Floor Statements

Madam President, I join my colleagues who have taken the floor this morning to urge a timely ratification of the START treaty. We have now been 1 year without a comprehensive verification regime to understand Russia's strategic nuclear forces. Since the end of the Cold War, we have had a verification system in place because we need to know what Russia is doing. We are at risk by not

having a comprehensive verification regime in place. The ratification of New START will allow us to have that verification system in place, and it is in our national security interest.

We have had plenty of opportunity to understand exactly what is involved in the New START Treaty. For 7 months, the Senate has been considering the ratification. We have had over 20 hearings. I am honored to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have had numerous hearings and opportunities, both in closed sessions and open sessions, to understand exactly why this ratification is in the security interest of the United States.

I point out that this is New START. We already had a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia that expired at the end of last year. That treaty was ratified by a prior vote of 93 to 6. So we have great interest. We know what is involved, and we have had strong, bipartisan support for the ratification of START. The United States needs transparency to know what Russia is doing and to provide confidence and stability. We need that confidence and stability to contribute to a safer world.

The ratification of New START allows the United States to continue to be in the leadership internationally, not only to deal with arms reduction but also with nonproliferation issues. That is particularly important today as we get international support to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. Russia has helped us in that regard. The ratification of this treaty is a continued movement toward isolating Iran's nuclear ambitions.

As other colleagues have pointed out, military leadership and bipartisan political leadership has supported this ratification.

I urge my colleagues to ratify New START. It is in our national security interest.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the recess start 2 minutes from now.

I would be glad to make that longer. We have an order, as I understand it, to recess at 12:34. I wanted to make a brief comment. If the Senator would like some time, I have no objection.

Madam President, I wanted to follow up for a moment because we are talking about the No. 2 person in the Department of Justice, and one of our responsibilities is to make sure executive agencies perform their function. The Judiciary Committee has the responsibility to make sure the Department of Justice is doing its work. But we, the Judiciary Committee, recommended the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General 6 months ago. How can we expect the Attorney General to get the work done if we do not give him the help in the confirmation process?

I agree completely with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--we should have the courage to vote up or down a Deputy Attorney General-- but I really took this time because I find it amazing that Jim Cole has not been confirmed. See, I happen to know Jim Cole. I have had experiences of working with Jim Cole in my official capacity as a Member of Congress. He was selected to be our Special Counsel in an extremely complicated and difficult matter in the Ethics Committee in the House of Representatives. He wasn't selected by me. At the time, Porter Goss, a Republican from Florida, was the chairman of our committee, and he worked with six of us in a very difficult investigation, and he brought the six of us together because of the professional manner in which Jim Cole attacks any of the problems with which he is confronted. He is not a partisan; he is a professional. He is a professional who

understands what it is in the Department of Justice and public service. He has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. He has been recommended by both Democrats and Republicans. He is not at all a partisan. He is the person whom you would want to have in the Department of Justice. And that is why Porter Goss said he found Jim Cole to be ``a brilliant prosecutor and extraordinarily talented''-- quoting from the Republican from Florida, who, along with the Democrats, was very proud of the professional work Jim Cole brought to a very partisan battle in the House of Representatives.

We should confirm this nominee. We should at least vote on this nominee. But to use this somewhat backward approach to deny a vote on the No. 2 person in the Department of Justice is just wrong.

I understand Senator Sessions is saying there will hopefully be an agreement before the end of this Congress. But, quite frankly, this nominee came out in July. It is not as if he came out of the committee last week. He came out in July. This is an important position, and I think we have a responsibility to vote up or down this important part of the ability of the Department of Justice to carry out its important mission. So I am disappointed that we had an objection heard on this nominee. I would urge everyone to make sure this nominee is voted on prior to when we leave for this holiday recess.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the 111th Congress is drawing to a close and families across the Nation are preparing for the holiday season. In the Senate, we still have many items on our agenda, bills we need to complete before we adjourn. Many of these bills represent the priorities of various Senators addressing issues that some have worked on for this entire Congress, some for several Congresses. Other bills are necessary to prevent certain longstanding policies from expiring, such as tax relief for working families, and still others are needed to avert cuts in key programs such as Medicare payments to doctors and protecting rehabilitative services for seniors.

In addition to marking the start of the holiday season, this week also brings a devastating reminder of the economic disaster facing many families. On Monday, action to extend unemployment benefits to millions of people was blocked in the Senate by Republicans. Yesterday, those benefits expired. The Republicans are telling us we cannot consider any legislation until we take up tax breaks for millionaires. On December 1, more than 800,000 Americans were left without benefits and up to 2 million more will soon follow by the end of the year, including 48,000 Marylanders. There are some in this body who may not recognize the peril facing families whose benefits are being cut off. Every day I hear from Marylanders who are asking

Congress for help. They want to work but can't find employment. Many have been looking for a long time, over a year, sending hundreds of resumes, pounding the pavements, attending job fairs and numerous interviews, all to no avail. They want us to take the steps necessary to help the economy create jobs, and they need some assistance in the meantime to help them stay afloat.

Maryland's unemployment rate stands at 7.4 percent statewide. Although that is lower than the national average, in some counties the situation is more dire. In Baltimore City, the rate is 11 percent. In Dorchester County, it stands at 9.8 percent. In Somerset County, it is 9.9 percent, and in Washington County, it is almost 10 percent. Earlier this week several building trade workers visited my office. For them this is not a recovery, this is not a recession, this is a depression. That is because in the construction industry, unemployment rates range from 30 to 50 percent, depending on location. Among one local union in Baltimore the unemployment rate is 27 percent; more than one out of every four members has no job.

In fact, Labor Department statistics tell us that for every job opening there are five individuals actively seeking employment. The odds are not very good for someone trying to find employment today. That is why we have had long-term unemployment and why we need to extend benefits to those who are in need today. Nearly 15 million of my fellow Americans cannot find work. Of that total, the number of long- term unemployed, defined as those who have been jobless for 27 weeks or more, is about 6.2 million. As of last month, two-fifths of unemployed persons have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. Behind the aggregate numbers, there is a deeper sense of despair in many communities. Teenage unemployment is over 27 percent, Black unemployment is over 15 percent, and Latino unemployment is over 12 percent.

In addition to the number of people out of work and seeking work, the Department of Labor also calculates data that includes people who want to work but are discouraged from looking and people who are working part-time because they can't find full-time employment. In October 2010, the rate stood at 17 percent in that category.

During the course of this national debate over unemployment compensation, a number of issues are in contention: those who say the jobs are there and people should continue looking; whether this should be paid for or considered emergency spending; whether we should focus on growing the economy rather than on benefits; whether it is time to end benefits because the economy is recovering; that the unemployed do not deserve extended benefits and more.

Let me address some of these issues. For those who say the jobs are there but people just aren't looking, in September 2010, almost 15 million workers were unemployed, but there were only 3 million job openings or five unemployed workers for every available job. In other words, if every available job were filled by unemployed individuals, four out of the five unemployed workers would still be looking for work. Last night we heard in this Chamber that the objection to extending unemployment benefits is because it is not paid for. It is right to extend tax breaks for millionaires and not pay for it because that somehow is an emergency situation, but extending unemployment benefits to those who are in dire need doesn't qualify as emergency spending. Historically, unemployment compensation extensions have been treated as emergency spending by Congresses and administrations going back to the Reagan administration. Families across Maryland and the Nation will tell us that when you have a mortgage that is due, when your heat is about to be cut off, when you cannot buy groceries for the family, that is an emergency situation. Their situations constitute emergencies, and we should treat them as such.

For those of my colleagues insisting extending benefits is not as important as getting the economy back on solid footing, I point out that numerous economists have pointed out the value of unemployment insurance benefits. These are dollars going back into the market, raising consumption, and creating jobs.

Let me compare it to what my Republican colleagues are saying about tax breaks for millionaires. Where is that going to benefit the economy? That money isn't going to go right back. We know unemployment benefits do go right back into the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that for every $1 we spend in unemployment compensation, we generate more than $1.90 back into the economy. In other words, it is a stimulus. The nonpartisan CBO has analyzed 11 different measures for their effectiveness in growing the economy, and it rates extending unemployment benefits as the single most effective tool. This helps job growth. When people receive unemployment benefits, they spend it immediately. That helps retail establishments, grocery stores, including many small businesses, and the overall economy. It is the definition of stimulus spending, and it is immediate.

With no extension, unemployed workers and their families will have less money to spend and will cut back on their purchase of goods and services, resulting in weaker sales, hurting businesses, and costing jobs.

Another sentiment I have heard expressed is, we are giving a handout to unemployed Americans. Unemployment insurance is not a handout. It is not government largesse. Unemployment insurance is just that. It is an insurance program. It is an insurance program employees and employers contribute to so during difficult times, there is money available when a person loses their job. People receiving benefits had jobs, and the time they worked is reflected in the weeks of benefits they receive. This is an insurance program. It is countercyclical. It is supposed to be available during tough economic times. That is why unemployment insurance is paid. These funds should now be available to help people who need them.

Finally, I wish to address a misconception about the amount of unemployment benefits. These are not extravagant payments. The average benefit amounts to $302 per week.

The reason we are told we can't bring this up is because we have to bring up the tax bill first. We can't get the tax bill up because Republicans are insisting we have to deal with the millionaires. The tax breaks for the millionaires are far more money than the $302 per week for someone who is on unemployment compensation. What these families receive is not a lot of money, but it is a lifeline. It keeps food on the table, heat through the winter months, and gas in the car while they are continuing to look for jobs. The extension only gives those who are eligible for unemployment benefits the same number of maximum weeks we provide others during these economic times. It does not lengthen the total number of eligible weeks of benefits.

The highest unemployment rate at which any previous Federal emergency unemployment program ended was 7.2 percent in March of 1985, during the second Reagan administration, much lower than where we are today. So where do we stand? We have passed several short-term extensions, and we need to act again. Here we are today, as 800,000 Americans across the Nation have no benefits whatsoever. Yet our Republican colleagues object. They object to a short-term extension. They object to any extension. They say: First, let's bring up the tax bill that provides breaks for millionaires, and we can't bring up the middle-income tax relief until we take care of the millionaires.

Nearly every Member of the Senate has risen to talk about the need for job creation. I believe all of us are sincere. Each of us is committed to acting on legislation that will create more job opportunities for Americans. We have passed the Recovery Act and a Small Business Jobs Act and will soon consider tax extenders that will further help businesses invest more in jobs. Rather than abruptly cutting off those still in difficult times because of the economy, we should pass at least a 1-year extension of unemployment compensation benefits. On behalf of the millions of American families who will be affected by what we do or fail to do this week, I call upon my colleagues, at the start of the holiday season, to recognize the needs of families struggling to make ends meet and agree to an extension of this essential program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay special tribute to Agnes Welch, a member of the Baltimore City Council and a dedicated public servant. Councilwoman Welch, who was first elected to the Baltimore City Council in 1983, is retiring after serving her community and her city in the council for almost three decades.

Councilwoman Welch has always been attuned to the needs of her west Baltimore community and loyal to her faith. She has been a trailblazer for women, African Americans, and her constituents. Her committee work in the city council helped shape the renaissance of Baltimore's downtown and the redevelopment of its neighborhoods. Her work with not- for-profit organizations and city agencies has created new opportunities for child care, family health care, better schools, and senior housing. Councilwoman Welch's work with the Catholic Archdiocese has improved the Church's outreach to and accommodation for people of color and it has improved services for the neighborhoods and communities surrounding the churches. As a result of her outstanding service and dedication to the church, she received the Papal Medal ``pro ecclesia et pontifice'' from Pope John Paul II.

Legislatively, Councilwoman Welch has demonstrated her concern for the welfare of her constituents, particularly those people living in poverty. She sponsored legislation which created the framework for addressing homelessness. Another legislative proposal funded a study into the increase in teenage homicides. Most recently, she introduced legislation to establish a Task Force on Childhood Obesity.

Councilwoman Agnes Welch has been an outstanding public servant, working selflessly, tirelessly, and effectively on behalf of others. I ask my colleagues to join me today in thanking Councilwoman Welch for her dedication to her community and constituents, and in wishing her well in her retirement.

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

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Eastern Shore town of Easton, MD, which is concluding its 300th anniversary celebration.

In 1710, the Assembly of the Province of Maryland chose Easton as the site for a new court house to serve the pre-Revolution population of sea merchants and farmers. Easton was incorporated as a town in Talbot County, MD, in 1790 and serves as the county seat.

Easton is located on the shore of the Tred Avon River that flows into the Chesapeake Bay. It was a bustling port for Eastern Shore agricultural products and seafood for much of its first 200 years. Many of the farms on the Eastern Shore of Maryland had slaves, and it was in Talbot County where Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist, was raised. Because of his national leadership in the abolitionist movement, a statue of Mr. Douglass will soon be erected on the court house lawn in Easton.

Easton remains a cultural and community center for merchants, lawyers, bankers, trades people, farmers, and watermen. Weekend visitors, sailors

and retirees have been added to the mix and continue to enrich the community.

Today, Easton is a country town with urbane sensibilities. A 1786 survey of the town showed that Easton was barely 95 acres, a tiny collection of government offices, residences, and shops surrounded by wide expanses of farms and forests. Today, Easton is comprised of 6,866 acres, home to an airport, medical centers, schools, museums, music, art competitions, the young Chesapeake Film Festival, and the celebrated annual Waterfowl Festival, which fills the closed downtown streets with thousands of bird and art lovers.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the town of Easton, MD, on its 300th birthday.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Pigford II settlement pending full action by the U.S. Senate.

We all know that farming is a difficult occupation. The hours are long, the weather unpredictable and the challenge of competing in a global marketplace intense. Tens of thousands of Black farmers have had to face all those normal challenges. Tragically, they have had to deal with a challenge that was unique to them based solely on race. The U.S. Department of Agriculture was discriminating against them.

More than 12 years ago Black farmers across America brought a class action suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, for racial discrimination. The history of that discrimination is a sad one, and it is well documented.

Farmers, as do all businesses, need access to loans. They need to borrow money for expensive equipment and they need funding to help them when droughts strike or when markets collapse. The Congress has recognized this need for decades, and we have established special loan programs in the USDA to support these special needs.

Tragically, tens of thousands of Black farmers were the victims of systemic discrimination. During the 1980s and 1990s, the average processing time for a loan application by White farmers was 30 days, while the average time for a loan application by Black farmers was 387 days. That is more than 12 times longer if you are a Black farmer. This discrimination earned the USDA the regrettable nickname ``the Last Plantation.''

Black farmers finally sought justice through a class action lawsuit in 1997. More than 20,000 farmers initiated claims citing racial discrimination in the USDA farm loan programs.

Two years after the action was initiated, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree approving a class action settlement to compensate these farmers for years of racial discrimination by the USDA. Each farmer who could prove discrimination was entitled to damages. Out of the initial 20,000 farmers, 15,000 were meritorious in the claims they brought. As the legal process continued, additional farmers began to join the class action and file their own claims. Approximately 80,000 farmers eventually brought claims.

Unfortunately, many of these farmers did not know about the class action suit, and by the time they learned of its existence, the filing deadline had passed.

In 2008, Congress--recognizing the injustice of stopping 80 percent or more of the farmers who potentially suffered at the hand of discrimination by our government--decided to take action and created a new cause of action for farmers previously denied access to justice.

In the 2008 farm bill, with bipartisan support, Congress included $100 million for payments and debt relief as a down-payment to satisfy the claims filed by deserving claimants denied participation in the original settlement because of timeliness issues.

After years of litigation and negotiation between the Department of Justice, which represented the USDA, and lawyers for the farmers, a settlement was finally reached in February 2010. The Pigford II settlement agreement will provide $1.25 billion, which is contingent on appropriation by Congress, to African-American farmers who can show they suffered racial discrimination in USDA farm loan programs. Once the money is appropriated farmers can pursue their individual claims through the same nonjudicial process used in the first case.

To address this funding need, President Obama included $1.15 billion in additional funding for his fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budget.

Both Chambers of Congress have worked to pass appropriations to fulfill the settlement agreement since February. The House of Representatives has passed funding language for the Pigford case twice; once as part of the war supplemental and the other on a tax extenders bill.

I thank my colleagues for working together and reaching a settlement on this important issue. We have provided our fellow Americans with redress for an injustice that occurred.

The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill (H.R. 4783), as amended, was read the third time and passed, as follows:

Mr. President, a year ago this month I was privileged to again meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I. His impassioned call for support for the reopening of the Theological School of Halki promoted

me to introduce S. Res. 356, a bipartisan measure calling upon the Government of Turkey to facilitate the reopening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Theological School of Halki without condition or further delay. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the forced closure on that unique institution by the Turkish authorities, I renew my call for the Government of Turkey to allow the seminary 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 forcible closure by the Turkish authorities in 1971. 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 this 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 the service, attended by pilgrims and religious leaders from several countries, including Greece and Russia. Earlier this month, a Turkish court ordered the Buyukada orphanage to be returned to Ecumenical Patriarchate. If the transfer of the property occurs, this would be another welcome development, potentially paving the way for the return of scores of other church properties seized by the government. In 2005, the Helsinki Commission, which I 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.

Yesterday's release of the 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 nearly four decades ago. The time has come to allow the reopening of this unique institution without further delay.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Blue Alert Act of 2010.

Having just concluded Crime Prevention month it is important to remember our law enforcement officers that put their lives on the line every day. There are more than 900,000 police officers in the United States dedicated to stopping crime and making our communities safer. Every day they go out onto the streets, and unfortunately become targets for criminals who have no regard for law and order.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, officer deaths have surged by 43 percent in the first half of 2010. Eighty-seven officers died in the line of duty between January 1 and June 30 of this year. If this rate continues, 2010 could become one of the deadliest years for U.S. law enforcement in two decades. We need to make sure our officers have all the tools they need to protect themselves and each other.

This is why I, along with Senator Graham and Senator Leahy, am introducing the National Blue Alert Act in an effort to provide law enforcement with an additional tool in fighting crime. The Blue Alert system is intended to provide rapid dissemination of information about such offenders to help facilitate capture of violent offenders and reduce the risk those offenders cause to our communities and law enforcement officers. The National Blue Alert will encourage, enhance and integrate blue alert plans throughout the United States in order to effectively disseminate information notifying law enforcement, media and the public that a suspect is wanted.

Currently there is no national alert system that provides immediate information to other law enforcement agencies, the media or the public at large. Many states have created a state blue alert system in an effort to better inform their local communities. For example, after the unfortunate murder of Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown, Maryland Governor O'Malley immediately signed an executive order establishing the Maryland blue alert system. But Maryland is not alone. Florida was the first state to implement the alert system in 2008. They were followed by Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, and Delaware.

My bill creates a national blue alert program within the Department of Justice. Currently, under the COPS technology program, Congress authorizes funds for the continued development of technologies and automated systems that help tribal, state and local law enforcement agencies prevent, respond to, and investigate crime. My bill authorizes $10 million out of this program to be appropriated for the creation of blue alert plans throughout the United States. This new technology will provide police officers and other emergency units with the ability to react quickly to apprehend violent offenders.

Based on the success of the AMBER Alert and the SILVER Alert, I believe this BLUE Alert will be equally successful in helping to apprehend criminal suspects who have injured or killed our law enforcement officers. This legislation has received the support of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Concerns of Police Survivors National Office. The Blue Alert will provide a valuable tool to our law enforcement officials. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Blue Alert Act of 2010.

Having just concluded Crime Prevention month it is important to remember our law enforcement officers that put their lives on the line every day. There are more than 900,000 police officers in the United States dedicated to stopping crime and making our communities safer. Every day they go out onto the streets, and unfortunately become targets for criminals who have no regard for law and order.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, officer deaths have surged by 43 percent in the first half of 2010. Eighty-seven officers died in the line of duty between January 1 and June 30 of this year. If this rate continues, 2010 could become one of the deadliest years for U.S. law enforcement in two decades. We need to make sure our officers have all the tools they need to protect themselves and each other.

This is why I, along with Senator Graham and Senator Leahy, am introducing the National Blue Alert Act in an effort to provide law enforcement with an additional tool in fighting crime. The Blue Alert system is intended to provide rapid dissemination of information about such offenders to help facilitate capture of violent offenders and reduce the risk those offenders cause to our communities and law enforcement officers. The National Blue Alert will encourage, enhance and integrate blue alert plans throughout the United States in order to effectively disseminate information notifying law enforcement, media and the public that a suspect is wanted.

Currently there is no national alert system that provides immediate information to other law enforcement agencies, the media or the public at large. Many states have created a state blue alert system in an effort to better inform their local communities. For example, after the unfortunate murder of Maryland State Trooper Wesley Brown, Maryland Governor O'Malley immediately signed an executive order establishing the Maryland blue alert system. But Maryland is not alone. Florida was the first state to implement the alert system in 2008. They were followed by Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, and Delaware.

My bill creates a national blue alert program within the Department of Justice. Currently, under the COPS technology program, Congress authorizes funds for the continued development of technologies and automated systems that help tribal, state and local law enforcement agencies prevent, respond to, and investigate crime. My bill authorizes $10 million out of this program to be appropriated for the creation of blue alert plans throughout the United States. This new technology will provide police officers and other emergency units with the ability to react quickly to apprehend violent offenders.

Based on the success of the AMBER Alert and the SILVER Alert, I believe this BLUE Alert will be equally successful in helping to apprehend criminal suspects who have injured or killed our law enforcement officers. This legislation has received the support of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Concerns of Police Survivors National Office. The Blue Alert will provide a valuable tool to our law enforcement officials. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Progress for women in this country has not come easily or come quickly. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote or own property. In fact, our country once considered women to be the property of their fathers or husbands.

Over the years, women have fought gender barriers and broken down stereotypes, making great strides toward equity. Unfortunately, inequities still exist. While women have successfully broken through glass ceilings on careers across the employment spectrum, pay discrimination still remains.

Today, women make up half of the total workforce and nearly 4 in 10 mothers are the primary breadwinners of their household. Nearly two- thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of the household earnings. In these hard economic times, when women's wages put food on the table, keep the lights on and put gas in the car, pay inequities should not be tolerated.

In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in an effort to end pay discrimination. Despite the good faith effort of this legislation, legal loopholes exist that have weakened the intent and goal of the law. The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the core principles in the Equal Pay Act. It will close loopholes in the original legislation; level the playing field for employers, so the employers paying fair wages are not disadvantaged; and will shine a light on pay discrimination occurring throughout our country.

According to the Census Bureau, although women between the ages of 25 and 29 possess a higher percentage of bachelor degrees than men in the same age group, women consistently earn less than men at every level of education attainment. In 2009, women working full time, year around were paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men on average. This gap is worse for minorities. African-American women were paid 62 cents and Latino women are paid only 53 cents for every dollar a man makes.

In fact, women earn less on the dollar than men as their level of education increases. A study completed by the American Association of University Women found that female graduates working full time earn only 80 as much as their male graduates. The study then looked ten years after graduation to find women fall further behind, earning only 69 as much as men. Overall women are paid less than their male counterparts during their entire career.

Opponents of this legislation argue that there is no real gender pay gap and if there is one it's due to women's choices. Specifically, opponents assert that women earn less because they are more likely to choose part-time work to accommodate a growing family. This is incorrect. Many studies demonstrate that the wage gap is real. According to a recent GAO study, so-called life choices do not explain the persistent wage gap. Additionally, GAO found that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings.

Additionally, opponents of the legislation assert that the Paycheck Fairness Act will create increased litigation. This, too, is just wrong. The Equal Pay Act is not a strict liability statute and it sets a very high burden for an employee to bring a claim. That burden will not change with the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. The legislation will now require that the ``factor other than sex'' defense available to employers is a bona fide, job related factor that must be articulated. This language mirrors other civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination.

Finally, opponents assert that this legislation will hurt businesses and reduce job growth during these hard economic times. This is yet another incorrect assertion. In fact, this legislation will help ensure that women are paid fairly for equivalent work. In a nationwide survey of registered voters, 84 percent of voters said they supported ``a new law that would provide women with more tools to get fair pay in the workplace.'' There is an overwhelming level of support for fair pay across the political spectrum.

The goal of the Paycheck Fairness Act is simple: close the loopholes that exist in current law to ensure that men and women are paid fairly and accurately in the workplace. No longer will an employer be able to pay women and men different wages if they are doing the same or equivalent jobs. No longer will an employer be allowed to retaliate against employees for discussing their wages with other employees. No longer will we allow pay discrimination to be tolerated.

As an original cosponsor of this bill, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and join our colleagues in the House by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important health issue--sickle cell disease--that highlights the tremendous progress the scientific community has made over the years. This is a timely opportunity to bring up sickle cell disease because this month marks the 100th anniversary of its discovery.

On November 16 and 17, the National Institutes of Health will host a research symposium on sickle cell disease to commemorate the accomplishments of scientists and clinicians over the past century. The symposium, named after the scientist who discovered the gene, Dr. James B. Herrick, will bring to Maryland more than 30

experts from around the world to discuss sickle cell disease research and treatment.

Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder in which red blood cells contain an abnormal type of hemoglobin and frequently take on a sickle, or crescent, shape. These defective blood cells can block small blood vessels, which can in turn lead to tissue damage or stroke. A common complication of this condition is severe pain in the limbs, chest, abdomen, and back. Other complications are anemia, jaundice, severe infection, and spleen, liver, and kidney damage.

The life expectancy for sickle cell patients is shortened, with studies reporting an average life expectancy of 42 years for males and 48 years for females. Sickle cell disease occurs most commonly in people of African descent, though individuals of Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Central and South American, and Asian Indian heritage can inherit the disease as well. About 1 in 12 African Americans carries the gene for sickle cell disease, and 1 in 400 Americans has the full-blown disease. It is estimated that over 80,000 Americans have sickle cell disease, with about 2,000 babies born with the disease each year.

Sickle cell disease can result in tremendous personal difficulties. Natasha Thomas is a 36-year-old African-American woman from Baltimore, MD. She considers herself fortunate to have access to quality care. Despite some setbacks, she was able to complete middle school, high school, and college, and she has been working consistently for 15 years. She has had employers who have allowed her to take leave when she has had sickle cell pain crises. Natasha admits that most of the people she knows with sickle cell disease are not as fortunate as she is.

Even though she has access to specialized care, Natasha is hospitalized at least once a year with paralyzing pain from the occlusion of her blood vessels with sickle cells. In the hospital, she has to undergo IV therapy with fluids and narcotic pain medicine. Natasha is grateful for the Maryland medical assistance program, which has provided her with the necessary resources to get through difficult financial times when her condition flares up. She admits that if she did not have coverage for specialized care, she would have likely had many more pain flares and may have had to receive blood transfusions.

Sickle cell disease is not a new phenomenon. People have been living with the disease for literally thousands of years. But in the last century, there have been remarkable advancements in diagnosis and treatment of sickle cell disease.

In 1910, Dr. James B. Herrick, an attending physician at Presbyterian Hospital and professor of medicine at Rush Medical College in Chicago, published an article on the case of an anemic West Indian patient. Herrick's clinical and laboratory findings of the patient's ``peculiar elongated and sickle-shaped'' red blood corpuscles represent the first description of sickle cell disease in Western medical literature.

Since the discovery of the mutation responsible for sickle cell disease in the 1950s, there has been a rapid expansion of technological and policy advances.

In 1975, the first statewide newborn screening was established in New York.

In 1986, penicillin was found to be effective as a preventive strategy against pneumococcal infection, a particularly dangerous infection for people with sickle cell disease.

In 1995, the first effective drug treatment for adults with severe sickle cell anemia was reported in a multicenter National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study, including a team led by physicians from Johns Hopkins. The anticancer drug hydroxyurea was found to reduce the frequency of painful crises, and patients taking the drug needed fewer blood transfusions.

In 1996, bone marrow transplantation was discovered to improve the course of sickle cell disease for select patients. A year later, blood transfusions were found to help prevent stroke in patients.

At the turn of the millennium, the introduction of pneumococcal vaccine revolutionized the prevention of lethal infections in children and adults with sickle cell disease.

And in 2001, the first mouse model was developed demonstrating the usefulness of genetic therapy for sickle cell disease.

More recently, in 2007, scientists from the University of Alabama Birmingham and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed an animal model for curing sickle cell disease. These scientists used skin stem cells to reprogram the bone marrow of mice to produce normal, healthy blood cells.

I am proud to say that other scientists from Maryland have played an important role in advancing sickle cell disease research. Dr. Morton Goldberg, former head of the Wilmer Eye Institute in Baltimore, is considered the world's foremost expert in the diagnosis and treatment of eye disease due to sickle cell disease. Drs. Jim Casella and Robert Brodsky, both from Johns Hopkins, have made great strides toward preventing strokes in young children and searching for cures through stem cell transplants, respectively.

Improvements in sickle cell disease treatments have led to an increase in life expectancy from 14 years in 1973 to the mid to late 40s now. Innovation continues. As of October 2010, there were 240 ongoing or recently completed NIH-funded trials exploring better diagnosis or treatment of the disease. Under the leadership of its Director, Dr. Francis Collins, the NIH is poised to continue to push the envelope of scientific innovations toward finding a cure for sickle cell disease.

Despite all of these technological advances, sickle cell disease remains a significant problem. The annual cost of medical care for the nearly 80,000 individuals with sickle cell disease in the United States exceeds $1.1 billion. The average cost of care per month per patient is nearly $2,000. Studies show that for an average patient with sickle cell disease reaching age 45, the total health care costs are estimated to reach $950,000. What is worrisome is that additional costs associated with reduced quality of life, uncompensated care, lost productivity, and premature mortality push the costs well beyond $1 million per patient.

The enormous human and financial cost of this disease underscores the importance of finding a safe cure for sickle cell disease. A worrying finding in research is that conscious or unconscious racial bias adversely affects the availability of resources for research, delivery of care, and improvement of that care. I am particularly concerned because there is a significant gap in funding for more publicized but less prevalent diseases as compared to sickle cell disease.

This gap in funding was first addressed in 1970 by Dr. Robert Scott when he published landmark articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Scott's articles spurred congressional hearings that led to the passage of the first major legislation concerning sickle cell disease treatment, the National Sickle Cell Disease Control Act of 1972.

Since passage of that act, the number of research grants for sickle cell disease has risen by a factor of 10. Despite increased research dollars for sickle cell disease and major advances in treatment, important gaps still exist in the equity of Federal funding allocation and in the provision of highly qualified clinical care. The disparity in funding sickle cell disease in the private sector is even more pronounced than it is in the Federal Government.

But solely funding additional research is not enough. We need to be sure that the tools we develop for improving patients' lives are available to everyone who needs them. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case.

For example, there is a sixteenfold mortality rate difference between States with the highest and lowest death rates due to sickle cell disease. In other words, depending on where you live, you may be 16 times more likely to die from sickle cell disease in one State than another. I am proud to say that interventions such as mandatory newborn screening developed by Dr. Susan Panny at the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene have helped Maryland attain the lowest child mortality rate due to sickle cell disease in the Nation, with 1/10 the number of deaths compared to the national average.

Earlier, I mentioned Natasha Thomas. She is fortunate to have access to specialized treatment centers and rarely gets hospitalized for pain crises.

She's been able to maintain a job and says that she has a pretty good quality of life. She is a testament to the benefits of having access to necessary treatments in Baltimore.

Natasha has a friend who is not so lucky. He wished to remain anonymous. Natasha's friend can't keep a job because he is frequently absent from work due to hospitalizations from pain crises.

His condition is poorly controlled because he does not have access to specialized care as does Natasha. Like so many others with sickle cell disease, he is in catastrophic debt from medical bills due to his condition. The difference between Natasha and her friend does not have to be a matter of luck. High quality treatments for sickle cell disease exist. We just need to make sure they are available to everyone that requires them.

Besides our moral obligation to ensure that patients receive appropriate care, there is also an economic argument. Research showing the high proportion of sickle cell disease costs associated with inpatient hospitalization suggest that interventions that reduce complications such as pain crises could be cost-saving.

We have made significant progress toward broadening coverage for all Americans. But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must ensure that the implementation of health policy as it pertains to sickle cell disease is done with emphasis on high-quality, equitable care. We need to make sure the standard of care is available to all and that the guidelines permeate throughout the specialty and primary care centers caring for patients with sickle cell disease.

We need to make sure that patients like Natasha's friend can get the care they need. After all, of the nearly $112 billion spent annually on hospitalization for sickle cell disease, a significant portion can be reduced by lowering the complications resulting from hospitalization if excellent care is uniformly provided.

With the recent codification of the Office of Minority Health at the Department of Health and Human Services, we can ensure that our investment in producing new knowledge is balanced by a similarly robust commitment to universal and equitable diffusion of this knowledge. This way, all patients will reap the full benefit of our investment in research. In addition to sickle cell disease, the Office of Minority Health will help us address many other issues pertaining to health disparities.

Health disparities in our health care delivery system are a huge issue. Health disparities are differences in health among social, economic, and racial or ethnic lines. Many disparities exist in our country. Let's look at disparity through the lens of life expectancy.

The life expectancy for African Americans is 5.3 years lower than Whites. Education also affects life expectancy. Individuals with college education can expect to live on average 6 years longer than people who have never graduated from high school. The life expectancy of people over 400 percent of the Federal poverty level is on average 7 years longer than those at or below the Federal poverty level.

These differences are stark, and we need to have a strategy to deal with them. We need to know how we can reach out to the minority communities to deal with their special needs. In addition to codifying the Office of Minority Health, the recently enacted health care reform bill supports a network of minority health offices located within HHS, and it elevated the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH from a center to an institute. The Offices of Minority Health will be essential for addressing health disparities in America by monitoring health status, health care trends, and quality of care among minority patients and evaluating the success of minority health programs and initiatives.

Over the next year I plan to return to the Senate floor to highlight how we as a nation and the Office of Minority Health in particular can tackle health disparities. Through a series of presentations, I hope to raise awareness about the major health disparity issues in our country, and I hope to direct our attention to the proper implementation of the Affordable Care Act so the full potential of this legislation can be realized.

I am proud of the progress we have made with the health care reform legislation. I am proud of the creation of the Office of Minority Health, and on this 100th anniversary of the discovery of sickle cell disease, I commend the scientific and medical communities for their contributions to diagnosis and treatment of this important condition.

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

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a fellow Marylander, John Hanson, whose statue graces Statuary Hall here in the U.S. Capitol. George Washington is properly revered as the ``Father of our Country'' and the Nation's first President. But we mustn't overlook John Hanson's seminal contributions to the birth of the United States. In October 1781, the British surrendered at Yorktown, VA, and the American Revolution was over. A month later, Hanson became the first elected President of the Continental Congress established under the Articles of Confederation. He was unanimously elected and served one term, from November 5, 1781 to November 3, 1782.

John Hanson's administration began the task of creating the governmental infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing, diverse nation. Under his leadership, the Nation's first central bank was created, along with the post office, the departments of State, War and Treasury, the diplomatic corps, the national seal, and the annual observance of Thanksgiving Day. As the first elected President of our independent Nation, President Hanson began the task of unifying the former colonies and providing for their common defense, communication, and economic growth.

The John Hanson National Memorial Association now seeks to memorialize John Hanson and recognize his contributions to our Nation. The association proposes to create a national memorial on the Frederick County Courthouse courtyard, overlooking the site of the John Hanson House in Frederick, MD. Funds also will be raised to establish a public education program regarding President Hanson's contributions to our democracy. Funding also will be used to support the John Hanson Institute, which would restore and preserve President Hanson's first home, Mulberry Grove, on the banks of Port Tobacco River in Charles County, MD.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the efforts of the association to recognize our first elected President, John Hanson of Maryland.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life of Louis Henkin.

As chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,

Mr. President, today I recognize the 40th anniversary of Howard Community College in Howard County, MD. In 1970, Howard Community College began with 1 building and 600 students in the planned community of Columbia. Since then, Howard Community College has grown into a sprawling campus and cultural magnet that draws nearly one out of every four Howard County high school graduates to its classrooms.

In fiscal year 2010, Howard Community College enrolled more than 12,851 credit students and 16,780 noncredit continuing education students. Nearly 30 percent of its faculty has doctorates and the community is able to choose from more than 7,056 classes each year.

The Howard Community College administration works closely with the business community and county government to ensure that the college's courses are preparing students for careers and/or educational advancement in areas that will result in employment and respond to business needs. For example, in response to the national nursing shortage, Howard Community College has developed a nursing program with a reputation for excellence--90 percent of last year's nursing students passed the licensing exam on the first try.

The Horowitz Visual and Performing Arts Center, which opened in 2006, has added a community cultural dimension to the college by offering three performance venues, two dance studios, and instructional space for art and music classes. The Children's Learning Center serves as a child care center as well as a lab school for students in the Early Childhood Development Program, an important resource for working parents.

Howard Community College can be proud of its rapid growth and its outstanding reputation. The college offers an important resource to the community and works hard to deliver on its pledge: ``You Can Get There From Here.''

I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Howard Community College on its success and join me in wishing President Kathleen B. Hetherington, the Board of Trustees, and the Howard County community continued success in educating students.