Floor Statements

Mr. President, I believe we are on the pending amendment?

Let me compliment Senator Boxer for her leadership on this bill. She pointed out this EDA bill brought forward is about jobs. It is about offering jobs in underserved areas. These are areas in which it is difficult to create jobs in good times, but in hard times they get hit even harder. The EDA program leverages a small amount of public support for private sector investment that creates jobs in underserved areas.

In my State of Maryland, EDA projects have been very successful in bringing jobs to the rural parts of Maryland--to western Maryland and to our eastern shore. They have leveraged private sector investment, and we maintained and created jobs.

Yesterday on the Senate floor I gave specific examples of EDA projects in western Maryland and on the eastern shore of Maryland. I talked about an old manufacturing plant that was saved under an EDA grant, leveraged 10 to 1 with private sector investment, saving over 100 jobs and creating another 20. These are jobs that are important for economic growth in our community.

We all understand this recovery has been a very difficult one for us to get moving at the pace of job growth that we know we need for this Nation. We all talk about what we can do for our budget deficit, but I hope we all would agree the most important thing we can do would be to create more jobs.

The majority leader has brought forward three major bills now to create jobs. We would like to have a little cooperation from the other side of the aisle so we can get these bills to the President for signature. The FAA bill, which deals with the modernizing of our air system, which will create jobs and will make air transportation safer, is caught up in conference. Let's get it done and bring it to the President. We had the SBIR bill before us that will help small businesses that are in innovation as far as job growth. We had so many nongermane amendments offered to it we could not get it to the floor of the Senate.

Now we have an EDA bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee by a near unanimous vote, that over the history of the EDA has not been controversial in its reauthorization, and now it looks as if we are going to see numerous nongermane amendments offered in an effort, basically, to just ignore the importance of the underlying bill that can create jobs for our communities.

I urge my colleagues to, yes, come forward with their amendments. Let's debate them. If they are not relevant to creating jobs under the EDA bill, then let's be reasonable. Let's not have a whole series of amendments that are totally beyond the scope of this bill, such as the debt limit issue or repeal of our financial reform of last year. I don't mind debating those issues, but they should not be debated at this particular moment.

I do hope we will be able to get to the reauthorization bill. I pointed out yesterday that one of the highest priorities, from our local people in Maryland, on need was additional help from the Federal Government for planning dollars. Planning dollars allow local communities to develop a strategy that can help them with economic growth in a community.

I can tell you, having recently been out to Cumberland, MD--a great and beautiful part of our State of Maryland--they used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Many of those jobs have

moved on. They do have a strategy, but they need the planning help to put that together so they can come forward with a game plan, attracting more private sector interest in order to create more job opportunities for families to stay in the western part of our State. It is that type of assistance that is critically important to America.

I come back to the point Senator Boxer raised. The purpose of this bill is to create jobs--save jobs and create jobs. We need to get on with that business in the Senate. That is why I am proud to have worked on the Environment and Public Works Committee to bring this bill forward. I hope my colleagues will be judicious with their amendments so we can get this bill through the Senate, to the House, so we will have an opportunity to get this to the President in the very near future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer amendment No. 407.

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

Madam President, I will speak at a different point about this amendment, but it is an equitable amendment dealing with the interest charges on government loans that are paid off in the middle of the month to prorate the interest. It is a consumer issue. I think it will help American families. I will explain it in more detail in a later part of the proceedings.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, earlier today, I voted against the interchange fee amendment, Senate amendment No. 392 offered by the junior Senator from Montana and I would like to explain why. Before I do that, I would like to acknowledge two important points about Senator Tester. First, I appreciate the fact that he made significant changes to his amendment in an attempt to reach a middle ground on this issue. And the concern he has for small community banks and credit unions is beyond question. Having said that, I did not reach the same conclusion he reached that we should delay the regulatory process with regard to interchange fees.

Most of the concern raised has been expressed against the Federal Reserve's December 2010 draft interchange fee rulemaking. It was a draft proposal. Let me repeat that: it was a draft proposal. The Federal Reserve received 11,000 comments on the draft rulemaking. The final rulemaking, due any day and scheduled to take effect in July, will reflect those comments and suggestions. We need to let the regulatory process work. If the final rule doesn't work as Congress intended, we have a number of options to fix it, up to and including a congressional resolution of disapproval. If the Senate had approved the Tester amendment, it may have been ``fixing'' a problem that doesn't exist.

The Federal Reserve's rulemaking was required by a provision contained in the Wall Street reform bill Congress passed last year. The senior Senator from Illinois was the author of that provision. He modified it to exempt smaller banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion. Now we are being told the exemption is unworkable. Again, we haven't seen the final rule yet but I don't agree with the premise.

Andrew Kahr is a leading financial services expert. He was the founder and chief executive officer of First Deposit Corp, which later became Providian. He recently laid out the following arguments, which I find cogent, on the American Banker Web site:

One argument is that the clearing networks, of which there

are only four that matter, will not support the ``two-tier''

interchange system . . . Ridiculous. Visa is the largest of

the networks. It's already announced that it will implement

Durbin. (Maybe this is an object lesson as to why Visa

remains No. 1.)

For the small banks, MasterCard is the only other

significant player. If MasterCard finds it politic not to add

one more wrinkle to a skein of interchange levels that is

already of Byzantine complexity, then let the small banks

gravitate to Visa in order to benefit from Durbin.

A second argument of the big-bank lobbyists is that

merchants will reject the debit cards of small banks if these

carry a 1 percent interchange cost, versus 0.3 percent for

the large banks. Really? Then why don't these merchants

reject all credit cards, with interchange of 2 percent or

more, if the customer could instead use a debit card? When is

the last time a merchant politely asked you whether you could

pay with a debit card instead of a credit card?

Mr. Kahr concludes that if interchange fee revenue for the big banks drops but stays the same for the small banks and credit unions, the small banks will reap a competitive advantage. They will be able to impose lower fees, pay more interest, and give greater rewards to depositors. As he put it, ``anything that reduces revenue for big banks but not for small ones should help the latter compete more effectively against the former.''

Here is why I supported Senator Durbin's amendment to the Wall Street reform bill to regulate these fees in the first place. Banks do not compete with each other on the fees that merchants pay them for debit card use. Instead, Visa and MasterCard fix fee rates on behalf of all banks. There is no naturally occurring market force that keeps interchange fees at reasonable levels. The Visa and MasterCard duopoly is so dominant that merchants cannot refuse to accept their cards. Consequently, Visa and MasterCard don't lower interchange fees--they raise them, to entice banks to issue more of their cards. Retail merchants have no leverage to stop this escalation. As a result, the U.S. has the highest debit interchange fees in the world, averaging 1.14 percent of each transaction and amounting to over $16 billion per year. These fees affect merchants, universities, charities, government agencies, and everyone else who accepts debit cards as payment. The fees end up getting passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices for everything from groceries to gas to textbooks.

The Durbin provision stipulated that fees set by Visa and MasterCard on behalf of big issuing banks must be reasonable and proportional to costs incurred by the issuer that are ``specific to a particular electronic debit transaction.'' Some argue this is too narrow. The problem with the Tester amendment, well-intentioned as it may have been, is that it was too broad. It directed the Federal Reserve to let Visa and MasterCard set fee rates to ``all fixed and incremental costs associated with debit card transactions and program operations.'' The term ``program operations'' wasn't further defined and could have created a potentially enormous loophole. Rates could actually go higher under this standard.

I appreciate the hard work the junior senator from Montana put into his amendment. If the Federal Reserve's final rule truly presents problems for community banks and credit unions, I will join him in the effort to fix it. For the time being, I think we should let the regulatory process proceed and that's why I opposed the amendment. We helped out the banks; now it is time to help out consumers and America's small businesses.

Thank you, Madam President, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me compliment Senator Boxer for her leadership as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I also compliment Senator Inhofe, the ranking member.

This is an important bill, dealing with economic development and the Economic Development Administration. This is all about creating jobs, as Senator Boxer pointed out, particularly in underserved communities. That is what EDA does.

This is a reauthorization bill. It was worked on in the last Congress. It came

out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the last Congress. It enjoys strong bipartisan support. Historically, it has been agreed to. It is important this reauthorization bill move through the Senate and the House and that the President has an opportunity to sign this bill so we can continue this important economic tool for our underserved communities.

I also compliment the majority leader, Senator Reid. The bills he has brought forward in this Congress have been focused on creating jobs. We had the FAA reauthorization bill, which was important for the modernization and safety of our air traffic system, but it also created jobs and provided economic opportunity for more jobs in America.

We then considered the SBIR bill, which would have helped small businesses with innovation, growth, and job growth. I regret that that bill could not be completed because of extraneous amendments. But it shows our priority on moving legislation forward that will create jobs.

The EDA bill now before us I hope we can get to and move it quickly because it is, to me, a very important part of our strategy for the recovery of our economy and to create jobs in particularly underserved communities.

In Maryland, we have many communities that depend upon EDA funding in order to save and create jobs. The EDA, through the economic development districts, is helping plan to build roads, spread commerce, office parks, business centers, and for private sector businesses to locate to and expand access to broadband, which is critical to communication in today's global economy. These are the types of projects EDA sponsors. There are road projects and broadband to connect communities together.

EDA is responsible for promoting job growth and accelerating industrial and commercial development in communities suffering from limited job opportunities, low per capita income levels, and economic distress.

As the only Federal agency focusing solely on promoting private sector job growth in economically underserved communities, EDA pursues regional comprehensive strategy development, public works, and business loan funds. They put together a strategy for our areas that have high unemployment, areas that are difficult to attract new job opportunities. They developed a winning strategy to create jobs.

In Maryland, the EDA and our State university centers and economic development districts are responsible for helping administrate public works projects in rural communities on the Eastern Shore and in the western part of our State. These projects have assisted with the regional commercial needs as well as services to meet the needs of residents.

For example, the EDA has been essential in assisting with the planning and installation of the broadband communication network in western Maryland. Maryland will be a State that will be totally connected by the broadband. EDA has helped to bring that into underserved areas. We are connecting communities together by having jobs in broadband capacity.

It is also helping us create more small business opportunities, which is what we find is the dominant economic growth engine. We know in the Nation overall it is small businesses, but when we are dealing with underserved communities, small business growth is critical to their economic future. These investments go toward revitalizing, expansion, and upgrading of physical infrastructure in order to attract new industries, encourage business expansion and diversify local economies. In so doing, EDA seeks to establish foundations that enable communities to develop their own economic development programs for sustained development.

The EDA has an established and proven record of using increasingly limited resources to complete projects in a timely manner that leverage--leverage--private sector investment. Senator Boxer pointed that out. We are leveraging private sector investment with a relatively small amount of public funds.

In my home State of Maryland, EDA has supported more than 33 projects in the last 4 years that are credited with creating more than 2500 jobs, retaining over 100 jobs, and leveraging $218 million in private investment from $12 million in EDA investments. That is a much higher ratio than the average, as Senator Boxer pointed out. It is important we provide EDA with the resources necessary to continue this work. Many of these projects are in the more rural or underserved parts of the State.

Most recently, EDA provided seed money for two exciting projects on Maryland's Eastern Shore. In Dorchester County, near the town of Cambridge, on the Eastern Shore, the EDA is investing more than $600,000 in the renovation and repair of an existing vacant industrial building to be reused by a new manufacturing company that specializes in the production of green products made from recyclable materials.

This is a win, win, win situation. This is a project that will restore a defunct industrial facility--recycling an industrial facility--and saving jobs on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It reduces material waste by making new products out of recyclable waste material, helping us with our energy and environmental policies, and saving 103 jobs while creating 20 new jobs. These 103 jobs would have been lost. Instead, we now have 123 jobs in an area where it is difficult to attract new jobs. It is leveraging more than $600,000 in direct investment in a facility that is expected to generate $6.6 million in private investment once the facility is operational, once again, referring to what Senator Boxer said, the leveraging of public funds for private investment in underserved areas and saving and creating jobs. This means for every Federal dollar invested, it generates $10 in private investment.

The economies of Wicomico, Worcester, and Somerset Counties have historically been linked to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Years of Chesapeake Bay impairment have taken their toll on the bay's fisheries. Closely linked to the bay's impairment is the decline in lowland forest lands due to development pressures. The effects of these natural resource crises have resulted in the decline of jobs in the seafood harvesting and forestry industries on the lower shore. It is a priority of mine to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the natural systems and jobs that support a healthy bay.

I also support the immediate work the EDA is doing to address the decline in jobs in the traditional industries on the lower shore by investing over $800,000 in workforce and business development centers that serve the lower counties of the Eastern Shore.

Much of the hard work that goes into selecting and developing projects is done by the hardworking men and women on the ground working for the local economic development districts and the university centers. These are the ones with the best understanding of the economic needs in the communities in which they work. That is why I worked hard with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to improve the potential resources available to economic development districts to do the necessary planning for economic development projects in their districts.

Planning funds are hard to come by, but planning funds are essential. When the Environment and Public Works Committee took up the bill last Congress, the issue my economic development district urged me to fight for was increasing the authorization level for planning grants because they were so useful to the work they were doing and represented a sound investment of Federal dollars in the communities that needed the help the most. Planning grants provide invaluable matching funds for economic development districts, tribes, and local communities to pursue regional economic development goals and strategies.

None of the projects the economic development district helps administer would be possible without these planning grants. The demands on the economic development districts have increased significantly due to the current economic downturn as well as the new mandates by the EDA and the evolving nature of the global economy. The scope of the economic development districts' work goes well beyond EDA's projects and spans into planning and coordination of rural transportation projects, USDA rural health and water systems projects as well as HUD projects.

Without the annual planning investment EDA provides through the economic development districts, most rural areas would not have the capacity to apply for or administer economic development resources. The planning and administrative work done by the economic development districts is the backbone of EDA's public works and facilities development projects and would not be possible without the planning grants.

I greatly appreciate the leadership of Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe on our committee, and I am pleased by the bipartisan support of our committee that brought out a comprehensive bill, including the areas I have mentioned, that will allow EDA to continue its core purpose of creating jobs for our community. It is exactly this type of legislation we need to help continue our economic growth to bring us out of this recession, to create the type of jobs we need, and to encourage private sector capital.

This bill translates into jobs. I urge my colleagues to allow this bill to move forward, to limit the amendments, particularly those that are not relevant to the underlying legislation, so we can get this bill to the House and to the President because it will help our communities grow and create jobs.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drowning in Debt: Financial Outcomes of Students at For-Profit Colleges'' on June 7, 2011, at 10 am, in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I rise to explain why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture on S. 990, the legislative vehicle for S. 1038, the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT ACT. I opposed cloture because I believe the Senate has an obligation to consider substantive amendments to improve the PATRIOT Act.

We are all aware that at the end of this week three provisions of the PATRIOT Act will expire. The three provisions are business records, roving wiretaps, and ``lone wolf'' terrorists.

I understand there is a delicate balance we must strike here between preventing and disrupting future terrorist attacks in the United States and protecting our cherished constitutional rights and civil liberties. We must make sure that our law enforcement and intelligence professionals have the tools they need at their disposal to stop future terrorist attacks. At the same time, we must insure that our government uses our scarce resources wisely, and that it safeguards the very rights and liberties that are guaranteed by our Constitution to all Americans.

The current legislation before the Senate simply extends the existing PATRIOT Act authorities for 4 more years, until 2015, without any changes to the authorities given to the government or oversight of their use by Congress and the courts.

I think we can improve this legislation, as Congress seeks to strike the proper balance that I have mentioned. I have studied this issue closely as the former chairman of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee has held numerous hearings on the implementation of the new PATRIOT Act authorities. We have received testimony from government witnesses, including the inspector general of the Justice Department, on the improper use of some of the PATRIOT Act authorities, and recommendations to improve the PATRIOT Act.

Congress put these sunsets into this law for a reason. I have supported these sunsets for the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act. A sunset means that a law will not just continue on autopilot without any changes. Congress uses sunsets when giving extraordinary authorities to the executive branch so that we have a check and balance on the use of this power by the government. The separation of powers also gives the courts a large role in reviewing and approving certain government investigatory and surveillance activity under the PATRIOT Act.

A sunset means that the executive branch has to come back to Congress and ask for an extension of authority. Congress then has a responsibility to look at how the law has been carried out, and make any needed improvements in the law, before again extending the authorities in the law.

Without any action by Congress, a sunset leads to the expiration of the law in question, as the authorities in the law will lapse. As a result, when sunsets are involved I have found the executive branch is more forthcoming with Congress in terms of sharing information and providing classified

briefings to Congress on how they use the authorities in question.

That is why I voted to oppose cloture. The Senate should have the ability to consider substantive amendments to the PATRIOT Act, and not simply extend the authorities as is, with no changes, for another 4 years.

And the Senate already has a package of reforms ready for consideration, after careful deliberation in committee. Earlier this week, I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. In the 111th Congress, I was also pleased to cosponsor similar legislation offered by Chairman Leahy. The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported this legislation to the full Senate in March 2011, as S. 193, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011.

Broadly speaking, the Leahy amendment would increase judicial and congressional review of surveillance authorities that sweep in U.S. citizens, and would expand oversight and public reporting to ensure that Americans can monitor the use of these authorities.

The Leahy amendment requires the government to meet a higher burden of proof when seeking business records from Americans, under the so- called section 215 orders. The amendment would require the government to show that the documents sought are relevant to an authorized investigation and are linked to a foreign group or foreign power. Current law merely requires the government to show the records are relevant to an authorized investigation. Under the amendment, the government must meet an even higher burden of proof to obtain bookseller or library records.

The Leahy amendment also makes it easier for Americans to challenge the government when business records are sought. The amendment strikes the 1-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for section 215 orders, and also strikes the conclusive presumption in favor of the government on nondisclosure of such an order.

For the first time, this Leahy amendment would also write into law a sunset provision and greater oversight of the use of national security letters, NSLs, by the government. This would therefore add a fourth sunset to the PATRIOT Act. This provision would shift the burden to the government to seek a court order for an NSL nondisclosure order, and allows the recipient of such an order to challenge it at any time.

Under the Leahy amendment, Congress will require a new series of audits to ensure protection of privacy and vigorous oversight of the new authorities given to the government. The Justice Department inspector general would conduct audits of the use of three surveillance tools: orders for tangible things; pen registers and trap and trace devices; and NSLs. The scope of such audits includes a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and use of the investigative authorities provided to the government, including any improper or illegal use of such authorities.

Finally, the Leahy amendment requires enhanced court review and oversight of minimization procedures, which are designed to protect the privacy of innocent and law-abiding Americans. The amendment requires increased public reporting on the use of NSL's and FISA authorities by the government, including an annual unclassified report on how FISA authorities are used and their impact on the privacy of United States persons.

We now approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on this Nation. The United States recently conducted a military and intelligence operation which led to the killing of the al-Qaida mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden. America still faces threats to its security every day, and I thank our brave men and women in the United States military and our intelligence community for working tirelessly to keep America safe.

In my view, the Leahy amendment strikes the proper balance of giving our law enforcement and intelligence professionals the tools they need to prevent and disrupt future terrorist attacks, while simultaneously protect our civil liberties. The amendment includes important new protection for law-abiding Americans, and requires more vigorous oversight by Congress and the courts as the government uses these new powers.

Although I hope that the Leahy amendment will still be made in order, it is important that we do not allow the PATRIOT Act authorities to expire. It is important for our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to have these tools at their disposal as they seek to prevent and disrupt future terrorist attacks in the United States.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator McCain, not just for taking time for this colloquy concerning Mr. Magnitsky but for his longstanding commitment to justice issues, human rights issues, and the values the United States represents internationally.

We have had a long, proud, bipartisan, and, most importantly, successful record of promoting basic American values such as democratic governance and the rule of law around the world. Engaging the countries of the Eastern Bloc in matters such as respect for human rights was critical to winning the cold war. We will never know how many lives were improved and even saved due to instruments such as the Helsinki Final Act and the Jackson-Vanik amendment. These measures defined an era of human rights activism that ultimately pried open the Iron Curtain and brought down the Wall. Thankfully, the cold war is over and we have a stronger relationship, both at the governmental and societal levels, with countries in Eastern Europe. But, sadly, internationally recognized rights and freedoms continue to be trampled and, in many cases, with absolute impunity.

With the possibility of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, and the Presidents of the United States and Russia meeting in France, ours is a timely discussion.

Last week, I joined my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arizona, and 14 other Senators from both parties to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act--a broad bill to address what the respected watchdog Transparency International dubbed a ``systematically corrupted country'' and to create consequences for those who are currently getting away with murder.

Actions always speak louder than words. The diplomatic manner of dealing with human rights abuses has frequently been to condemn the abusers, often publicly, with the hope that these statements will be all they need to do. They say oh, yes, we are against these human rights violations. We are for the rule of law. We are for people being able to come forward and tell us about problems and be able to correct things. They condemn the abusers, but they take no action. They think their words will be enough. Well, we know differently. We know what is happening today in Russia.

We know the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky was not an isolated episode. This is not the only time this has happened. My colleague from Arizona mentioned the Mikhail Khodorkovsky case. Mr. Khodorkovsky is today in prison with even a longer sentence. Why? Because he had the courage to stand up and oppose the corrupt system in Russia and something should be done about it. That is why he is in prison, and that is wrong.

So it is time we do something about this and that we make it clear that action is needed. For too long, the leaders in Russia have said we are going to investigate what happened to Sergei Magnitsky. We think it is terrible he died in prison without getting adequate medical care. As Senator McCain pointed out, here is a person whose only crime was to bring to the proper attention of officials public corruption within Russia. As a result of his whistleblowing, he was arrested and thrown in jail and died in jail. He was tortured. That cannot be allowed, to just say, Oh, that is terrible. We know the people who were responsible. In some cases they have been promoted in their public positions. Well, it is time for us to take action. That is why we have introduced this legislation.

While this bill goes far beyond the tragic experiences of Sergei Magnitsky, it does bear his name, so let me refresh everyone's recollection with some of the circumstances concerning his death. I mention this because some might say, why are we talking about one person? But as the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin said, ``One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.'' I rarely agree with Dictator Stalin, but we have to put a human face on the issue. People have to understand that these are real people and real lives that have been ruined forever as a result of the abuses within Russia.

Sergei was a skilled tax lawyer who was well known in Moscow among many Western companies, large and small. In fact, he even did some accounting for the National Conference on Soviet Jewry. Working at the American law firm of Firestone Duncan, Sergei uncovered the largest known tax fraud in modern Russian history and blew the whistle on the swindling of his fellow citizens by corrupt officials. For that he was promptly arrested by the subordinates of those he implicated in the crime. He was held under torturous conditions in detention for nearly a year without trial or

visits from family. He developed severe medical complications which went deliberately untreated, and he died on November 16, 2009, alone in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door. Sergei was 37 years old. He left behind a wife, two sons, a dependent mother, and so many friends.

Shortly after his death, Philip Pan of the Washington Post wrote:

Magnitsky's complaints, made public by his attorneys as he

composed them, went unanswered while he lived. But in a

nation where millions perished in the Soviet gulag, the words

of the 37-year-old tax lawyer struck a nerve after he died .

. . his descriptions of the squalid conditions he endured

have been splashed on the front pages of newspapers and

discussed on radio and television across the country, part of

an outcry even his supporters never expected.

I think Senator McCain and I would agree, there is a thirst for democracy around the world. People in Russia want more. They want freedom. They want accountability. They want honest government officials. They are outraged by what happened to Sergei Magnitsky.

I would point out just last week I met with a leader of the Russian business community who came here and traveled at some risk, I might say. Just visiting me was a risk. We have people from Russia who are being questioned because they come and talk to us. But he said to me that what happened here needs to be answered by the Russian authorities. He understands why we are introducing this legislation.

A year after his death, and with no one held accountable, and some of those implicated even promoted and decorated, The Economist noted:

At the time, few people outside the small world of Russian

investors and a few human-rights activists had heard of Mr.

Magnitsky. A year later, his death has become a symbol of the

mind-boggling corruption and injustice perpetrated by the

Russian system, and the inability of the Kremlin to change

it.

Regrettably, we know Sergei's case, egregious as it is, is not isolated. Human rights abuses continue unpunished and often unknown across Russia today.

To make this point more clear, let's look at another example far outside the financial districts of Moscow and St. Petersburg in the North Caucasus in southern Russia where Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, condones and oversees massive violations of human rights, including violations of religious freedom and the rights of women. His militia also violates international humanitarian laws. As of this April, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against Russia in 186 cases concerning Chechnya, most involving civilians.

So Sergei Magnitsky's case is not an isolated case of abuse by the Russian authorities. There has been a systematic effort made to deny people their basic human rights, including one individual, Natalia Estemirova, who personally visited my office at the Helsinki Commission. She was a courageous human rights defender who was brutally assassinated.

So it is time for Russia to take action. But we cannot wait; we need to take action.

I yield back to my colleague.

I say to Senator McCain, you are absolutely right. This is not isolated. Magnitsky is not an isolated case of a lawyer doing his job on behalf of a client and being abused by the authorities. We have a lot of examples of lawyers trying to do their jobs and being intimidated and their rights violated.

But in Mr. Khodorkovsy's case, we have a business leader who was treated the same way just because he was a successful business leader. Even worse, he happened to be an opponent of the powers in the Kremlin.

So we are now seeing, in Russia, where they want to quell opposition by arresting people who are just speaking their minds, doing their business legally, putting them in prison, trying them, and in the Khodorkovsky case actually increasing their sentences the more they speak out against the regime.

That is how authoritarian they want to be and how oppressive they are to human rights. But I could go further. If one is a journalist in Russia, and they try to do any form of independent journalism, they are in danger of being beaten, being imprisoned, being murdered. It is very intimidating. The list goes on and on.

Well, it is very interesting, I say to Senator McCain. I just came from a Senate Finance Committee hearing, and we were talking about a free-trade agreement. I am for free-trade agreements. I think it makes sense. It is funny, when a country wants to do trade with the United States, they all of a sudden understand they have to look at their human rights issues.

I think all of us would like to see Russia part of the international trade community. I would like to see Russia, which is already a member of a lot of international organizations, live up to the commitments they have made in joining these international organizations.

But it is clear to me that Russia needs to reform. If we are going to have business leaders traveling to Russia in order to do business, I want to make sure they are safe in Russia. I want to make sure they are going to get the protection of the rule of law in Russia. I want to make sure there are basic rights that the businesspeople in Russia and the United States can depend upon.

So, yes, I understand that Russia would like to get into the WTO. We have, of course, the Jackson-Vanik amendment that still applies. I understand the origin of that law, and I understand what needs to change in order for Russia to be able to join the World Trade Organization.

But I will tell you this: The best thing that Russia can do in order to be able to enter the international trade regime is to clean up its abuses in its own country, to make clear it respects the rule of law; that businesspeople will be protected under the rule of law and certainly not imprisoned and tortured, as in the cases of Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Magnitsky. We do not want to see that type of conduct.

If Russia would do that, if they would reform their systems, then I think we would be a long way toward that type of integration and trade.

Will my colleague yield for just one final comment?

I think the Senator is right on target as to what he has said. I appreciate the Senator bringing this to the attention of our colleagues in the Senate.

I will respond to one other point because I am sure my colleague heard this. Some Russian officials say: Why are we concerned with the internal affairs of another country? I just want to remind these Russian officials, I want to remind my colleagues here, that Russia has signed on to the Helsinki Final Act. They did that in 1975, and they have agreed to the consensus document that was issued in Moscow in 1991 and reaffirmed just last year with the heads of state meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, just this past December. I am going to quote from that document:

The participating States--

Which Russia is a participating state--

emphasize that issues relating to human rights, fundamental

freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of international

concern, as respect for these rights and freedoms constitutes

one of the foundations of international order. They

categorically and irrevocably declared that the commitments

undertaken in the field of the human dimension are matters of

direct and legitimate concern to all participating States--

The United States is a participating state--

and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the

State concerned.

That was a statement made by the 56 states of the OSCE at a meeting of the Heads of State, which happens about every 10 years. It just happened to have happened last year. Russia participated in drafting this statement. Russia was there, signed on to it, and said: We agree on this. It is a reaffirmation as to what they agreed to in 1991 in Moscow where we acknowledged that it is of international interest, and we have an obligation and right to question when a member state violates those basic human dimension commitments. Russia clearly has done that. We have not only the right but the obligation to raise that, and I just wanted to underscore that to my colleagues.

I say to Senator McCain, your comments on the Senate floor are so much on point. I think people understand it. They understand the basic human aspect to this. But sometimes they ask: Well, why should America be concerned? Do we have a legitimate right to question this? Russia signed the document that acknowledges our right to challenge this and raise these issues.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the sacrifice of those to whom we are forever indebted: the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, both past and present, who died in defense of freedom. It has been and continues to be their duty, honor, and privilege to serve. With Memorial Day 2011 approaching, it is our duty to pause and honor those who have sacrificed.

Memorial Day has become the unofficial beginning of summer. Schools are beginning to break for summer vacation, community pools are opening for the season, and friends and family are gathering this weekend for barbecues. It is important that we not lose sight of the true nature of this holiday and I encourage all of us to take time to pause and remember the meaning of Memorial Day.

Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our Nation's service. Since 1868, this time of year has been designated as a time to pause and honor our war dead. It was officially designated a Federal holiday in 1971. An often overlooked tradition is to have a moment of remembrance specifically at 3 p.m. local time.

Throughout the Nation over this holiday weekend we will see many American flags and flowers adorning the graves of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. I will remember in particular the 104 Marylanders who have been killed in our most recent conflicts, and I will remind myself that our freedom isn't free. I will remind myself of their ultimate sacrifice and I will remind myself of the ongoing sacrifices their families continue to make each and every day.

I am immensely proud of the men and women--fewer than 1 percent of our population--who serve in our All-Volunteer Force. But there is a drawback, of sorts, to having an All-Volunteer Force: the sacrifices of the few are not felt by the many; therefore, they can be overlooked. We mustn't allow this to happen. This environment is much different than the conflicts of the past where nearly everyone had a friend, neighbor, or loved one who wore the cloth of our Nation.

I call on my colleagues and all Americans to remember the true meaning of Memorial Day and take the time to pause and remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedom and for the continued success of this great Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Propane Green Autogas Solutions Act of 2011. I am pleased to note that the junior Senators from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, are original cosponsors of this measure. Our bill extends for five years Federal Alternative Fuel Tax Credits for Propane Used as a Motor Fuel, Propane Vehicles, and Propane Refueling Infrastructure.

Propane ``autogas'' is a reliable, domestically produced alternative fuel with lower greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions than gasoline. Sixty percent of propane, also known as liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, derived from natural gas processing and 40 percent is a byproduct of crude oil refining. Since LPG is derived from fossil fuels, burning it releases carbon dioxide, CO2. The advantage is that LPG releases less CO2 per unit of energy than oil and burns cleanly with regard to particulates.

At present, one propane-powered light-duty vehicle, LDV, and several heavy-duty vehicle, HDV, propane engines and fueling systems are available from U.S. original equipment manufacturers, OEM. Because other countries offer more OEM options in propane vehicles, thorough testing to compare emissions with reformulated gasoline has been conducted on these vehicles and engines in Europe. Two of these tests were combined and the results are promising with respect to lower particulate matter, PM, nitrogen oxides, NOX, carbon monoxide, CO, and total hydrocarbon, THC, emissions, as the chart below details:

To augment LPG's generally cleaner combustion properties, propane engines can be calibrated to choose between pollutants, making the engine additionally useful in achieving regional or local pollution- reduction targets. A rich calibration reduces nitrogen oxides, NOX, at the expense of increasing CO and non-methane hydrocarbons and a lean calibration does just the opposite.

Propane is in surplus worldwide with 93 percent of U.S. propane produced domestically when combined with supply from Canada. A national infrastructure of pipelines, processing facilities, and storage, i.e., 59 million barrel capacity in Texas alone, already exists for the efficient distribution of propane and there are roughly 3,200 propane dispensing stations across the U.S. Propane supply is expected to increase over the next several decades, which means more consumer availability and price stability.

Commercial fleets are the propane autogas vehicle target market. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, transportation reauthorization established significant tax incentives for propane autogas to stimulate its use in motor vehicles to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reduce environmental impacts associated with gasoline and diesel fuel use. The 2005 legislation provided the following alternative fuel tax credits that benefit propane autogas, all of which would be extended under the legislation Senators Blunt and Stabenow and I are introducing today.

Propane Fuel Credits--SAFETEA-LU included a 50 cent per gallon credit for propane sold for use in motor vehicles. This credit expires at the end of 2011.

Propane Vehicle Credits--EPACT 2005 included a tax credit to consumers who purchase OEM propane vehicles or convert gasoline or diesel engines. The amount of credit the consumer receives varies depending on vehicle weight and emissions. This credit is currently expired.

Propane Infrastructure Credits--EPACT 2005 provided a tax credit amounting to 30 percent of the cost of a fueling station, not to exceed $30,000 per station. This credit expires at the end of 2011.

The Propane Act would extend these three tax credits for 5 years. For the credits to have a meaningful effect in firmly establishing a robust propane autogas market, they should be in place for a defined period of time, not extended from year-to-year in a haphazard fashion. Congress should not wait to act until the credits are about to expire because market uncertainty regarding the credits undermines the effectiveness of the incentives and discourages the kind of investment that Congress wants the private sector to make in alternative fuels. The Propane Green Autogas Solutions Act, if enacted, would offer the long-term policy commitment necessary to continue building essential alternative fuel infrastructure and bolster a burgeoning autogas market. Private investment is much more likely to occur when the availability of the tax credits is assured in the long-term so the propane industry can create the economies of scale necessary to make propane autogas a viable and competitive alternative fuel.

There is no score for the bill yet. The National Propane Gas Association, NPGA, has retained an economic research firm to perform a comprehensive economic review that will look at costs and offsetting benefits, job creation, economic growth, etc.; foreign petroleum gallons displaced; and the positive environmental impact of extending the tax credits. The study will be available shortly and will share it with my colleagues when it becomes available.

Recent rapid price increases for gasoline and diesel fuel have hurt Americans families and businesses. This weekend is Memorial Day weekend, the unofficial beginning of the summer and the summer driving season. Our Nation needs to come to grips with a few fundamental facts. We have 2-3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We account for about 5 percent of the world's population. We currently produce 11 percent of the world's oil, up 11 percent over the last 2 years, in large part because we have more drilling rigs in operation right now than the rest of the world combined--by 50 percent. We account for 25 percent of the world's oil consumption. ``Drill here, drill now, pay less'' is a catchy slogan, but it's not a solution to our energy woes. As T. Boone Pickens himself has said, we cannot drill our way of this problem. The best way for the United States to put downward pressure on gasoline and diesel prices is through demand reduction since we are the world's biggest consumers of petroleum products by far. The Propane Green Autogas Solutions Act offers one way to reduce our demand--by substituting propane for gasoline or diesel fuel. Propane is a domestic transportation fuel. It is less

expensive than gasoline and diesel fuel. It burns more cleanly. These are all good things. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Propane Green Autogas Solutions Act of 2011. I am pleased to note that the junior Senators from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, are original cosponsors of this measure. Our bill extends for five years Federal Alternative Fuel Tax Credits for Propane Used as a Motor Fuel, Propane Vehicles, and Propane Refueling Infrastructure.

Propane ``autogas'' is a reliable, domestically produced alternative fuel with lower greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions than gasoline. Sixty percent of propane, also known as liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, derived from natural gas processing and 40 percent is a byproduct of crude oil refining. Since LPG is derived from fossil fuels, burning it releases carbon dioxide, CO2. The advantage is that LPG releases less CO2 per unit of energy than oil and burns cleanly with regard to particulates.

At present, one propane-powered light-duty vehicle, LDV, and several heavy-duty vehicle, HDV, propane engines and fueling systems are available from U.S. original equipment manufacturers, OEM. Because other countries offer more OEM options in propane vehicles, thorough testing to compare emissions with reformulated gasoline has been conducted on these vehicles and engines in Europe. Two of these tests were combined and the results are promising with respect to lower particulate matter, PM, nitrogen oxides, NOX, carbon monoxide, CO, and total hydrocarbon, THC, emissions, as the chart below details:

To augment LPG's generally cleaner combustion properties, propane engines can be calibrated to choose between pollutants, making the engine additionally useful in achieving regional or local pollution- reduction targets. A rich calibration reduces nitrogen oxides, NOX, at the expense of increasing CO and non-methane hydrocarbons and a lean calibration does just the opposite.

Propane is in surplus worldwide with 93 percent of U.S. propane produced domestically when combined with supply from Canada. A national infrastructure of pipelines, processing facilities, and storage, i.e., 59 million barrel capacity in Texas alone, already exists for the efficient distribution of propane and there are roughly 3,200 propane dispensing stations across the U.S. Propane supply is expected to increase over the next several decades, which means more consumer availability and price stability.

Commercial fleets are the propane autogas vehicle target market. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, SAFETEA-LU, transportation reauthorization established significant tax incentives for propane autogas to stimulate its use in motor vehicles to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and reduce environmental impacts associated with gasoline and diesel fuel use. The 2005 legislation provided the following alternative fuel tax credits that benefit propane autogas, all of which would be extended under the legislation Senators Blunt and Stabenow and I are introducing today.

Propane Fuel Credits--SAFETEA-LU included a 50 cent per gallon credit for propane sold for use in motor vehicles. This credit expires at the end of 2011.

Propane Vehicle Credits--EPACT 2005 included a tax credit to consumers who purchase OEM propane vehicles or convert gasoline or diesel engines. The amount of credit the consumer receives varies depending on vehicle weight and emissions. This credit is currently expired.

Propane Infrastructure Credits--EPACT 2005 provided a tax credit amounting to 30 percent of the cost of a fueling station, not to exceed $30,000 per station. This credit expires at the end of 2011.

The Propane Act would extend these three tax credits for 5 years. For the credits to have a meaningful effect in firmly establishing a robust propane autogas market, they should be in place for a defined period of time, not extended from year-to-year in a haphazard fashion. Congress should not wait to act until the credits are about to expire because market uncertainty regarding the credits undermines the effectiveness of the incentives and discourages the kind of investment that Congress wants the private sector to make in alternative fuels. The Propane Green Autogas Solutions Act, if enacted, would offer the long-term policy commitment necessary to continue building essential alternative fuel infrastructure and bolster a burgeoning autogas market. Private investment is much more likely to occur when the availability of the tax credits is assured in the long-term so the propane industry can create the economies of scale necessary to make propane autogas a viable and competitive alternative fuel.

There is no score for the bill yet. The National Propane Gas Association, NPGA, has retained an economic research firm to perform a comprehensive economic review that will look at costs and offsetting benefits, job creation, economic growth, etc.; foreign petroleum gallons displaced; and the positive environmental impact of extending the tax credits. The study will be available shortly and will share it with my colleagues when it becomes available.

Recent rapid price increases for gasoline and diesel fuel have hurt Americans families and businesses. This weekend is Memorial Day weekend, the unofficial beginning of the summer and the summer driving season. Our Nation needs to come to grips with a few fundamental facts. We have 2-3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We account for about 5 percent of the world's population. We currently produce 11 percent of the world's oil, up 11 percent over the last 2 years, in large part because we have more drilling rigs in operation right now than the rest of the world combined--by 50 percent. We account for 25 percent of the world's oil consumption. ``Drill here, drill now, pay less'' is a catchy slogan, but it's not a solution to our energy woes. As T. Boone Pickens himself has said, we cannot drill our way of this problem. The best way for the United States to put downward pressure on gasoline and diesel prices is through demand reduction since we are the world's biggest consumers of petroleum products by far. The Propane Green Autogas Solutions Act offers one way to reduce our demand--by substituting propane for gasoline or diesel fuel. Propane is a domestic transportation fuel. It is less

expensive than gasoline and diesel fuel. It burns more cleanly. These are all good things. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be temporarily granted to Kyle Parker, a staff member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I cochair, during the pendency of this colloquy in which I am engaging with Senator McCain.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Snowe, Reid, Shaheen, Whitehouse, and Menendez in introducing a resolution calling upon the government of Turkey to facilitate the reopening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay.

I was privileged to again meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, during his 2009 visit to the United States. His impassioned request to those of us gathered was for our support for the reopening of the Theological School of Halki, forcibly closed by the Turkish authorities in 1971. In this year marking the 40th anniversary of that tragic action, I urge the Turkish leadership to reverse this injustice and allow this unique religious institution to reopen

Founded in 1844, the Theological School of Halki, located outside modern-day Istanbul, served as the principal seminary of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until its forced closure. Counted among alumni of this preeminent educational institution are numerous prominent Orthodox scholars, theologians, priests, and bishops as well as patriarchs, including Bartholomew I. Many of these scholars and theologians have served as faculty at other institutions serving Orthodox communities around the world.

Past indications by the Turkish authorities of pending action to reopen the seminary have, regrettably, failed to materialize. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in August 2009. In an address to a wider gathering of minority religious leaders that day, Erdogan concluded by stating, ``We should not be of those who gather, talk and disperse. A result should come out of this.'' I could not agree more with the sentiment. But resolution of this longstanding matter requires resolve, not rhetoric.

In a positive development last August, the authorities in Ankara, for the first time since 1922, permitted a liturgical celebration to take place at the historic Sumela Monastery. The Ecumenical Patriarch presided at that service, attended by pilgrims and religious leaders from several countries, including Greece and Russia. Last November, a Turkish court ordered the Buyukada orphanage to be returned to Ecumenical Patriarchate and the transfer of the property has been completed.

As one who has followed issues surrounding the Ecumenical Patriarchate with interest for many years, I welcome these positive developments. My hope is that they will lead to the return of scores of other church properties seized by the government. In 2005, the Helsinki Commission, which I co-chair, convened a briefing, ``The Greek Orthodox Church in Turkey: A Victim of Systematic Expropriation.'' The Commission has consistently raised the issue of the Theological School for well over a decade and will continue to closely monitor related developments.

The State Department's 2010 Report on International Religious Freedom is a reminder of the challenges faced by Orthodox and other minority religious communities in Turkey. I urge the Turkish Prime Minister to ensure respect for the rights of individuals from these groups to freely profess and practice their religion or beliefs, in keeping with Turkey's obligations as an OSCE participating State.

The 1989 OSCE Vienna Concluding Document affirmed the right of religious communities to provide ``training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions.'' The Theological School of Halki served that function for over a century until its forced closure four decades ago. The time has come to allow the reopening of this unique institution without further delay.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. President, tomorrow, on the sixth annual Endangered Species Day, we as a nation have a twofold opportunity. First, we have the chance to celebrate the successful recovery of a remarkable number of plant and animal species worldwide. Second, we have the opportunity to pause in acknowledgement of the hard work that still lies ahead of us on behalf of the nearly two thousand species that are endangered or threatened today.

Since its enactment in 1973, the Endangered Species Act, ESA, has helped to recover such iconic species as the gray whale, the peregrine falcon, and the bald eagle. In 1967, the bald eagle, one of our Nation's most recognizable symbols, was in danger from environmental contaminants, human intrusion, and other risk factors, and was listed for protection under the ESA. Through its careful, science-based approach, ESA management ultimately resulted in the successful recovery of bald eagle populations across the country. The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 and is now thriving. In the State of Maryland, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge in Maryland is home to a healthy, flourishing bald eagle population. More recently the gray wolf, which was completely extirpated from our Northern Rockies States, is now recovering thanks to the careful protective management of the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.

The ESA provides resources and structure that are critical to our ability to improve the outcomes for threatened and endangered species. Since becoming law 38 years ago, with overwhelming support in the House of Representatives and unanimous support in the Senate, the ESA has been one of our Nation's most successful environmental statutes. The ESA not only improves outcomes for endangered and threatened species, it also improves local and regional economies. According to a 2006 Fish and Wildlife Service survey, wildlife-related recreation--meaning hunting, fishing and wildlife watching--generated more than $122 billion in revenues in 2006. In my home State of Maryland, wildlife watching generated over $1 billion in revenues in 2006, according to the same survey. This wildlife-related spending supports hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The Endangered Species Act, with its proven record of success in restoring species to health, remains a critically important tool in the protection of our natural environment. At this moment, nearly 2,000 animal and plant species are endangered or threatened worldwide--the protections of the ESA are therefore as important as ever. This Endangered Species Day, even as we celebrate the successes of our Nation's conservation efforts, let us also remember and pledge to protect the robust, science-based legislation that made those successes possible.

Mr. President, today Senator Vitter and I are introducing legislation to ensure and protect the jobs of thousands of individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities and provide important services to the U.S. Government and taxpayers alike.

In 1938, during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration, Congress passed the Wagner-O'Day Act to help provide employment opportunities for people who are blind. At the time, most of the work the Wagner-O'Day Act created was in manufacturing mops and brooms that would be sold for use in Federal Government buildings and facilities.

In 1971, under the leadership of New York Republican Senator Jacob Javits, Congress amended the act to include people with significant disabilities and expand the program to also include services provided to the Federal Government.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program eventually changed its name to ``AbilityOne.'' Today, this expanded work program for people who are blind or have significant disabilities provides Federal customers, including the U.S. Senate, with a wide array of products, like wall mounted clocks, paint, military uniforms, hardware and cleaning supplies. AbilityOne also helps put people to work in service positions, like call center operations, grounds-keeping, food service, administration and processing positions, and vehicle fleet maintenance.

People who are blind or have significant disabilities struggle particularly hard to find work. While the current job climate is challenging for all Americans, the employment rate for individuals in this group hovers around 30 percent. Oftentimes these individuals must rely on taxpayer funded government entitlement programs like Medicaid, SNAPS--food stamps--supplemental security income, and subsidized housing. AbilityOne helps these Americans find jobs and alleviates the expenditures of these entitlement programs.

Recent independent studies of the AbilityOne Program found that in just the four business lines analyzed, the AbilityOne Program saved the Government $34 million in both reduction of

entitlements and increases in income and payroll taxes.

AbilityOne provides nearly 48,000 people who are blind or who have significant disabilities with quality job opportunities, to earn a living which provides a pathway towards increased independence.

There are nearly 600 nonprofit organizations across the country working to find job opportunities for people who are blind or have significant disabilities, through the AbilityOne program. With Maryland's proximity to the seat of the Federal Government, AbilityOne creates considerable job opportunities in the service sector for Marylanders with disabilities.

However, there is a growing trend among Federal facilities that is undoing the progress that the AbilityOne Program has made and in turn is contributing to the growth of unemployment for Americans with disabilities. The bill Senator Vitter and I are introducing today aims to address this problem.

More and more Federal facilities are moving out of federally owned and operated properties and into leased space in privately owned buildings and facilities. The General Services Administration estimates that the Federal Government leases more than 7,300 buildings in more than 2,000 communities across the country. When GSA has sought lease space in Maryland I have generally supported these moves.

Federally leased properties create terrific economic opportunities for the business districts they come to. Federally leased properties bring revenues for State and local governments, increase the tax base of the regions they come to and often provide the backbone for small business growth and consulting services around the federally leased facilities.

The economic opportunities a Federal lease on private real estate provides for a community are great for everyone except for service workers with disabilities who are no longer helped by AbilityOne because federally leased space falls outside the scope of the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Act.

As the law is written, Javits-Wagner-O'Day only applies to federally owned and operated facilities.

Our bill makes a simple and practical fix to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to apply the AbilityOne Program services to federally leased space. My bill states that when the Federal Government occupies 60 percent or more of the usable space within a private building or facility that the Federal Government, the lessor, or property manager must comply with the service contract procurement requirements of the Javits-Wagner- O'Day Act.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, and the thousands of men and women who have found employment opportunities through the AbilityOne Program, have a proven track record of success in terms of providing exceptional services and products for the Federal Government at rates that make for very sound spending of taxpayer dollars.

Finding job opportunities has always been a challenge for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. We must maintain the Federal Government's commitment to these hard working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Vitter and me in cosponsoring the AbilityOne Improvements Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011.

While this bill bears Sergei Magnitsky's name in honor of his sacrifice, the language addresses the overall issue of the erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Russia. It offers hope to those who suffer in silence, whose cases may be less known or not known at all.

While there are many aspects of Sergei's and other tragic cases which are difficult to pursue here in the United States, there are steps we can take and an obvious and easy one is to deny the privilege of visiting our country to individuals involved in gross violations of human rights. Visas are privileges not rights and we must be willing to see beyond the veil of sovereignty that kleptocrats often hide behind. They do this by using courts, prosecutors, and police as instruments of advanced corporate raiding and hope outsiders are given pause by their official trappings of office and lack of criminal records. Further, we must protect our strategic financial infrastructure from those who would use it to launder or shelter ill-gotten gains.

Despite occasional rhetoric from the Kremlin, the Russian leadership has failed to follow through with any meaningful action to stem rampant corruption or bring the perpetrators of numerous and high-profile human rights abuses to justice.

My legislation simply says if you commit gross violations of human rights don't expect to visit Disneyland, Aspen, or South Beach and expect your accounts to be frozen if you bank with us. This may not seem like much, but in Russia the richer and more powerful you get the more danger you are exposed to from others harboring designs on your fortune and future.

Thus many are standing near the doors and we can certainly close at least one of those doors. I know that others, especially in Europe and Canada are working on similar sanctions.

I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky while he was still alive

when his client William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital, testified at a hearing on Russia that I held as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in June 2009.

At the Helsinki Commission we hear so many heartbreaking stories of the human cost of trampling fundamental freedoms and it's a challenge not to give up hope and yield to the temptation of cynicism and become hardened to the suffering around us or to reduce a personal tragedy to yet another issue. While we use trends, numbers, and statistics to help us understand and deal with human rights issues, we must never forget the face of the individual person whose reality is the issue and the story of Sergei Magnitsky is as unforgettable as it is heartbreaking.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian tax lawyer employed by an American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax fraud in Russian history. After discovering this elaborate scheme, Sergei Magnitsky testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million and naming the names of those officials involved. Shortly after his testimony, Sergei was arrested by subordinates of the very law enforcement officers he had implicated in this crime. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under torturous conditions. He developed severe medical complications, which went deliberately untreated and he died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.

Sadly, Sergei Magnitsky joins the ranks of a long list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle and for truth. These ranks include Natalia Estemirova a brave human rights activist shot in the head and chest and stuffed into the trunk of a car, Anna Politkovskaya an intrepid reporter shot while coming home with an arm full of groceries, and too many others.

Often in these killings there is a veil of plausible deniability, gunmen show up in the dark and slip away into the shadows, but Sergei, in inhuman conditions, managed to document in 450 complaints exactly who bears responsibility for his false arrest and death. We must honor his sacrifice and do all we can to learn from this tragedy that others may not share his fate.

Few are made in the mold of Sergei Magnitsky, able to withstand barbaric deprivations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to the test. A man of such character is fascinating and in some ways disquieting because we suspect deep down that we might not have what it takes to stay loyal to the truth under such pressure. Magnitsky's life and tragic death remind us all that some things are more valuable than success, comfort, or even life itself--truth is one of those things. May his example be a rebuke to those whose greed or cowardice has blinded them to their duties, an inspiration to still greater integrity for those laboring quietly in the mundane yet necessary tasks of life, and a comfort to those wrongly accused.

The Wall Street Journal described Sergei Magnitsky's death as a ``slow-motion assassination,'' while the Moscow Prison Oversight Committee called it a ``murder to conceal a fraud.'' Pulitzer Prize- winning reporter Ellen Barry writing in the New York Times stated that, ``Magnitsky's death in pretrial detention at the age of 37 . . . sent shudders through Moscow's elite. They saw him--a post-Soviet young urban professional, as someone uncomfortably like themselves.''

Outside the media, President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek noted that ``Sergei Magnitsky was a brave man, who in his fight against corruption was unjustifiably imprisoned under ruthless conditions and then died in jail without receiving appropriate medical care.'' While Transparency International observed that, ``Sergei did what to most people seems impossible: he battled as a lone individual against the power of an entire state. He believed in the rule of law and integrity, and died for his belief.''

One might have thought that after the worldwide condemnation of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, torture, and death in the custody, the Russian government would have identified and prosecuted those responsible for this heinous crime. Instead, the government has not prosecuted a single person and many of the key perpetrators went on to receive promotions and the highest state honors from the Russian Interior Ministry. Moreover, the officers involved feel such a sense of impunity that they are now using all instruments of the Russian state to pursue and punish Magnitsky's friends and colleagues who have been publicly fighting for justice in his case.

They have forced the American founding partner of Magnitsky's firm, Jamison Firestone, to flee Russia in fear for his safety in the months following his colleague's death after learning that the same people were attempting to take control of an American client's Russian companies and commit a similar fraud. And they have used the same criminal case that was used to falsely arrest Magnitsky to indict Sergei's client Bill Browder. They have opened up retaliatory criminal cases against many of Hermitage's employees and all of its lawyers, who were forced to leave Russia to save their own lives. These attacks have only intensified since my colleague and friend Congressman Jim McGovern introduced the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2011, a similar measure in the House of Representatives, last month.

In the struggle for human rights we must never be indifferent. On this point, I am reminded of Elie Wiesel's hauntingly eloquent speech, The Perils of Indifference which he delivered at the White House in 1999. On this ever-present danger and demoralizer he cautions us, ``Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.''

Speaking of our humanity, I offer the following words as a contrast. They are from Russian playwright Mikhail Ugarov who created One Hour Eighteen, which is the exact amount of time it took for Sergei Magnitsky to die in his isolation cell at Moscow's Matrosskaya Tishina prison. Ugarov asks, ``When a person puts on the uniform of a public prosecutor, the white lab coat of a doctor, or the black robe of a judge, does he or she inevitably lose their humanity? Do they lose their ability to--even in a small way--empathize with a fellow human being? In the case of Sergei Magnitsky, each of the people who assumed these professional duties in the case left their humanity behind.''

The coming year will be a significant moment in the evolution of Russian politics. With Duma elections scheduled for the end of 2011 and presidential elections for early 2012, there is an opportunity for the Russian government to reverse what has been a steady trajectory away from the rule of law and respect for human rights and toward authoritarianism.

Private and even public expressions of concern are not a substitute for a real policy nor are they enough, it's time for consequences. The bill I introduce today sends a strong message to those who are currently acting with impunity in Russia that there will be consequences for corruption should you wish to travel to and invest in the United States. Such actions will provide needed moral support for those in Russia doing the really heavy-lifting in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law, but they will also protect our own interests--values or business related.

We see before us a tale of two Russias, the double headed eagle if you will. To whom does the future of Russia belong? Does it belong to the Yevgenia Chirikovas, Alexey Navalnys, Oleg Orlovs and countless other courageous, hard working, and patriotic Russians who expose corruption and fight for human rights or those who inhabit the shadows abusing and stealing from their fellow citizens?

Let us not put aside our humanity out of exaggerated and excessively cautious diplomatic concerns for the broader relationship. Let us take the long view and stand on the right side--

and I believe the wise side--with the Russian people who have suffered so much for the cause of liberty and human dignity. They are the ones who daily risk their safety and freedom to promote those basic principles enshrined in Russian law and many international commitments including the Helsinki Final Act. They are the conscience of Russia. Let us tell them with one voice that they are not alone and that concepts like the rule of law and human rights are not empty words for this body and for our government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today Senator Vitter and I are introducing legislation to ensure and protect the jobs of thousands of individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities and provide important services to the U.S. Government and taxpayers alike.

In 1938, during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration, Congress passed the Wagner-O'Day Act to help provide employment opportunities for people who are blind. At the time, most of the work the Wagner-O'Day Act created was in manufacturing mops and brooms that would be sold for use in Federal Government buildings and facilities.

In 1971, under the leadership of New York Republican Senator Jacob Javits, Congress amended the act to include people with significant disabilities and expand the program to also include services provided to the Federal Government.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program eventually changed its name to ``AbilityOne.'' Today, this expanded work program for people who are blind or have significant disabilities provides Federal customers, including the U.S. Senate, with a wide array of products, like wall mounted clocks, paint, military uniforms, hardware and cleaning supplies. AbilityOne also helps put people to work in service positions, like call center operations, grounds-keeping, food service, administration and processing positions, and vehicle fleet maintenance.

People who are blind or have significant disabilities struggle particularly hard to find work. While the current job climate is challenging for all Americans, the employment rate for individuals in this group hovers around 30 percent. Oftentimes these individuals must rely on taxpayer funded government entitlement programs like Medicaid, SNAPS--food stamps--supplemental security income, and subsidized housing. AbilityOne helps these Americans find jobs and alleviates the expenditures of these entitlement programs.

Recent independent studies of the AbilityOne Program found that in just the four business lines analyzed, the AbilityOne Program saved the Government $34 million in both reduction of

entitlements and increases in income and payroll taxes.

AbilityOne provides nearly 48,000 people who are blind or who have significant disabilities with quality job opportunities, to earn a living which provides a pathway towards increased independence.

There are nearly 600 nonprofit organizations across the country working to find job opportunities for people who are blind or have significant disabilities, through the AbilityOne program. With Maryland's proximity to the seat of the Federal Government, AbilityOne creates considerable job opportunities in the service sector for Marylanders with disabilities.

However, there is a growing trend among Federal facilities that is undoing the progress that the AbilityOne Program has made and in turn is contributing to the growth of unemployment for Americans with disabilities. The bill Senator Vitter and I are introducing today aims to address this problem.

More and more Federal facilities are moving out of federally owned and operated properties and into leased space in privately owned buildings and facilities. The General Services Administration estimates that the Federal Government leases more than 7,300 buildings in more than 2,000 communities across the country. When GSA has sought lease space in Maryland I have generally supported these moves.

Federally leased properties create terrific economic opportunities for the business districts they come to. Federally leased properties bring revenues for State and local governments, increase the tax base of the regions they come to and often provide the backbone for small business growth and consulting services around the federally leased facilities.

The economic opportunities a Federal lease on private real estate provides for a community are great for everyone except for service workers with disabilities who are no longer helped by AbilityOne because federally leased space falls outside the scope of the Javits- Wagner-O'Day Act.

As the law is written, Javits-Wagner-O'Day only applies to federally owned and operated facilities.

Our bill makes a simple and practical fix to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act to apply the AbilityOne Program services to federally leased space. My bill states that when the Federal Government occupies 60 percent or more of the usable space within a private building or facility that the Federal Government, the lessor, or property manager must comply with the service contract procurement requirements of the Javits-Wagner- O'Day Act.

The Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, and the thousands of men and women who have found employment opportunities through the AbilityOne Program, have a proven track record of success in terms of providing exceptional services and products for the Federal Government at rates that make for very sound spending of taxpayer dollars.

Finding job opportunities has always been a challenge for individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. We must maintain the Federal Government's commitment to these hard working Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Vitter and me in cosponsoring the AbilityOne Improvements Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011.

While this bill bears Sergei Magnitsky's name in honor of his sacrifice, the language addresses the overall issue of the erosion of the rule of law and human rights in Russia. It offers hope to those who suffer in silence, whose cases may be less known or not known at all.

While there are many aspects of Sergei's and other tragic cases which are difficult to pursue here in the United States, there are steps we can take and an obvious and easy one is to deny the privilege of visiting our country to individuals involved in gross violations of human rights. Visas are privileges not rights and we must be willing to see beyond the veil of sovereignty that kleptocrats often hide behind. They do this by using courts, prosecutors, and police as instruments of advanced corporate raiding and hope outsiders are given pause by their official trappings of office and lack of criminal records. Further, we must protect our strategic financial infrastructure from those who would use it to launder or shelter ill-gotten gains.

Despite occasional rhetoric from the Kremlin, the Russian leadership has failed to follow through with any meaningful action to stem rampant corruption or bring the perpetrators of numerous and high-profile human rights abuses to justice.

My legislation simply says if you commit gross violations of human rights don't expect to visit Disneyland, Aspen, or South Beach and expect your accounts to be frozen if you bank with us. This may not seem like much, but in Russia the richer and more powerful you get the more danger you are exposed to from others harboring designs on your fortune and future.

Thus many are standing near the doors and we can certainly close at least one of those doors. I know that others, especially in Europe and Canada are working on similar sanctions.

I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky while he was still alive

when his client William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital, testified at a hearing on Russia that I held as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in June 2009.

At the Helsinki Commission we hear so many heartbreaking stories of the human cost of trampling fundamental freedoms and it's a challenge not to give up hope and yield to the temptation of cynicism and become hardened to the suffering around us or to reduce a personal tragedy to yet another issue. While we use trends, numbers, and statistics to help us understand and deal with human rights issues, we must never forget the face of the individual person whose reality is the issue and the story of Sergei Magnitsky is as unforgettable as it is heartbreaking.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian tax lawyer employed by an American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax fraud in Russian history. After discovering this elaborate scheme, Sergei Magnitsky testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million and naming the names of those officials involved. Shortly after his testimony, Sergei was arrested by subordinates of the very law enforcement officers he had implicated in this crime. He was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under torturous conditions. He developed severe medical complications, which went deliberately untreated and he died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.

Sadly, Sergei Magnitsky joins the ranks of a long list of Russian heroes who lost their lives because they stood up for principle and for truth. These ranks include Natalia Estemirova a brave human rights activist shot in the head and chest and stuffed into the trunk of a car, Anna Politkovskaya an intrepid reporter shot while coming home with an arm full of groceries, and too many others.

Often in these killings there is a veil of plausible deniability, gunmen show up in the dark and slip away into the shadows, but Sergei, in inhuman conditions, managed to document in 450 complaints exactly who bears responsibility for his false arrest and death. We must honor his sacrifice and do all we can to learn from this tragedy that others may not share his fate.

Few are made in the mold of Sergei Magnitsky, able to withstand barbaric deprivations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to the test. A man of such character is fascinating and in some ways disquieting because we suspect deep down that we might not have what it takes to stay loyal to the truth under such pressure. Magnitsky's life and tragic death remind us all that some things are more valuable than success, comfort, or even life itself--truth is one of those things. May his example be a rebuke to those whose greed or cowardice has blinded them to their duties, an inspiration to still greater integrity for those laboring quietly in the mundane yet necessary tasks of life, and a comfort to those wrongly accused.

The Wall Street Journal described Sergei Magnitsky's death as a ``slow-motion assassination,'' while the Moscow Prison Oversight Committee called it a ``murder to conceal a fraud.'' Pulitzer Prize- winning reporter Ellen Barry writing in the New York Times stated that, ``Magnitsky's death in pretrial detention at the age of 37 . . . sent shudders through Moscow's elite. They saw him--a post-Soviet young urban professional, as someone uncomfortably like themselves.''

Outside the media, President of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek noted that ``Sergei Magnitsky was a brave man, who in his fight against corruption was unjustifiably imprisoned under ruthless conditions and then died in jail without receiving appropriate medical care.'' While Transparency International observed that, ``Sergei did what to most people seems impossible: he battled as a lone individual against the power of an entire state. He believed in the rule of law and integrity, and died for his belief.''

One might have thought that after the worldwide condemnation of Sergei Magnitsky's arrest, torture, and death in the custody, the Russian government would have identified and prosecuted those responsible for this heinous crime. Instead, the government has not prosecuted a single person and many of the key perpetrators went on to receive promotions and the highest state honors from the Russian Interior Ministry. Moreover, the officers involved feel such a sense of impunity that they are now using all instruments of the Russian state to pursue and punish Magnitsky's friends and colleagues who have been publicly fighting for justice in his case.

They have forced the American founding partner of Magnitsky's firm, Jamison Firestone, to flee Russia in fear for his safety in the months following his colleague's death after learning that the same people were attempting to take control of an American client's Russian companies and commit a similar fraud. And they have used the same criminal case that was used to falsely arrest Magnitsky to indict Sergei's client Bill Browder. They have opened up retaliatory criminal cases against many of Hermitage's employees and all of its lawyers, who were forced to leave Russia to save their own lives. These attacks have only intensified since my colleague and friend Congressman Jim McGovern introduced the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2011, a similar measure in the House of Representatives, last month.

In the struggle for human rights we must never be indifferent. On this point, I am reminded of Elie Wiesel's hauntingly eloquent speech, The Perils of Indifference which he delivered at the White House in 1999. On this ever-present danger and demoralizer he cautions us, ``Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor--never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees--not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own.''

Speaking of our humanity, I offer the following words as a contrast. They are from Russian playwright Mikhail Ugarov who created One Hour Eighteen, which is the exact amount of time it took for Sergei Magnitsky to die in his isolation cell at Moscow's Matrosskaya Tishina prison. Ugarov asks, ``When a person puts on the uniform of a public prosecutor, the white lab coat of a doctor, or the black robe of a judge, does he or she inevitably lose their humanity? Do they lose their ability to--even in a small way--empathize with a fellow human being? In the case of Sergei Magnitsky, each of the people who assumed these professional duties in the case left their humanity behind.''

The coming year will be a significant moment in the evolution of Russian politics. With Duma elections scheduled for the end of 2011 and presidential elections for early 2012, there is an opportunity for the Russian government to reverse what has been a steady trajectory away from the rule of law and respect for human rights and toward authoritarianism.

Private and even public expressions of concern are not a substitute for a real policy nor are they enough, it's time for consequences. The bill I introduce today sends a strong message to those who are currently acting with impunity in Russia that there will be consequences for corruption should you wish to travel to and invest in the United States. Such actions will provide needed moral support for those in Russia doing the really heavy-lifting in fighting corruption and promoting the rule of law, but they will also protect our own interests--values or business related.

We see before us a tale of two Russias, the double headed eagle if you will. To whom does the future of Russia belong? Does it belong to the Yevgenia Chirikovas, Alexey Navalnys, Oleg Orlovs and countless other courageous, hard working, and patriotic Russians who expose corruption and fight for human rights or those who inhabit the shadows abusing and stealing from their fellow citizens?

Let us not put aside our humanity out of exaggerated and excessively cautious diplomatic concerns for the broader relationship. Let us take the long view and stand on the right side--

and I believe the wise side--with the Russian people who have suffered so much for the cause of liberty and human dignity. They are the ones who daily risk their safety and freedom to promote those basic principles enshrined in Russian law and many international commitments including the Helsinki Final Act. They are the conscience of Russia. Let us tell them with one voice that they are not alone and that concepts like the rule of law and human rights are not empty words for this body and for our government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I rise in strong support of the nomination of Goodwin Liu to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture on this nomination.

I am disappointed we had to file a cloture motion. I hope my colleagues would want to vote up or down on this nomination, and I hope they would vote for his confirmation.

As we begin the debate on the nomination of Mr. Liu, let me start by telling my colleagues how thoroughly his nomination has been vetted by the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Chairman Leahy.

President Obama first nominated Goodwin Liu for this position in February of last year. That was over 1 year

ago. The Judiciary Committee has held two separate hearings on this nomination. Mr. Liu's latest set of questions and answers, for the record, spanned over 130 pages. The Judiciary Committee has favorably reported his nomination on three separate occasions: in May of 2010, September of 2010, and April of 2011.

So I am disappointed my Republican colleagues have refused to allow this nomination to come to a vote without the necessity of filing a cloture motion. As we know, the majority leader has filed cloture on this nomination. Senators have had ample information on the background, experience and qualifications of this nominee and it is time for the Senators to perform their constitutional duty to debate the nomination and to vote up or down on this nominee.

I was privileged to serve on the Judiciary Committee in the 111th Congress and participated in a debate of the Goodwin Liu nomination on several occasions. I was pleased to cast my vote in favor of Mr. Liu's nomination in committee, and I look forward to supporting his nomination on the floor.

When I examine judicial nominations that are submitted by the President, I use several criteria.

First, I believe judicial nominees must have an appreciation for the Constitution and the protections it provides to each and every American.

Second, a nominee must embrace a judicial philosophy that reflects mainstream American values, not narrow ideological interests.

Third, a judicial nominee must respect the role and responsibilities of each branch of government, including a healthy respect for the precedents of the court.

Fourth, I look for nominees with a strong commitment and passion for the continued forward progress of civil rights protections.

Finally, I want a judge who has the necessary experience, temperament, and commitment to public service.

I wish to share with my colleagues a little background on Mr. Liu, his qualifications, and why I intend to support his nomination.

Goodwin Liu, in many ways, embodies the American dream. He is the son of immigrants to this country. His parents were doctors who came to the United States from Taiwan in the late 1960s, when foreign doctors were being recruited to work in underserved areas.

Goodwin Liu did not speak English until kindergarten. During high school, Goodwin Liu had the opportunity to serve as a page in the House of Representatives, after being sponsored by late Congressman Bob Matsui of California, whom I had the privilege of serving with in the House of Representatives.

Professor Liu has a sterling academic record. He earned his B.S., Phi Beta Kappa, from Stanford University, where he was elected copresident of the student body. A Rhodes Scholar, he earned his M.A. from Oxford University. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. He then went on to clerk for DC Circuit Court Judge David Tatel and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Professor Liu has a track record of working on public policy issues in public service. He worked for 2 years at the Corporation for National Service. He served as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Education, where he worked on numerous legal and policy issues.

Professor Liu has worked in private practice. After his clerkships, he served as an associate in the Washington, DC, law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, working on a wide range of business matters. About half his practice consisted of appellate litigation, preparing him well to serve on a court of appeals. He has also maintained an active pro bono practice at that firm, which also tells me of his commitment to equal justice under the law.

Professor Liu then went on to his current occupation, joining the faculty of the University of California Berkeley School of Law and helping to teach our next generation of lawyers. He serves as a professor at the law school, was promoted to an associate dean of the law school, and was elected to the American Law Institute.

Professor Liu has received the law school's Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Liu is considered an expert on constitutional law and education law and policy, with a particular focus on the needs of America's most disadvantaged students. He is the author of numerous law review articles and the coauthor of an influential book on constitutional law interpretation entitled ``Keeping Faith with the Constitution.''

I heard my colleague talk about Goodwin Liu. But I would just urge my colleagues not to penalize an individual because he is active or expresses his own opinions. We should judge the nominees based upon their qualifications and their commitments to interpret the law as required on the court.

Professor Liu answered numerous questions about his approach to constitutional interpretation during his two confirmation hearings. He testified:

The role of the judge is to be an impartial, objective and

neutral arbiter of specific cases and controversies that come

before him or her, and the way that process works is through

absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and the

language of the laws, statutes, or regulations that are at

issue in the case.

I do not know who would disagree with that. That is what many of us have been calling for on both sides of the aisle.

He has also answered questions about his ideology as a judge. He testified:

It would not be my role to bring any particular theory of

constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate

appellate judge. The duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully

follow the Supreme Court's instructions on matters of

constitutional interpretation, not any particular theory. So

that is exactly what I would do. I would apply the applicable

precedents to the facts of each case.

Once again, I could not agree with that statement more. In written responses to Senators' questions, he also stated:

I do not believe it is ever appropriate for judges to

indulge their own values or policy preferences in determining

what the Constitution and laws mean.

Professor Liu certainly has written a number of thought-provoking articles on controversial public policy issues of the day, but this should not disqualify him from being a judge. I am confident Professor Liu understands the difference between being an advocate and being a judge and I hope we can draw that distinction and will respect the difference if he is confirmed and puts on the judicial robe.

Specific questions concerning affirmative action were asked during his confirmation hearings. So let me quote from Professor Liu's testimony to the Judiciary Committee:

I absolutely do not support racial quotas, and my writings,

I think, have made very clear that I believe they are

unconstitutional.

He then said:

I think affirmative action, as it was originally conceived,

was a time-limited remedy for past wrongs, and I think that

is the appropriate way to understand what affirmative action

is.

I think we should take a look at his record on this, and I think it is unfair to judge him based upon certain innuendoes.

Professor Liu also has broad support from distinguished legal scholars from both parties. The former Solicitor General and White House prosecutor, Ken Starr, praised Professor Liu's ``strong intellect, demonstrated independence, and outstanding character''-- qualifications we all want to see on the court. We want to see intellect, we want to see independence, and we want to see character. Ken Starr summed that up fairly well.

In a March 19, 2010, letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Starr joined with another professor, stating:

Goodwin is a person of great intellect, accomplishment, and

integrity, and he is exceptionally well qualified to serve on

the court of appeals. . . . What we wish to highlight, beyond

his on obvious intellect and legal talents, is his

independence and openness to diverse viewpoints, as well as

his ability to follow the facts and the law to their logical

conclusion. . . .

These are qualities we expect in a judge. And Goodwin

clearly possesses them . . . [A] judge takes an oath to

uphold and defend the Constitution, and in the case of a

circuit judge, fidelity to the law entails adherence to

Supreme Court precedent and . . . adherence to circuit

precedence as well. . . . Goodwin knows the difference

between what the law is and what he might wish it to be, and

he is fully capable and unafraid of discharging the duty to

say what the law is.

That is what Ken Starr said about a person he knows very well, Goodwin

Liu, and he strongly recommends his confirmation to our colleagues. I also want to discuss the importance of improving diversity on our courts. If confirmed, Professor Liu would be only the second Asian American currently serving on a Federal appeals court, and the only Asian American in active service in the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit is home to over 40 percent of the Asian American population in the United States. Finally, Professor Liu has received the highest possible judicial rating, ``unanimously well qualified'' from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

With this distinguished record and recommendations that we have received, we have an excellent nominee to serve on the court of appeals. I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.