved.

State, federal and private efforts to address this challenge of improving and protecting critical fish habitat are underway in many states and in local communities. However, too many of these efforts are uncoordinated with one another which is leading to fragmented and less effective results than if these efforts carried out in a more networked and comprehensive fashion.

Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies will work in careful coordination with state and local governments, as well as stakeholder organizations and industries like conservation groups, fisherman, and companies in the outdoor recreation industry to collaboratively execute the scientifically most effective fish and aquatic habitat conservation projects possible.

Our legislation leverages funds from Federal and State natural resource agencies and private funds to build regional partnerships focused on improving critical aquatic habitats across the country. Targeting these financial resources, through government and private partnership, towards projects in regional watersheds that will make the greatest improvements to the health of aquatic habitats will improve the health and abundance of native fish populations, improve the quality of life for surrounding communities, and improve recreational opportunities which is a boost to our national and local economies. The goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale starting at the local level through multi-state aquatic habitat improvement projects. The goal is also to engage stakeholders like commercial fisherman, anglers, outfitters and other angling and sportsmen industries to participate in this effort to make lasting improvements to the health and sustainability of our fisheries resources.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $7.2 million annually for fish habitat restoration and protection projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships the bill also establishes. Based on the successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board to recommend projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing habitat protection and restoration projects in the watersheds that will enhance fish habitats and fish populations.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act applies a proven and effective model for habitat conservation to protect and restore declining quality fish habitat. Our legislation ensures collaboration between expert stakeholders and state and regional fisheries resource managers to ensure the effectiveness of the work that is done.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing with the Senior Senator from Idaho, that will help improve the long term health and abundance of United States' fish populations. Our bill takes a comprehensive approach to stopping the single greatest threat declining fish populations, by stemming the decline of healthy aquatic ecosystem habitats that are critical to all fish species.

Improving the quality of fish habitat provides benefits beyond improving the health and abundance of fish populations. Healthier aquatic ecosystems means healthier habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife as well as safer recreational waters for Americans to swim, boat and fish in.

North America is home to nearly 700 native fish species. This abundance of fish species is one of many natural treasures we must work to protect and maintain. Much like other precious natural resources in this country our wild fish populations face unfortunate anthropogenic threats. Forty percent of our native fish populations are in decline. This is due in large part to the impairment of more than half of our nation's waters including the waters of my state's, and the mid- Atlantic region's greatest treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Deliberate and targeted action is needed to stem the loss of our precious fish resources by ensuring that these important aquatic habitats are better preserved.

State, federal and private efforts to address this challenge of improving and protecting critical fish habitat are underway in many states and in local communities. However, too many of these efforts are uncoordinated with one another which is leading to fragmented and less effective results than if these efforts carried out in a more networked and comprehensive fashion.

Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies will work in careful coordination with state and local governments, as well as stakeholder organizations and industries like conservation groups, fisherman, and companies in the outdoor recreation industry to collaboratively execute the scientifically most effective fish and aquatic habitat conservation projects possible.

Our legislation leverages funds from Federal and State natural resource agencies and private funds to build regional partnerships focused on improving critical aquatic habitats across the country. Targeting these financial resources, through government and private partnership, towards projects in regional watersheds that will make the greatest improvements to the health of aquatic habitats will improve the health and abundance of native fish populations, improve the quality of life for surrounding communities, and improve recreational opportunities which is a boost to our national and local economies. The goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale starting at the local level through multi-state aquatic habitat improvement projects. The goal is also to engage stakeholders like commercial fisherman, anglers, outfitters and other angling and sportsmen industries to participate in this effort to make lasting improvements to the health and sustainability of our fisheries resources.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $7.2 million annually for fish habitat restoration and protection projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships the bill also establishes. Based on the successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board to recommend projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing habitat protection and restoration projects in the watersheds that will enhance fish habitats and fish populations.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act applies a proven and effective model for habitat conservation to protect and restore declining quality fish habitat. Our legislation ensures collaboration between expert stakeholders and state and regional fisheries resource managers to ensure the effectiveness of the work that is done.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, in commemoration of World Wildlife Day on March 3, I rise to bring attention to the catastrophic effects of wildlife trafficking on global and economic security and the urgent need to crush this demand for these illegal products.

Conserving natural resources is a priority for me, particularly as chair of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee; it is a priority for my State of Maryland, and it is a priority for this administration. But the responsibility of protecting natural resources, such as wildlife, doesn't just sit with one State or one country. It requires a coordinated, global effort. Wildlife trafficking is a multibillion- dollar-per-year, transnational, sophisticated network of organized criminals. As the demand for elephant ivory, rhino horns, and other wildlife products resurges, the trade has become an illicit business similar to drug and arms smuggling. And as such, we must approach the problem with an equally hard-hitting strategy.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, reports that in 2012, an estimated 22,000 elephants were slaughtered across Africa. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, approximately 2,800 rhinos have been poached in South Africa since 2008, a more than 7,000-percent increase compared to the previous 17 years, mostly destined for Asian countries. Hundreds of park rangers are being gunned down by poachers, leaving behind devastated families with no income. Illegal wildlife trafficking threatens our species and is pushing some to the edge of extinction. The illicit trade hurts developing communities, damages tourism, risks people's livelihood or worse, ends lives.

In February, President Obama released the first-ever National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. I joined colleagues on both sides of the aisle to urge the administration to produce a bold, goal-oriented, and whole-of-government approach to combat this growing problem of illicit wildlife trafficking. I commend the administration for its aggressive plan, and I hope we see swift implementation in the three areas of enforcement, demand reduction, and partner-building.

The image of wildlife trafficking is often tied to the African Continent. But the other side--the consumer-demand side, primarily driven in Asia--must be viewed closely as well. With growing wealth in the Asia region, wildlife is being used for traditional and nontraditional medicines, trophies, clothing or pets. As the demand grows, the price of these products continues to skyrocket. We must leverage our bilateral and regional relationships to educate communities about the real effects of this trade.

As chair of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, I am particularly pleased to see the tremendous cooperation between the United States and China on this issue. At the 2013 Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the two countries committed to cooperate on enforcement issues and efforts to end the supply and demand for such products. On January 6, China destroyed more than 5 tons of ivory, publicly demonstrating their commitment to protecting elephant populations. The United States, Kenya, Gabon, and the Philippines have held similar events. In a joint 1-month global operation earlier this year, the United States and China joined with 26 countries, plus international organizations such as ASEAN, to target wildlife trafficking criminals resulting in over 400 arrests and more than 350 major wildlife seizures. This type of collaboration is critical and more needs to be done.

At the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade February 12-13, 2014, representatives from over 40 countries joined together and issued a declaration urging action. There is no doubt that governments recognize the urgency in solving this problem. But we need to build on this momentum, match our words with action, ensure developing countries have the capacity to address enforcement issues, hold criminals accountable, and educate communities to look beyond short-term benefits toward the dangerous long-term effects of illegal trafficking.

I urge all my colleagues to work together to strengthen existing laws, adopt new laws, and pressure consumers to put an end to this damaging trade before the illegal trade puts an end to our world's most precious wildlife.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I take this time to share with my colleagues the tragic events that unfolded these past few weeks in the Ukraine. Ukraine is an incredibly important country. The recent events are tragic, the result of a corrupt government and loss of life.

I remember the Orange Revolution that took place in Ukraine, starting in November 2004, ending in January 2005. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to that protest to protest the corrupt election. They did it in a peaceful way.

They not only got the attention of the people of Ukraine but the attention of the world. As a result of that peaceful revolution, the government stood for new elections, free and fair elections. Democratic leadership was elected, and all of us thought the future for Ukraine was very positive.

I was in Kiev not long after that Orange Revolution. I had a chance to talk to people who were involved, and I talked to the new leaders. I saw that sense of hope that Ukraine at long last would be an independent country without the domination of any other country and that the proud people would have a country that would respect their rights, that would transition into full membership in Europe and provide the greatest hope for future generations.

They started moving in that direction. As the Presiding Officer knows, there were agreements with Europe on immigration. They have been involved in military operations in close conjunction with NATO. Ukraine was and is an important partner of the United States and for Europe.

Then Victor Yanukovych came into power for a second time. Mr. Yanukovych took the country in a different direction. He was a corrupt leader. He had a close involvement with Russia.

Today there is some hope. The Parliament has brought in a new interim government. Presidential elections are now scheduled for May 25. But there are certain matters that are still very much in doubt. In the Crimea, which is a part of the Ukraine which has a large Russian population, it is unclear as to what is happening there. Pro-Russian sympathizers have taken over government buildings. It is not clear of Russia's involvement.

It is critically important that the international community have access to what is happening in the Crimea and make it clear that Russia must allow the Ukraine to control its own destiny. It is time for the international community to mobilize its resources to assist Ukraine's transition to a democratic, secure, and prosperous country.

The people of Ukraine have had an incredibly difficult history and over the last century have been subjected to two World Wars, 70 years of Soviet domination, including Stalin's genocidal famine.

Our assistance at this time will be a concrete manifestation that we do indeed stand by the people of Ukraine as they manifest their historic choice for freedom and democracy. Moreover, we need to help Ukraine succeed to realize the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.

That is our desire and that is the desire of the people of Ukraine. They are moving on the right path. They critically need our help and that of the international community to make sure Russia does not try to dominate this country; that its desire to become part of Europe is realized; that free and fair elections can take place, and the rights of their people can be respected by their government.

Yesterday I heard from Swiss President and OSCE Chair-in-Office Burkhalter and welcomed his engagement and the important role the OSCE can play in Ukraine.

As a member of the Commission, I had the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission, which is our implementing arm to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. A Foreign Minister from one of the member states usually acts as our Chair-in-Office, and this year Mr. Burkhalter is not only the Foreign Minister of Switzerland, he is also the President of Switzerland. He is the person responsible for the direction of the organization. We had a hearing with him and Ukraine took a good part of our discussions.

The guiding principles of the OSCE is if they are going to have a prosperous country, if they are going to have a secure country, they have to have a country that respects the rights of its citizens. Respecting the rights of its citizens means they are entitled to good governance. They are entitled to a country that does not depend upon corruption in order to finance its way of life. Those are the principles of the OSCE. A country with good governance, respect for human rights, that takes on corruption, is a country in which there will be economic prosperity and a country which will enjoy security. That has been our chief function, to try to help other countries.

The meeting yesterday underscored the importance OSCE can play in the future of Ukraine, and we hope they will utilize those resources so Ukraine can come out of this crisis as a strong, democratic, and independent country.

There has to be accountability. There has to be accountability for those who are responsible for the deaths in Kiev. I mention that because, yes, there is a moral reason for that. Those who commit amoral atrocities should be held accountable. That is just a matter of basic rights. But there is also the situation when they don't bring closure here, it offers little hope that these circumstances will not be repeated in the future. If future government leaders believe they could do whatever they want and there will be no consequences for their actions, they are more likely to take the irresponsible actions we saw on Ukraine.

So, yes, it is important we restore a democratic government in Ukraine. It is important that government be independent and able to become a full member of Europe. It is important that government respect the human rights of its citizens, but it is also important they hold those responsible for these atrocities accountable for their actions.

The Obama administration took some action this past week. They did deny visas to certain members who were responsible for the Government of Ukraine, and they did freeze bank accounts of those who were involved in the corrupt practices in Ukraine. That was a good first step and I applaud their actions.

I remind my colleagues we passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act as part of the Russia PNTR legislation. I was proud to be the sponsor of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule

of Law Accountability Act. What it does--and it says it was amended to apply only to Russia--those who are involved in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights will be denied the privilege of being able to come to America, to get a visa and we will deny them the opportunity to use our banking system.

Why is that important? Because we found those corrupt officials want to keep their properties outside of their host country. They want to visit America. They want to use our banking system. They want their corrupt ways to be in dollars, not in rubles. Denying them that opportunity is an effective remedy for making sure they can't profit from all of their corruption.

That legislation was limited to Russia not by our design. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee approved the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act as a global act applying beyond Russia.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young lawyer who discovered corruption in Russia. He did what he should have done--told the authorities about it. As a result, he was arrested, tortured, and killed because he did the right thing.

We took action to make sure those responsible could not benefit from that corruption. That was the Sergei Magnitsky bill. We felt, though, it should be a tool available universally. We had to compromise on that, and it was limited to Russia.

It is time to change that. Along with Senator McCain, I have introduced the Global Human Rights Accountability Act, S. 1933. It has several bipartisan sponsors. It would apply globally. So, yes, it would apply to Ukraine. It would have congressional sanctions to the use of tools for denying visa applications and our banking privileges to those who are responsible for these atrocities. I believe our colleagues understand how important that is for us to do.

It is interesting that today the State Department issued its Human Rights Practices for 2013. This is a required report that we request. It gives the status of human rights records throughout the world, talking about problems.

I am sure my colleagues recognize that human rights problems are not limited to solely Russia or Ukraine, from Bahrain to China, to Bangladesh, from Belarus to Ethiopia, to Venezuela, from the Sudan to South Sudan, Syria, the list goes on and on and on.

The report lists all of the gross violations of human rights that have occurred. Unfortunately, this list is too long. I can name another dozen countries that are spelled out in this report. Human rights are universal, and it is our responsibility to act and show international leadership.

It takes time to pass good laws, as it should, which is why we must act with urgency now. The measures contemplated in my legislation have great corrective power, but they are strongest when deployed in a timely manner, preferably before the outbreak of violence.

The year 2013 was a particularly challenging year for human rights and we cannot afford to be silent. The Global Human Rights Accountability Act serves as an encouragement for champions of democracy, promoters of civil rights, and advocates of free speech across the globe.

As the great human rights defender Nelson Mandela once said: ``There are times when a leader must move ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading his people the right way.''

In this great body, the Senate, we have a responsibility to lead the way in accountability for human rights. We have done that in the past. We have shown through our own example and we have shown through our interest in all corners of the world that this country will stand for the protection of basic human rights for all the people. We now have a chance to act by the passage of the global Magnitsky law. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping enact this new chapter and the next chapter in America's commitment to international human rights.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I would like to draw attention to a disturbing trend impacting the work of journalists in China.

On January 30, 2014, New York Times reporter Austin Ramzy was forced to leave China due to processing delays for his press credentials. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event. In 2013, Reporters Without Borders ranked China 173rd out of 179 countries in terms of press freedoms. Over the past year, we have seen China increase efforts to curb the work of foreign news organizations, including extended delays in processing journalist visas, restrictions on access to ``sensitive'' locations and individuals, pressure on local staff, blocked Web sites, and reports of cyber hacking of media organizations.

To call attention to this suppression, I, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, along with subcommittee ranking member Marco Rubio, Senate Foreign Relations chairman Bob Menendez, and ranking member Bob Corker, introduced S. Res. 361. This resolution urges the People's Republic of China to take meaningful steps to improve freedom of expression in China as fitting of a responsible international stakeholder.

The ongoing crackdown on journalists and members of the press reporting in China is of grave concern to me. A country that engages in routine censorship and online blocking; harassment, reprisals, and detention of journalists; and visa delays or denials for journalists not only fails its own people but also fails the international community. A vibrant and free press instills trust in one's government, creates a more transparent environment for business investments, develops an engaged community, and builds legitimacy as a secure, global leader. We expect our partners to strive for these standards.

As we look to rebalance our policy toward the Asia-Pacific region, the United States has a responsibility to promote respect for universal human rights. We urge President Obama to use all appropriate tools to improve and promote freedom of the press in China.

I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in support of press freedom in China.

Mr. President, as we speak, the 22nd Winter Olympics are well under way in Sochi, Russia.

Let me first congratulate the organizers on a fantastic opening ceremony. It really was something to see the depth and breadth of Russia's rich history and culture on display for the entire world to admire.

The Olympics put a powerful spotlight on Russia--a spotlight Russia's president has so vigorously sought. But just as this attention is educating the world about Russia's invaluable contributions to music, science, and sport, it is also highlighting the gaps between Russia's previous commitment to fundamental freedoms and the reality on the ground.

There is no question that in recent years we have seen Russia move towards a less open, less pluralistic society. But we cannot lose hope yet. Change is possible and Russia's beleaguered but tenacious civil society offers much hope for the future. We continue to expect Russia's leadership to uphold basic and universal human rights. Now there are other countries where the situation is much worse, but Russia is a powerful global example and should be committed to upholding fundamental freedoms much like Germany or the United Kingdom, its European neighbors. But unlike those governments, Russia's current leadership wantonly violates international commitments and seems bent on trying to redefine a settled consensus on the universality of human rights. We cannot let that go unchallenged.

Much has been said about Russia's 2013 law prohibiting so-called gay propaganda. Some have pointed to the fact

that this law enjoys widespread public support while others have faintly condemned it and worried that Western pressure could be counterproductive. Let's stop negotiating with ourselves here and tell it like it is. And it is really quite simple: this law infringes on the rights to free speech, association, and assembly. These rights are not American rights, they are human rights, and they are universally shared and universally binding. Russia acknowledged as much in myriad international commitments. And this law is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to fundamental freedoms in Russia.

In recent days it has been fashionable to change the colors of your website or make other symbolic gestures of solidarity with Russia's LGBT community. I applaud this and have done as much myself, but let's not kid ourselves or rest on our laurels. It takes little courage to swap an avatar on Twitter or to use a coded phrase in a statement and it is going to take a lot more to change the world for the better. As important as these symbols of solidarity are, let's not confuse them with the steady and sustained activism that will be necessary to highlight human rights abuses in Russia long after the flame goes out in Sochi.

I have heard much speculation of a further crackdown in Russia after the Olympic spotlight fades, and I would note that the ongoing unrest in Ukraine is watched with great interest from Russia. While the Kremlin appears nervous at the prospects of renewed demonstrations at home or the success of any grassroots uprising on its borders, many in Moscow and St. Petersburg appear envious that the Ukrainian protests have shown staying power and the ability to pry concessions from the ruling elite. I worry that if anything could provoke a crackdown inside Russia post-Sochi, a turn of events in Ukraine could well prove that trigger and I urge the administration to double-down on its efforts to head off further violence. That is why I introduced the Global Human Rights Accountability Act, which would ensure human rights abusers from anywhere in the world are denied entry into the United States and barred from using our financial institution.

Finally, let me commend our current and outgoing ambassador to the Russian Federation, Dr. Michael McFaul, for a job well done. Dr. McFaul served with distinction in a tough post at a tough time and did a fantastic job of representing our country's openness and ``can do'' spirit. He will be missed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Madam President, there is an epitaph on the wall above where Sir Christopher Wren--one of England's greatest architects--is buried. The epitaph reads in part:

Here . . . lies . . . Christopher Wren, who lived beyond

ninety years, not for his own profit but for the public good.

Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you.

A similar epitaph would be entirely suitable for my dear friend, the great businessman, engineer, philanthropist, and devoted Baltimorean Willard Hackerman, who died yesterday at the age of 95.

In 1938, Willard was a 19-year-old civil engineer who had just graduated from Johns Hopkins University. He went to work for the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in his native Baltimore. G.W.C. Whiting and LeBaron Turner had started the construction firm in 1909. In 1955, Whiting promoted Willard to be the president and chief executive officer of the firm, and he served in that capacity until his recent death.

Whiting-Turner issued a press release which stated:

Mr. Hackerman led Whiting-Turner from a modest-sized local

and regional contractor to a highly-ranked nationwide

construction manager and general contractor working in all

major commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.

Last year--Willard's 75th year with the firm--it reported $5 billion in revenue. The firm, which has 33 regional offices and more than 2,100 employees, is ranked fourth in domestic general building by Engineering News Record and ranked 117th on the list of America's largest private companies.

As the Baltimore Sun noted, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company built the new University of Baltimore School of Law last year, the Joseph Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, the National Aquarium, and the M&T Bank Stadium. The firm's clients included Yale and Stanford universities, the Cleveland Clinic, Target, IBM, and Unilever, and the Hippodrome Theater. If you seek his monument, look around you.

Through Whiting-Turner, Willard teamed with then-mayor William Donald Schaefer to help transform Baltimore by building the Convention Center, Harborplace, and the Aquarium. These statistics and lists attest to Willard's incredible skills as an engineer and businessman, but they don't begin to capture the magnitude of his accomplishments, his charitable contributions, or his generous spirit.

Willard and his beloved wife Lillian have been lifelong supporters of Johns Hopkins University. He helped to reestablish the university's stand-alone engineering school in 1979, and secured the school-naming gift from the estate of his mentor, G.W.C. Whiting.

Other activities include funding the Willard and Lillian Hackerman Chair in Radiation Oncology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, construction of the Hackerman-Patz Patient and Family Pavilion, and the Hackerman Research Laboratories at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center. He and his wife also provided major support for the Robert H. and Clarice Smith Building at the Wilmer Eye Institute.

In 1984, Willard and Lillian donated a mansion on Mount Vernon Place adjacent to the Walters Art Gallery to the city of Baltimore, which in turn entrusted the property to the gallery--now known as the Walters Art Museum--to house its collection of Asian art.

In December 2001, Mr. Hackerman gave the largest gift in the history of the Baltimore City Community College Foundation to establish the Lillian and Willard Hackerman Student Emergency Loan Program, which provides no-interest loans to BCCC students. If you seek his monument, look around you.

Timothy Regan, the Whiting-Turner executive vice president who will succeed Willard as the firm's third president in its 105-year history, noted:

He is a legend for his good works, and the irony is that

most of his good works are not even known.

The Sun recounted a story Baltimore architect Adam Gross told about accompanying Willard through a newly completed project at the Bryn Mawr School. According to Mr. Gross, Willard asked the school's headmistress how many women were graduating with engineering degrees. Then, a few days later, he sent a sizable check to the school to provide scholarships for women in engineering. ``He was like that. He did deeds that nobody knew about,'' Mr. Gross said.

Willard was a man of quiet strength who professionally and charitably enriched his beloved Baltimore. He was an active alumnus of Johns Hopkins University who gave back to the school and its hospital in countless ways. He was a humble man and rarely stood still to take credit for his many successes because he had already begun to tackle the next challenge. Despite being at the helm of one of the largest general building companies in America, Willard never outgrew his city or his fellow citizens. The Meyerhoff, the National Aquarium, and M&T Bank Stadium all stand as enduring monuments to a great man. His benevolent legacy extended to the synagogue where my family and I worship, Beth Tfiloh Congregation, where he will be missed as a man of great faith. Willard Hackerman was a true son of Baltimore.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Lillian, their daughter Nancy, their son Steven Mordecai, their five grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, and his extended family at Whiting-Turner, all of whom loved him deeply.

I encourage my fellow colleagues, my fellow Baltimoreans and Marylanders, and all Americans to celebrate Willard Hackerman ``who lived beyond ninety years, not for his own profit but for the public good. If you seek his monument, look around you.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I wish to join grand master Gerald E. Piepiora and the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland in welcoming the 2014 Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, which will be convening in Baltimore from Sunday, February 15, to Tuesday, February 18. This annual meeting is the largest gathering of grand masters in the world and the first time they have come to Baltimore. This delegation of grand masters represents 2 million Freemasons from all 50 States; Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; the Provinces of Canada; and the United Mexican States. In addition, a delegation of grand masters representing Freemasons from around the world also will be attending the conference.

Throughout their history, Freemasons--the oldest and largest fraternity in the world--have dedicated their lives to cultivating good moral character both within themselves and in their communities. The Masonic fraternity is dedicated to caring for those less fortunate and to giving back to the community, contributing well over three quarters of a billion dollars annually to philanthropic causes in North America alone.

Maryland Masons have carried on this tradition since 1787 by serving their communities with local scholarship programs, student assistance, volunteerism, educational support, and other charitable activities. Maryland Masons make important contributions to the quality of life of Marylanders at every stage of life, including the Maryland Child Identification Program that provides free identification and protection against the problem of missing children; free childhood language disorder clinics; transportation to regional Shriners Hospitals for children with orthopedic conditions, burns, spinal cord injuries, and cleft lip and palate; and retirement housing and continuing care for Masons and their families.

I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming this distinguished group of international guests to Maryland and in wishing the masons of Maryland continued success in their pursuit of fraternity, brotherly love, relief, and truth.

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, on Tuesday evening, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, made the point that America must be the land of opportunity for all. He acknowledged, quite frankly, that for many families in this country the American dream is just that, a dream.

Many families have lost hope that their children or grandchildren will be able to achieve the American dream. President Obama made the point that if we all work together, the outlook for this country is strong and that we can make not only the American dream something people can continue to believe but it can become a reality for more and more American families.

But he also expressed the reality of where we are. The facts indicate that intergenerational mobility, that is, for a child born into poverty, their ability to move up the economic ladder has not changed in the last several decades. The American dream has become just that for too many families.

Let me point out some of the income disparity we have seen grow in the United States. Some of this is very understandable. It is understandable that people get paid differently. Some people work a lot harder, some people come up with an incredibly ingenious way of doing something, the American way of developing new technologies, people are willing to take greater risks than others. Yes, the reward will be greater. We do expect and we do appreciate, we do look up to people who can be very successful in our economic system.

But what is not understandable is how we have seen a growth in the income disparity among Americans during good times and bad times. Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent in income in America saw their income go up 275 percent, whereas the three middle quintiles--this is what we usually consider to be the middle class, those from 20 percent to 80 percent--saw their income go up only 40 percent. This is in a period of economic growth in this country from 1979. To see your income go up only 40 percent, whereas the wealthiest are going up close to 300 percent, should be of concern to people of this country.

As we all know, in 2007 we went through a recession. Since that recession, median income in this country has declined. It went down 31 percent during the recession. But for the wealthiest, it actually went up. It went up 31 percent. The median income went down for most Americans.

We have a problem. During good times, we are seeing the income of the wealthiest get larger, in bad times we see wealthy people protected, whereas middle-income families are doing worse. We even have what is known as the birth lottery. If you are born into poverty, we know you have a hard time getting out of poverty today. If you are in certain communities, it is even much more difficult.

So President Obama was right to concentrate on America as opportunity for all. How can we get a growing middle class in this country? What can we do to help everyone do better in our country? Many countries are doing much better than we are. This disparity strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation. We believe that if you work hard, you play according to the rules, you should be able to succeed in this country. For too many families, that is not the reality.

What can we do to make a difference? I know there has been a lot of talk as to what we can do to help in that regard, what we can do to make it better. It is very important to do that for the values of our country. It is important for the families who are affected. But it is also important for our economy.

So, yes, we need to increase opportunity for middle-income families so more people can live the American dream. We need to do that because that is what we stand for as a country. Those are our values. But we also need to do this for our economy. It is very interesting that the companies that are making money today are ready to invest in the growth of our economy. They need consumers. They need people who will buy the automobiles. They need people who will eat in the restaurants. They need people who will go on vacations. They need people who will buy the clothing in the stores. If they do not have the income to do it, they do not buy the products, our economy does not grow. So a growing middle class is critically important to our economy.

What steps can we take? First, we have already taken one very important step with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act dealt with health care costs. We have seen a reduction in the rate of health care costs over the past couple of years. It is a major cost among American families. It has been growing and growing every year. We are now starting to see a slowdown in that. Why? Because we are dealing with health delivery. We are trying to make the health care system more efficient by looking at the total care of an individual rather than just looking at a specific episode.

We are trying to reduce readmissions. We are dealing with healthy lifestyles. The Affordable Care Act rewards all of those issues. We make quality affordable insurance available to all Americans.

Last year, nearly 2 million families had to go through bankruptcy in America because of health care costs. Last year it was estimated that 56 million American families struggled to pay their medical bills. So this is an issue we need to look at from the point of view of helping middle-income families.

Alan Krueger, the economist, observed:

We helped the middle class and those struggling to get into

the middle class by lowering the growth of health care costs,

by preventing those with pre-existing conditions from being

denied health insurance coverage, by creating exchanges for

small businesses and lower income families to obtain health

insurance at competitive rates, and by providing tax

subsidies to small businesses and lower income workers to

purchase insurance.

The point Mr. Krueger was making is when we eliminate preexisting conditions, when we have health exchanges that allow individuals and small businesses to be able to get competitive rates, we are helping with middle-income growth in America.

There is a lot more we need to do in addition to the health care problems we have in this country. The President mentioned during his State of the Union Address that Americans need a pay raise. I could not agree with him more. In 1968--that was 46 years ago--the minimum wage in this country was set at $1.60 per hour. If you adjust that for inflation, the minimum wage would be $10.77. The minimum wage in America is not $10.77, it is $7.25 per hour. The tipped employee minimum wage is $2.13. For a full-time worker at the minimum wage, $7.25 per hour wage, they would be making a little over $15,000 a year. You cannot support your family on $15,000 a year.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition has done a study. There is not a single State in the Union where you can afford affordable housing. They defined that as a two-bedroom housing unit on the rental market. There is not a single State in the Nation where the $15,000-a- year income allows you to be able to afford that housing for your family.

The American dream is on life support. We need to do more about that. One thing we can easily do in this Congress this year is raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

We also need to adjust it for inflation. What does that mean? We have only adjusted minimum wages maybe three times in the last 30-some years. We need to have the minimum wage keep up with inflation. That way we do not have to deal with abrupt increases. We will have gentle increases, which I think is better for our economy to start off with, but it also keeps the minimum wage at where we want to set it. It does not erode the year after we pass it.

I think that makes sense. Let me dispel some of the myths about the minimum wage.

I hear frequently: Well, we are only taking about teenagers or those in their early twenties, it is their first job, and it is not so serious.

Let's look at the facts. The average age of a person earning minimum wage is 35. The median age is 31; 36 percent are over 40 years of age, 40 years of age or older; 56 percent are women--now only 56 percent of our workforce is women, but at minimum wage it is much more likely to be a woman than a man earning minimum wage; 28 percent of people who are earning the minimum wage have children. These are families trying to live on minimum wage.

Increasing the minimum wage will help to grow the middle class. It will help our economy. A $10.10 per hour minimum wage will generate about $34 billion in wages into our economy, $34 billion. Do you know what that means for the local businesses that are there? Do you know what that means for our economy? I know our economy is on the right path, but we have to help it along. We don't have enough jobs in America, and $35 billion will allow that local supermarket or that restaurant or that business owner to hire some more people, creating more jobs, helping our economy continue to grow.

People who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. Today, with the current minimum wage, and even with the tax credits we have available, most individuals will live in poverty. That is unacceptable. At $10.10 per hour, we will be above the poverty line with the tax credits.

That is what we should do. If we play according to the rules, we should be able to succeed; work 40 hours a week, we shouldn't have to live in poverty, not in the United States of America.

Americans understand this. Polls have shown over and over that the overwhelming majority of Americans support a reasonable adjustment in the minimum wage. The Gallup poll found that 76 percent of Americans believe Congress should pass an increase in the minimum wage. President Obama has already taken action, and I applaud him for that. He is going to be signing an executive order. So those people who are Federal workers, from a contractor, Federal contract worker, someone who is getting money from the Federal Government and hires people, they are going to have to pay the minimum of a $10.10 minimum wage. We should do the same for all workers in this country, and we have it in our power to do it.

There are a lot of other things the President mentioned. There are many other issues that I think we need to deal with for our agenda for a growing middle class. We clearly need to do a much better job in education. Education is the key to opportunity in America. It truly does open doors. We want to open up jobs, but we need people who are trained to be competitive for these jobs, particularly in a global economy. We need people trained.

The President is right to say it starts at a very early age, pre-K. In the pre-K through 12, we have to insist on quality education. We have some great schools in America, but not all children have access to those good schools. We need to do a better job at educating our children in all fields--all fields. STEM is very important, but so are the humanities, so are the arts. We have to do a better job in our pre- K through 12. In higher education, we have to make it much more affordable.

How do we expect to get a growing middle class when so many families are looking at tens of thousands of dollars of educational bills but they don't have any idea of how they are going to be able to pay for it--or our young workers saddled with these large debts affecting what career they are going to go into.

We have to invest in quality education but also affordable higher education. That is why it is important for us to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, to demand that there be value given for the money that we invest in higher education but that we also make it affordable for American families.

We need a modern infrastructure, and the President talked about that. Good jobs go to where there are good roads, good bridges, and good transit systems. Any morning today, try to get around this region; we know how important the transit system is in the Washington area.

In my own State I know we have three major transit projects that we need to get funded so people don't spend hours in gridlock every morning.

We need modern infrastructure in Maryland. In my own State of Maryland we have had tremendous problems with our water infrastructure. We have had roads flooded and homes damaged. We need to rebuild our water infrastructure and assure that people get clean, safe drinking water and that we take care of our water infrastructure in America.

We need a modern energy grid in this country, which is critically important for economic growth. As President Obama said, good jobs go to where there is good infrastructure, and we need to do a better job with the infrastructure in America.

We will have a chance again in this Congress. We haven't reauthorized the Surface Transportation Act. I hope a WRDA bill will get done with some of our WRDA projects. It is in conference today. Those are things we can do to help grow a middle class.

We have to invest in research. I think one of the lines that received the biggest applause in the President's State of the Union Address when he said: We have to restore the cuts we made that we should never have made to the basic research, the National Institutes of Health-- headquartered in my State. They are located in every State, but they are headquartered in Maryland. The work they do is critically important to economic growth in our country. We have to invest in research.

We need a progressive tax structure. More and more economists are telling us that to have a growing middle class, we need the revenue. We are going to pay our bills--we don't want the debt--but we have to do it in a way that is fair and rewards the middle class.

Middle-class families don't take advantage of these tax breaks, these tax loopholes. At a minimum, we have to close those tax loopholes. I agree with the President in that regard.

The President also mentioned in the State of the Union Address that for growing a middle class we want to make sure they have a job, we want to make sure they are trained for that job, we want to make sure they are rewarded for that job with fair wages, and we also want to make sure they have a secure retirement. We are not doing enough to make sure Americans have a secure retirement.

We have to save more as a nation. The best way to save is through retirement savings. We can all come together to do more. This is not a partisan issue. We should be able to do this together.

Let me end on a quote from a former President, Theodore Roosevelt.

He said: ``This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.''

I think that was what President Obama was talking about when he said ``opportunity for all.''

That is what this Nation stands for. We have all the reason to believe we can accomplish this for the people of America, but we need to work together with the President to work to implement commonsense changes so we can have a growing middle class in America.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to offer my best wishes to a dear friend, the Honorable Aaron A. Baer, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on Saturday, January 25. Judge Baer, known to his family as the ``centennial cowboy,'' was born in Baltimore on January 25,1914, on High Street in what is now Little Italy. His father came to the United States from Russia, landing in Baltimore's Fell's Point in approximately 1890. His father became a tailor and worked in a factory making clothing. Judge Baer graduated from Forrest Park High School in 1933. He attended the University of Baltimore Law School and graduated in 1937. He supported himself and paid for law school by repairing and replacing tar roofs.

Judge Baer passed the bar in 1937 and practiced real estate law for several years. He then became an assistant Baltimore City solicitor, an assistant attorney general, and a State senator for the 5th District in 1959. He was appointed to the Municipal Court of Baltimore City in 1961 by then-Governor J. Millard Tawes. In 1971 he was appointed to the newly created District Court of Maryland by then-Governor Marvin Mandel. He retired as a district court judge in 1981.

Judge Baer married Judy Weinberg in 1941 and has two children. His first child is Susan Reichmister, who is married to Dr. Jerome Reichmister. They happen to be neighbors as well as friends. They have two children: Beth, who is married to Bart Casper, and Jodi, who is married to Craig Kessler. Judge Baer has four great-grandchildren: Nicole, Sloane, Mitchell, and Blair. His second child is the Honorable Barbara Baer Waxman, who is administrative judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. She is married to Dr. Carl. Waxman. No list of family members would be complete without mentioning Judge Baer's ``grand-dog,'' Shayna Waxman. Judge Baer and his beloved wife Judy were married for 66 years before she passed away shortly after their 66th wedding anniversary in 2007.

My father Meyer, whose parents were also Russian immigrants, also served on the bench. He and Judge Baer were close friends, which is how I came to know Judge Baer. It has been a great privilege to know Judge Baer, to receive his counsel, and to count him not just as a close friend of my father's but as my close friend too, and not just Judge Baer but the rest of his wonderful family, whom I have just mentioned.

Judge Baer has lived an exemplary life devoted to public service, the community, and to his family. Judge Baer lives independently and spends each winter in Florida. He was an avid horseback rider for over 60 years--hence, the cowboy nickname--and only stopped riding this past July.

It is an understatement to say that Judge Baer has lived an extraordinary life. He grew up without an indoor bathroom or electric lights. He drove one of the first cars and owned one of the first motorcycles, the venerable Indian Scout. Now, he uses a computer and a cell phone. I am sure all of my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in congratulating Judge Baer on his 100th birthday and sending along our best wishes as he begins his second century.

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

If I understand correctly, we are on the nomination of judge Robert Wilkins?

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Judge Robert L. Wilkins to be a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I was pleased to introduce Judge Wilkins to the Judiciary Committee in September and the committee favorably reported his nomination in October. He was filibustered in November, and I am pleased we are reconsidering his nomination today.

Judge Wilkins currently serves as a Federal District Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. So he is a district court judge today, confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment, and now has been nominated by President Obama to fill the circuit court, which is the court above the judicial court for the District of Columbia.

I am happy we are going to get a chance to vote on the merits of this nominee.

Judge Wilkins is a native of Muncie, IN. He obtained his B.S. cum laude in chemical engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Following graduation, Judge Wilkins clerked for The Honorable Earl B. Gilliam of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He later served as a staff attorney and as

head of special litigation for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. He then practiced as a partner with Venable, specializing in white-collar defense, intellectual property, and complex civil litigation before taking the bench as a district court judge.

Besides Judge Wilkins' professional accomplishments as an attorney, he has also played a leading role as a plaintiff in a landmark civil rights case in Maryland involving racial profiling. During his tenure with the Public Defender Service and in private practice, Judge Wilkins served as the lead plaintiff in Wilkins, et al. v. State of Maryland, a civil rights lawsuit against the Maryland State Police for a traffic stop they conducted on Judge Wilkins and his family. Let me give some of the circumstances of what Judge Wilkins went through.

In 1992 Judge Wilkins attended his grandfather's funeral in Chicago and then began an all-night trip home with three of his family members. He was due back in Washington, DC, that coming morning for a court appearance as a public defender. A Maryland State Police trooper pulled over their car. The police detained the family and deployed a drug- sniffing dog to check the car, after Judge Wilkins declined to consent to a search of the car, stating there was no reasonable suspicion. The family stood in the rain during the search, which did not uncover any contraband.

Judge Wilkins later wrote:

It is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel

when people pressure you to be guilty for no good reason, and

you know that you are innocent. . . . [W]e fit the profile to

a tee. We were traveling on I-68, early in the morning, in a

Virginia rental car. And, my cousin and I, the front seat

passengers, were young black males. The only problem was that

we were not dangerous, armed drug traffickers. It should not

be suspicious to travel on the highway early in the morning

in a Virginia rental car. And it should not be suspicious to

be black.

After the traffic stop, Judge Wilkins began reviewing Maryland State Police data and noticed that while a majority of those searched on I-95 were Black, Blacks made up only a minority of the drivers traveling on the highway.

Judge Wilkins filed a civil rights lawsuit which resulted in two landmark settlements that were the first to require systematic compilation and publication by a police agency of data for all highway drug and weapons searches, including data recording the race of the motorist involved, the justification of the search and the outcome of the search. The settlements also required the State Police to hire an independent consultant, install video cameras in their vehicles, conduct internal investigations of all citizen complaints of racial profiling, and provide the Maryland NAACP with quarterly reports containing detailed information on the number, nature, location, and disposition of racial profiling complaints.

These settlements inspired a June 1999 Executive order by President Clinton, congressional hearings, and legislation that has been enacted in over half of the 50 States.

This was a landmark case, and the settlement provided the wherewithal for many States to change their practices on traffic stops and how traffic stops would be conducted. It was an important action Judge Wilkins took as a private citizen in order to advance the rights of all people. I applaud him for that courage, not only to stand for what was right for him but also to be active in changing those practices around the country.

As my colleagues know, I have introduced S. 1038, the End Racial Profiling Act--ERPA--which would codify many of the practices now used by the Maryland State Police to root out the use of racial profiling by law enforcement. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ending the use of racial profiling last year, and I am hopeful that with the broader discussion on racial profiling generated by the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, we can come together and move forward on this legislation.

Judge Wilkins played a key role in the passage of the Federal statute establishing the National Museum of African American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission, and he served as the chairman of the Site and Building Committee of that Presidential Commission. The work of the Presidential Commission led to the passage of Public Law 108-184, which authorized the creation of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. This museum will be the newest addition to the Smithsonian and is scheduled to open in 2015 between the National Museum of American History and the Washington Monument on the National Mall.

I mention that because Judge Wilkins has been involved in our community. He is not only an outstanding jurist, he is a person who has stood for basic rights. He has taken action where things were wronged against him, and he has been very active in our community.

He also continues his pro bono work to this day. He currently serves as the court liaison to the Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services of the Judicial Conference of the DC Circuit. He is committed to public service and equal justice.

As a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia since 2011, Judge Wilkins has presided over hundreds of civil and criminal cases, including both jury and bench trials. Judge Wilkins already sits on a Federal bench which hears an unusual number of cases of national importance to the Federal Government, including complex election law, voting rights, environmental, securities, and administrative law cases.

Indeed, Judge Wilkins has been nominated for the appellate court that would directly hear appeals from the court on which he currently sits. He understands the responsibilities of the court that he has been nominated to by President Obama.

The American Bar Association gave Judge Wilkins a rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' to serve as a Federal appellate judge, which is the highest possible rating from the nonpartisan peer review.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is also referred to as the Nation's second highest court. The Supreme Court only accepts a handful of cases each year, so the DC Circuit often has the last word and proclaims the final law of the land in a range of critical areas of the law because many of these cases are brought to the DC Circuit.

This court handles unusually complex cases in the area of administrative law, including revealing decisions and rulemaking of many Federal agencies in policy areas, such as environment, labor, and financial regulations.

Nationally, only about 15 percent of the appeals are administrative in nature--15 percent. That is the national number. In the DC Circuit, that figure is 43 percent. They have a much larger caseload of complex cases. The court also hears a variety of sensitive terrorism cases involving complicated issues, such as enemy combatants and detention policies.

Let me quote from former Chief Judge Henry Edwards, who said:

[R]eview of large, multiparty, difficult administrative

appeals is the staple of judicial work in the DC Circuit.

This alone distinguishes the work of the DC Circuit from the

work of other circuits. It also explains why it is impossible

to compare the work of the DC Circuit with other circuits by

simply referring to raw data on case filings.

I mention that because there have been some here who say ``the workload of the court.'' The workload of the court requires us to fill this vacancy.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that ``about two-thirds of the cases before the DC Circuit involved the Federal Government in some civil capacity, while that figure is less than twenty-five percent nationwide.'' He also described the ``D.C. Circuit's unique character, as a court with special responsibility to review legal challenges to the conduct of the national government.'' He should know. Justice Roberts came from that circuit court.

We have a person who is eminently qualified for this position, and that is Judge Wilkins. We have a need to fill this vacancy. The Senate should carry out its responsibility, and we are going to have that chance very shortly.

Let me remind my colleagues that the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Wilkins in 2010 for his current position, and he has a distinguished lifelong record of public service. I am pleased that we have moved forward to get an up-or-down vote on this nomination. I ask the Senate and my colleagues to support confirmation of this eminently qualified judge.