Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act. The Democracy Restoration Act, or DRA, had been introduced in previous Congresses by former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and I am proud to follow his example. I want to thank Senator Durbin for joining me as an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in federal elections to approximately 5 million Americans who have been released from prison and are back living in their communities.

After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the states ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Unfortunately, many states passed laws during the Jim Crow period after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens.

It took Congress and the states nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which swept away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied African-Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to vote. For example, the Act outlawed the use of literacy or history tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting their ballot. The act specifically prohibits states from imposing any ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Act in 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

In 2011, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the legacy of Jim Crow laws and state disenfranchisement statutes lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, state laws governing the restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Second, these state disenfranchisement laws have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this patchwork of state laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where an individual lives.

In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole. In 10 States, a conviction can result in life-time disenfranchisement. Several States requires prisoners to seek discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States are slowly moving or repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting for ex-prisoners. But studies show that a growing number of African- American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Congress recently addressed part of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress should take stronger action now to remedy this problem.

The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving federal funds notify people about their right to vote in federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this Act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election.

The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work on this legislation.

This legislation is ultimately designed to reduce recidivism rates and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our society.''

The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act. The Democracy Restoration Act, or DRA, had been introduced in previous Congresses by former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and I am proud to follow his example. I want to thank Senator Durbin for joining me as an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in federal elections to approximately 5 million Americans who have been released from prison and are back living in their communities.

After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the states ratified the Fifteenth Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Unfortunately, many states passed laws during the Jim Crow period after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens.

It took Congress and the states nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.''

Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which swept away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied African-Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to vote. For example, the Act outlawed the use of literacy or history tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting their ballot. The act specifically prohibits states from imposing any ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Act in 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

In 2011, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the legacy of Jim Crow laws and state disenfranchisement statutes lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, state laws governing the restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Second, these state disenfranchisement laws have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this patchwork of state laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on where an individual lives.

In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole. In 10 States, a conviction can result in life-time disenfranchisement. Several States requires prisoners to seek discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States are slowly moving or repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting for ex-prisoners. But studies show that a growing number of African- American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Congress recently addressed part of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress should take stronger action now to remedy this problem.

The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving federal funds notify people about their right to vote in federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. The bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this Act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election.

The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work on this legislation.

This legislation is ultimately designed to reduce recidivism rates and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our society.''

The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is time for Republicans to end their war on dedicated, hard-working middle-class Federal employees. Who are these Federal workers? They are the Veterans' Administration's nursing assistants who care for our wounded warriors; the Department of Defense civilian employees who support our military troops at home and abroad; Social Security Administration claims representatives who process benefits to our Nation's senior citizens and people who qualify for disability payments. They also include Nobel prize-winning scientists who are conducting groundbreaking research at the National Institutes of Health and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on everything from fighting cancer to understanding the origins of the universe; the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration staff who keep our air and water clean and our food and drugs safe; the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic controllers who keep the skies safe; also, the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and United States Marshal Service attorneys and law enforcement officers who track down and arrest and convict terrorists and drug cartel and gang members.

The list of those who are on the front line of public service goes on and on. Federal employees are dedicated and hard-working, and like many other Americans, many of them are struggling to deal with their family budgets. And yet Federal employees are already contributing $60 billion to the deficit reduction through a 2-year pay freeze.

They have already contributed to deficit reduction. They were the first in line to try to help balance our budget.

Like their private sector counterparts, Federal employees haven't been immune to the country's economic woes. They are confronting similar hardships: disabled or unemployed spouses, declining home values, rising gasoline and living expenses. Many Federal employees head single-parent families. As do other Americans, many Federal employees struggle to pay their mortgages and find ways to send their children to college.

H.R. 3630, the House Republicans' payroll tax cut bill, would require 2 million Federal employees to shoulder nearly one-half of the cost of a tax reduction that benefits 160 million Americans. So what the Republican bill is doing is extending the payroll tax reductions for working families, but saying to the middle-class Federal worker: You are going to pay most of the burden. That is not going to help our economy. That is not the right way to extend the payroll tax reduction.

The current Republican assault on our Federal employees is piled on top of the current 2-year pay freeze, which is piled on top of a workforce already lagging behind the private sector when it comes to pay. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, average wages among all workers in our economy have risen over 600 percent since 1969, while salaries for civilian Federal employees have grown by a little over 400 percent since 1969. There is a widening gap between public sector employees and the private sector.

What these proposals would do is widen that gap even further.

Republicans want to extend the current pay freeze for another year. That would cost a Federal employee who makes $50,000 annually about $800 a year. A 3-year pay freeze would cost GS-5 employees almost $4,000 in cumulative lost salaries; for GS-7 employees, almost $5,000 in cumulative lost salaries; and for GS-9 employees, almost $6,000 in cumulative lost salaries.

The Republican bill would require massive increases in the contributions current and future Federal employees make to their retirement system--a system that is currently fully funded--while slashing benefits. That is rubbing salt in the wound of the additional pay freeze. So the Republican bill takes a 2-year pay freeze and adds a third year pay freeze and tells our employees to triple their contributions to their retirement system, which is another pay cut. It is not only a freeze, Republicans are proposing. It's a pay cut for our Federal workers.

In addition to these assaults, we are already asking the federal workforce to do more with less. As my colleagues have noticed, when it comes to job growth numbers, the public sector numbers aren't going up; they're going down. But the workload isn't going down. We are asking our Federal workers to do more with less, to have a 2-year pay freeze, and now to take a pay cut. That is not fair.

The Republicans save their most severe punishment for future Federal employees, making it clear that their intention is to provide as many disincentives for people to consider a career in public service as possible. Increasing pension contributions for future hires by 3.2 percent would force an employee making $30,000 a year to pay $1,200 rather than $400. We should be embracing people who are willing to engage in public service. The Republicans are doing just the opposite.

It is time for the Republicans to stop their war on hard-working Federal employees. Increasingly, the Federal workforce is being asked to do more with less. Increasingly, the Federal workforce is being asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of deficit reduction. It is time to stop that assault. I think it is time we all properly recognize the dedication, hard work, valor, sacrifice, and professionalism of our Federal workers.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withdraw my request.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding. I wish to thank Senator Sanders, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Boxer, who were on the floor on this issue.

I just wish to underscore the point that was just made about having a level playing field, where we have tilted the scales in favor of fossil fuels over renewables. My colleagues have already talked about the direct difference in our subsidies. I would like to add an additional element; that is, when you look at the subsidies we give to the fossil fuel industries, they are permanent. They are in the Tax Code. They do not go through the annual exercise of an extender.

What does that mean? That means the lack of predictability in sustainable energy means there is a higher cost for investment. It tilts the scale in favor of oil and gas, rather than on sustainable, renewable energy sources. I would just mention three. The Congressional Research Service did a report on this, just three of the provisions that benefit the oil industry: the excess of

percentage over cost depletion, the expensing of exploration and development costs, and the amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures. Just those three provisions that are permanent in our Tax Code, between 2010 and 2014, will cost the taxpayers over $10 billion.

We are subsidizing the oil industry, and we should not be doing that. We should be encouraging a transformation to sustainable energy issues as my colleagues have pointed out for the purposes of national security. It is good for our environment and it is good for jobs. This is about jobs. That is why we cannot go home until we have extended the tax provisions, particularly 1603 but others of the energy-related, sustainable energy provisions.

I wish to talk for one moment, if I might, about the production tax credit we need to extend because I want to talk about one specific project in Maryland, on a brownfields site that we are dealing with that relates to energy. Some might say: OK. That does not expire until 2013. But here is the problem. You have to have it in production by that date. Our waste-to-energy projects--it is not going to be in production by that date. So if we do not extend it this month, the project will be at a standstill in Baltimore.

There are 1,900 jobs at stake--1,900 jobs are at stake on just that one project which, by the way, helps our environment, helps our energy, and also helps our economy. That is why it is critically important that before we leave, we extend these sustainable energy tax credits, so we can get the investment.

Quite frankly, I would like to see us make some of these permanent. We make them permanent, we get predictability. We get predictability, it is less cost, it encourages more activity in this area. That is what we should be about, creating jobs for our country. The wind energy credit alone would allow us to create another 54,000 jobs. So this is about job growth for America. It is about our energy security, and it is about a cleaner environment. It is about America's future.

That is why we have taken the time to point out to the American people that Congress needs to make sure it is active on these areas before we adjourn for the year. We owe that to the people of this country.

With that, I will yield to my friend from Vermont.

Madam President, I rise today to mark International Human Rights Day, a day which celebrates the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948.

In the immediate after math of World War II, and reacting with revulsion to the horrors of that global war and the Holocaust, the community of nations organized itself with the goal of protecting international peace and security. Although the United Nations founding Charter recognized the protection of human rights as one of the

UN's most basic purposes, it was quickly recognized that it would be necessary to further elaborate these fundamental freedoms in order to ensure their protection. The resulting document--the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--has since served as the foundation upon which all other human rights work at the international level has stood. It remains to this day an enduring guide for human rights advocates around the globe.

This has been an exciting and dramatic year that will be remembered for the triumphs of the Arab Spring. The fall of so many dictators who have been responsible for the deaths, torture, and other atrocities meted out against so many has opened up the exhilarating prospect of real reform and meaningful human rights improvements. But the final chapter of the Arab Spring has not yet been written, and nothing can be taken for granted.

Progress in this field is not necessarily linear. As Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural address, ``Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.''

I believe it is especially critical, at this historic moment, for the United States to remain vigilant in the protection and promotion of human rights--abroad and at home.

Overseas, the United States must continue to use our voice to speak on behalf of those silenced by brutal regimes. We must continue to lift up those who cannot stand on their own. And while we must inevitably pursue a multifaceted foreign-policy that advances American goals in a broad range of areas including hard security and the economy, we must never treat human rights as something expendable.

I take particular note of the countries that stand shoulder to shoulder with us in that effort. I welcome Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski's call for a ``European endowment for democracy,'' similar to the National Endowment for Democracy which the United States has supported since 1983. I commend Poland for the leadership it has shown on human rights issues during its presidency of the European Union.

In all of these efforts, the role of civil society remains critical. On the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations adopted a declaration on the rights of human rights defenders. They are the first line of defense and they often pay the highest price.

There are, unfortunately, too many cases of human rights defenders who are imprisoned, persecuted or worse, for me to raise them all here. But I would like to mention one in particular that maybe emblematic of many others: the case of Evgenii Zhovtis, Kazakhstan's most well-known human rights activist.

Zhovtis is the Director of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law and even a member of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights' panel of experts on freedom of assembly. But he was involved in a tragic car accident in which a pedestrian was killed and, after a trial widely condemned for lacking due process, he was sentenced in 2009 to 4 years in prison.

A year ago, at the OSCE Summit in Astana, civil society activists called for Zhovtis' release. As one NGO participant remarked:

Evgenii is the human rights Everyman. If this can happen to

him, it can happen to anyone.

A year later, Evgenii Zhovtis remains in a Siberian penal colony, even as Kazakhstan prepares to host an OSCE election observation mission. In the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I once again urge President Nazarbayev to review his case and to release him.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I take this time because we are in the last, we hope, few days before we adjourn for the holidays. There are certain pieces of legislation we must get done before we leave town. We call these the must-pass bills that we have to make sure are enacted before Congress adjourns for the year.

One, of course, is what President Obama has been talking about. We need to deal with the payroll tax issue. We don't want to see middle- income families finding that on January 1 their paychecks--the actual amount of money they take home--are reduced. During this economic time, we want to make sure the money remains constant, and we don't want to see additional burdens placed on middle-income families.

We all know we have to deal with the Medicare extenders, including the physicians problem. We have a flawed system for reimbursing physicians that causes a substantial reduction in rates physicians receive--a 27-percent reduction. That would affect not only the fairness of our reimbursement system to our doctors, but it would also affect the access Medicare patients have to physicians. So we need to absolutely take care of that issue.

We have the Omnibus appropriations bill. I certainly hope that is going to be an appropriations bill so we can give some predictability through the remainder of this fiscal year. We have to get that done before we adjourn for the holidays.

We also need to pass the tax extenders. I know the Presiding Officer has been very actively involved in the energy extenders, knowing full well the importance not only to New Mexico but to our entire country. Those extenders need to be passed because, if not, we lose jobs. This involves the ability to move forward with sustainable energy projects that will mean jobs in our communities and energy self-sufficiency for America.

But I wish to take this time to talk about another must-pass bill before we adjourn for the year; that is, the extension of the unemployment insurance. It is absolutely essential that we get that done before Congress adjourns for the year.

I think we have to make it clear that this extension will mean providing the same number of weeks of unemployment insurance for those who are currently in the system--those who have lost their jobs--that we have had for the last couple of years for those who have been caught up in this economic downturn. We are not extending beyond what the unemployed have already received. So we are basically extending the current policy because we are still in a very difficult economic circumstance.

For every job that is open, there are four people who apply for it. So it is very difficult for someone who is unemployed to be able to find employment. As I know and as the Presiding Officer knows, if a person is unemployed and looking for work, it is much more difficult.

For all of those reasons, the right thing to do is to acknowledge that the number of weeks of benefits should not be reduced at this period, that those who are currently in the system who have lost their jobs should be able to get the same number of benefits that earlier unemployed people were able to get during this economic period. That is what this legislation would do.

Unemployment insurance is an insurance program. During good times, we pay more into the system. During economic downturns, we take the money out of the system. It is countercyclical so that we help our economy as well as help our families.

This is the right thing to do. This is the only lifeline for many families. This represents their ability to be able to put food on the table for their families or to keep their home from going into foreclosure or to pay their rent or to take care of their family needs. This is the right thing to do from the point of view of families who have been caught up in this economic period.

It also, by the way, would affect millions of our families. Over the next year, if we were not to extend the unemployment insurance benefits, it is estimated that 6 million families would be denied their full benefits that they are receiving currently--6 million families-- and each one is a family in our community who would be adversely affected.

It also helps our economy. Mark Zandi, who was the economic adviser for then-Presidential candidate Senator McCain, said that for every dollar we put out into the economy for unemployment benefits, we get back $1.61 in our economy. The multiplier effect of unemployment compensation is positive to our economy. So, once again, when we are trying to stimulate job growth, this helps us. How does it help us? The people who receive unemployment benefits visit our local shops, our small businesses in our communities, keeping our economy moving, keeping our path forward to job growth.

For all of those reasons--for the fact that it is the right thing to do for families and for what the intent of unemployment insurance is all about--it is the right thing for us to do because it helps our economy. This must be on our list of must-pass legislation. We have to get this done before we adjourn for the year.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to celebrate the distinguished career of Dr. Hal Cohen, an internationally renowned economist and professor, devoted husband, father, and grandfather, and my good friend.

Harold Allen Cohen was born in New York on April 21, 1938. After earning his B.A. from the college that is now known as SUNY-Binghamton and his M.A. from Cornell University, Hal began his career in health care financing and public policy by earning a Ph.D. from Cornell University in 1967. After completing his education, he was awarded a prestigious fellowship with the National Science Foundation from 1969 to 1971, which he followed with a year-long stint as an associate at the Danforth Foundation while teaching economics at the University of Georgia, first as an assistant and then as an associate professor.

Hal then took a position that would come to define his career. In 1972, he moved to Baltimore to become the executive director and founding member of the Health Services Cost Review Commission, or HSCRC, the State agency that regulates hospital rates in Maryland. As a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, I worked closely with Dr. Cohen during the formative years of the HSCRC, and while he is quick to say that he was surrounded by a tremendous group of colleagues, it was his leadership that cemented the HSCRC as a Maryland institution. His insight was and continues to be invaluable in containing hospital cost growth. Dr. Cohen worked to ensure that hospitals could provide efficient, high quality care to every Marylander as he focused on ensuring that hospital financing options were fair, accessible and equitable. Since 1976, the HSCRC has financed nearly $1 billion in uncompensated care, improving access for underinsured and uninsured Marylanders, and supporting hospitals' social mission while providing them greater financial stability.

Since 1977, Maryland hospitals have been paid on the basis of the rates established by the HSCRC, ensuring that Maryland's health costs are kept low, and that its health system is tailored to the needs of its citizens. Under Hal's leadership, the State of Maryland has saved over $47 billion since 1976. The HSCRC has been essential in ensuring that each hospital in Maryland provides comprehensive care that includes assistance for the underinsured, as well as incorporating teaching and research programs into the structure of the hospital center.

As Executive Director of the HSCRC, Dr. Cohen ushered the organization through its first 15 years. He worked to ensure that the agency would work well with Maryland hospitals, the Maryland State Legislature, and most importantly, for Maryland's citizens in a transparent and accountable fashion. The independent nature of the HSCRC allows the agency the ability to advocate for and support a legislative agenda, and Dr. Cohen used this ability over the length of his career to fight for fair and sustainable pricing structures that support hospitals and patients.

The system set up by the HSCRC was so well-conceived that it has succeeded for nearly 35 years. All-payer rate setting is now being discussed by many leading health economists as an effective way to control the unsustainable growth in health care costs.

Dr. Cohen's base of knowledge has been widely sought. He has served on three Federal committees, and he was a founding appointee to the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission--ProPAC. He has also served as a member of the National Committee on Rural Health, the National Committee of Vital and Health Statistics, and he served as Commissioner of the Maryland Health Care Access and Cost Commission from 1993 to 1998. As Commissioner, he played a key role in improving quality and expanding health care access, by initiating HMO report cards to evaluate quality and establishing a small group market system to make insurance more affordable for small businesses.

In 1985, 2 years before he would step down as the Executive Director of HSCRC, he founded Hal Cohen, Inc., a health care consulting firm located in Baltimore, MD to offer consulting services in the areas of hospital financing and public policy. He has served clients from every corner of the industry and all over the country, from the Federal Government to private insurers, from HMOs to self-insured companies.

In addition to his significant and long-lasting professional impact, Dr. Hal Cohen is known throughout Baltimore as a loving husband and father. Hal and his wife, Jo, have been married for more than 50 years, and their family has grown to include their children--Robb, Gail, David, Heather, and Amy--and their five grandchildren--Lizzie, Alex, Max, Zhi, and Olive.

Dr. Cohen's extensive work will continue to make Maryland a better place to live. His essential leadership was crucial in building the HSCRC as a force for fairness in health care pricing and for expanding patient access to health care. I thank him for his long service, and I congratulate him on his many years of putting the people of Maryland first--he is a public servant of the highest caliber, and I am proud to call him my trusted advisor and dear friend.

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

Mr. President, I rise to address the human rights issue of deep concern.

For 2 years, since December 3, 2009, an American citizen and a Marylander, Alan Gross, has been imprisoned by the Cuban Government. For 2 years, he has been held by the Cuban authorities.

Alan was in Cuba to help the country's small Jewish community establish an Internet and improve its access to the Internet, which would allow the community to go online without fear of censorship or monitoring.

After being held for 14 months without charge and then a cursory 2- day trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. His appeal to the Cuban supreme court was denied in August of this year.

Alan Gross is a caring husband and a father, a devoted man who has dutifully promoted U.S. foreign policy interests while serving the needs of thousands of foreign citizens, from Afghanistan to Haiti, over a career that has spanned more than 25 years of public service.

Unfortunately, Alan has been caught in the middle of a conflict between two nations with a long and difficult relationship. But it is entirely unacceptable that his personal freedoms have been violated every day he continues to be incarcerated.

Alan's health has deteriorated during his imprisonment. He has lost 100 pounds and suffers from a multitude of medical conditions, including gout, ulcers, and arthritis, that have worsened without adequate treatment.

Last night, I had a chance to talk to his wife Judy, who had a chance to visit with her husband in Cuba earlier last month. Judy informs me that Alan Gross's health conditions are deteriorating and that he is in need of adequate health care. In addition, his mother and daughter are both struggling with serious health care issues, and his wife is struggling to make ends meet.

The Gross family should not have to suffer through such a trying period of time without Alan for support. Sentencing Alan Gross to 15 years behind bars also sentences his family to 15 years without a husband, father, and son. There is no reason for the Gross family to continue to suffer the consequences of political gamesmanship any longer. I urge the Cuban Government to remember that this is a real man and a family who are suffering.

I have already written the Cuban Government urging them, in the strongest possible manner, to immediately and unconditionally release Alan Gross. His continued imprisonment is a major setback in our bilateral relations, and it is unlikely any positive steps to improve that relationship can or will happen while he remains in prison.

As a Senator and as a Marylander and as a fellow human being, I urge the Cuban Government to see Alan Gross, who has dedicated his life to serving others, for who he is--a man who believed he was helping others by stepping in when he saw a need. Enough is enough. I call on the Cuban Government to release Alan Gross immediately and to allow him to return to his family.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleagues, Senators Menendez and Kirk, and I thank them for their leadership on this issue. To me, this is an extremely important amendment that I hope will get the support of all the Members of the Senate. It tightens the restrictions we already have against Iran.

I compliment the Obama administration for the work they have done internationally by expanding the sanction against Iran and against Iran's petroleum and petrochemical industries. It has been effective, because we have gotten other countries to follow the leadership of the United States.

I think everyone in this body understands the risks of Iran to the security of not only its region but the entire world. Iran is a very dangerous nation. It has ambitions to spread terrorism in the region and to affect U.S. interests. It is for that reason that we cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state. Our most effective way to deal with this is to isolate Iran and to make sure the sanctions that are imposed actually will accomplish the objective of penalizing the country but not the individual people of Iran.

The amendment offered by Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk would allow us to expand the sanctions against Iran to the Central Bank of Iran. The amendment requires the President to prohibit all transactions and property and interest in property of the Iranian financial institutions that touch U.S. financial institutions, and to prohibit the maintenance of correspondence or payable-through accounts by foreign banks that have conducted financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran.

What does that mean? It means we are trying to put the sanctions where they will have the most impact, and that is on the financial system of Iran itself. The Iranian Central Bank depends upon other banks around the world, and this amendment would allow us to have an effective way to isolate the Central Bank of Iran, putting additional focus on the Iranian policies that have violated the United Nations' resolutions.

Iran has violated their commitments. They violated their commitments as they relate to their nuclear programs. They haven't complied with agreements they have entered into. It is important that the international community stand united. This is important for the stability of the region, it is important for the security of Israel, our closest ally in that region, it is important for the Arab states that have talked to us about the danger of Iran, it is important for U.S. interests. So it is important that we get this moving.

Iran's complete disregard for its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its directives of the multiple U.N. Security Council Resolutions belies the government's continued insistence that its nuclear program is one based upon its energy needs. It is not based upon its energy needs. It is trying to become a nuclear weapons state, something we must make sure does not occur.

We need to take all steps we can in order to deny Iran the ability to have international legitimacy while they are violating their international commitments. This amendment continues the U.S. leadership on this issue and follows up on the work our Nation has done in getting international support to make clear to Iran that if they continue along these policies of violating their international commitments, they are going to continue to be isolated and it is going to affect the economy of their nation.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

As to the floor privileges, Mr. President, let me just comment how valuable these Navy fellows are in our offices. I am very grateful for LCDR Knisley's service in my office, and I know Senator Wicker feels the same.

LCDR Shane Knisley will be leaving my office next month, and I wish to thank him very much for the service he has provided in the Senate.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to be asking unanimous consent that the Senate take up to confirm the nomination of Ken Kopocis to be Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Before I make that unanimous consent request, I wish to just take a moment to say a few words about this nominee and the process that has taken place in Senate.

I have known Ken Kopocis since I was first elected to Congress in 1986 and have worked personally with him on a number of water-related issues. Ken has extensive background in water policy and legislative issues, having worked at the Congress for 25 years. I worked with him first when I was in the House of Representatives. I know the Presiding Officer also, when he was in the House, remembers the good work Ken did for the House of Representatives. He has now worked, of course, in the Senate.

He has played a role in crafting and defending numerous pieces of environmental legislation, including the Clean Water Act. At a time when there are so many controversial issues concerning water issues in the Congress, I think it is important we have someone at the helm who has the confidence of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

I have the honor of chairing the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife in the Environment & Public Works Committee. Ken Kopocis enjoys the confidence of all the members of our committee.

When his nomination was considered in the Environment & Public Works Committee back in July--that is when we took it up--Ken was praised by both Republicans and Democrats alike. Most of my colleagues have had the opportunity to work with him, and they are enthusiastic about his credentials and his levelheaded bipartisan approach to every issue.

It is time the Senate take up this confirmation. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 403, that the nomination be confirmed with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor in just a moment.

Let me say to my friend from Wyoming, I am going to do my best to make sure the Senator gets all the information he needs. I wish to make sure every Senator has all the information they need. I think this is a very important position to be filled. Mr. Kopocis has the qualifications and confidence. I wish to make sure that is done as quickly as possible. I respect my colleague's views, and I will work to make sure he gets all the information he needs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so I may offer my first amendment, No. 1073.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment now be set aside so I can offer amendment No. 1188.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, if there is no one else who wishes to offer amendments--

Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain with regard to amendment No. 1188, which was my Hotels for Heroes amendment. I am going to be very brief.

Hotels for Heroes follows on Hero Miles, a successful program which allows our wounded warriors and their families to use frequent flyer miles that are donated for trips to military care facilities. I compliment my colleague in the House, Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, for his work on establishing that program.

The amendment which was just accepted, which Senators Wicker, Feinstein, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Casey, and Burr cosponsored, expands that program to include hotel points so that family members can use the donated hotel points for housing so they can be near and visit their wounded warriors who are on rest and recuperative leave, emergency leave, convalescent leave, or another form of authorized leave necessary because of an injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in support of a contingency operation.

I also want to comment very briefly on the other amendment I filed, which is No. 1073, that Senator Mikulski cosponsored. This amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia's National Guard from operating or expanding its Youth Challenge Program in Anne Arundel County because there is also a better alternative already in place.

The DC National Guard currently partners with the Maryland National Guard to provide valuable service to at-risk children through the Youth Challenge Program at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Harford County, MD. I have visited the two programs at that site, and that is where I think it is logical to see an expansion.

Here's the problem with the so-called Oak Hill facility in Anne Arundel County, which is what this amendment deals with: that parcel of land borders the National Security Agency (NSA), which will need more space. This is Federal property located in the State of Maryland that is important for our national security.

In the 1920s, the District of Columbia got permission from Congress to place on that property--and please understand I am quoting from the original authorizing language--a facility for children that are ``feeble-minded.'' That was the exact language contained in the fiscal year 1924 District of Columbia appropriations bill.

Since that time, the District, without our knowledge, constructed a juvenile detention facility and now wants to add the Youth Challenge Program, which is doing just fine at Aberdeen. The purpose of this amendment is to say: Look, we already have a place where the Youth Challenge Program should be and can expand as necessary. We should not be using this other Federal land in the State of Maryland adjacent to NSA for this type of expansion without working with the appropriate State and local officials, as well as federal officials.

I hope this amendment can get cleared. But I wanted to explain the reason I filed it and called it up. I thank the Chair for your attention.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to LT Shane Knisley, a Navy fellow serving in my office, during the pendency of S. 1867, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, today I honor Marge Thomas, who is retiring as the president and chief executive officer of Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake. Ms. Thomas began her career with Goodwill in Milwaukee in 1974 and rose to become the first woman executive in the enterprise to win a national Goodwill Industries leadership award, to go along with Outstanding Management and Distinguished Career Awards.

Ms. Thomas took over Goodwill Industries of the Chesapeake in 1994 and transformed the agency into one of Baltimore's largest nonprofit organizations during her nearly 18-year tenure. When she joined Goodwill Chesapeake in 1994, the agency served 453 people, operated 17 stores, and had total revenues of $8 million. Today, it serves more than 17,000 people, and the organization has expanded to include nine training sites and 26 retail stores, and it has government contracts throughout the greater Baltimore region and the Eastern Shore. Total revenues have grown to $40 million, with nearly $30 million generated through the agency's retail operations. Her accomplishments include expanding Goodwill services to provide a variety of training and employment needs for individuals who have mental and physical disabilities, including those needing public assistance, and those who have criminal backgrounds or face other employment challenges.

Congress would do well to learn from Ms. Thomas, who has found ways during these trying economic times to create jobs, train employees, and increase revenues. She has offered a helping hand and, more important, hope to many people struggling to climb onto the first rung of the economic ladder. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Thomas for a job well done; for her lifelong commitment to public service and for her many outstanding contributions in helping the less fortunate among us. She has made a positive difference in so many people's lives. I know her future plans include some travel, attending some classes at Anne Arundel Community College, and serving as a mentor to women nonprofit executives. Please join me in sending best wishes to Marge Thomas for a happy, productive, and well- deserved retirement.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, tomorrow, Veterans Day, our Nation will pay our respect and honor to the men and women who have served in our military.

I know we say this frequently, but every day we should honor the men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. Every day we should have in our thoughts and prayers those who are currently in harm's way defending America's freedom. We want to make sure we do everything we can to make sure they have the support of this Nation to complete their mission safely and return to their families safely.

So I take this time to express the appreciation of this Senator, on behalf of the people of Maryland, to the men and women who have served our Nation, who are our veterans, their families, and those who are currently serving our Nation in the military service. They have defended this Nation and the freedoms we enjoy today from our traditional threats from hostile countries to our current threats that come from extremists and terrorists. Our men and women in our Armed Forces have served our Nation very proudly.

We need to show our appreciation by words and deeds, and I know I speak for the Members of this body that we need to make sure we provide the very best in health care to those who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and to those who have served our Nation. I have visited and seen firsthand our soldiers who have returned and how they are being treated, and I tell you we need to keep up this commitment.

I compliment my friend, Congressman Ruppersberger, my colleague from Maryland, who started a program known as Miles for Heroes, where soldiers who were returning home would come into BWI Airport and Baltimore, but for them to get to their homes they had to purchase their own tickets in order to see their families. In many cases, our soldiers who returned home for treatment, their families could not afford to travel to visit them in the medical facility.

Congressman Ruppersberger introduced a proposal where they could use frequent flier miles and donate that so our soldiers and their families could get airline tickets to see each other. It has been extremely successful. We celebrated an anniversary of that not too long ago at the BWI Airport.

I mention that because I have filed S. 1776 to extend this program to hotel miles so families can not only have the transportation costs to visit their wounded warriors but also have a place to stay. I think that makes abundant sense, and I hope we will be able to act on that. To me, this is what we should be doing on Veterans Day, not only again showing our words but also showing our deeds.

When I was at Baltimore Washington International Airport, I had a chance to visit the returning soldiers, literally just coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq. It was an incredible experience to see their faces as they reunited with their families, having served this Nation in combat. But there was also concern on some of their faces because they do not know whether they are going to have a job to return to once they return to the work place. We took some steps to help them today in that regard by the passage of a bill that will provide incentives for employers to provide employment for our veterans returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq. That is exactly what we should be doing, showing our support for our veterans.

I wished to take this time to pay respect and to honor those who serve in our military. Tomorrow, on November 11, at 11 o'clock in the morning, I will be at Cheltenham at the veterans cemetery for a commemoration where we will pay honor to all the men and women who have served our Nation, and I will then express, on behalf of the people of Maryland and the people of this Nation, our gratitude for preserving our way of life and being a beacon of hope for freedom-loving people around the world.

Cross-Border Air Pollution

Madam President, earlier today we rejected the resolution by Senator Paul that would have undone the cross-state air pollution standards. I voted against that resolution. I wish to compliment my colleagues for the strong bipartisan vote that rejected the resolution that would have prevented this regulation from going into effect. I wish to share with my colleagues some of my reasons.

This is a matter of a sense of fairness. Let me talk for a moment about Maryland. Maryland has done all it can to protect the health of its citizens with some of the most stringent clean air standards in the Nation. We have done that. We have enacted those standards. We have implemented those standards. But here is the problem: 50 percent of the smog that comes into Maryland that affects the health of Marylanders comes in from other States. Maryland can do everything it can to prevent the air pollution in our State, but it is coming in from other States, affecting the health of our citizens.

We have 140,000 Maryland children who suffer from asthma. Dirty air makes it difficult for these children to have a productive day in school. We have workers who cannot work on bad air days. It is critically important that we move forward with sensible cross-State air pollution standards. That is exactly what the Obama administration brought forward. Thanks to the vote in the Senate, those regulations will be able to go forward.

I wish to dispel another myth. Some say we cannot have clean air and job growth. We cannot have a clean environment. We have to choose between jobs and the environment. I tell you, we need to have a clean environment in order to get the type of job growth we want. I can give the number of people who lose days from work as a result of poor air quality and the effect it has on their health. I can talk about the productivity in the workplace as a result of illness that is generated because of dirty air. All that has absolutely been documented by our scientists. They can demonstrate that. But let me talk a little bit about concrete jobs in the Maryland example.

In 2007, the Maryland legislature implemented the toughest powerplant emission laws on the east coast of the United States. They used 2002 as a baseline and they reduced SOX emissions by 80 percent by this year. They reduce NOX emissions by 75 percent by next year. It will reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2013. These are the major air pollutants we are aimed at reducing. Maryland has done that.

What impact has that had on our economy? Two thousand skilled construction worker jobs were created as a result of the investment that was made in clean air. We now have Brandon Shores, one of the cleanest coal-burning powerplants in the country. That is the legacy Maryland has given us. We have created jobs and have done what we can for clean air to help our children and help our community.

As I said earlier, there is very little more that Maryland can do. We have to rely now on the help of other States. It is for that reason that we have seen utilities that are supporting us. Constellation Energy, Excelon, PG&E have supported reasonable standards for air quality, and they recognize it is the right thing to do to have these standards apply to all States because pollution knows no State border.

I was encouraged by the vote we had on this issue. It was a vote for healthy air for our children, for jobs for our construction industry, and a stronger economy for America's future.

I yield the floor.

If my colleague will yield, we had a strong bipartisan vote on the floor on this issue. He is exactly right. All States in this country will benefit from it. Illinois is a State that also receives pollution from other States. Pollution does not know a State line. We cannot stop the air from traveling. I think my colleague is exactly right. This was not just the east coast. It happens to be at the tailpipe, as we say it, of the pollution in America, but the Midwest is very much impacted and this regulation will help the health of the people of the Midwest and throughout the country.

I thank my colleague for his comments.

Honoring Our Veterans