Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I recognize the outstanding career and service of Raymond M. Kight, who is the longest-serving elected sheriff of Montgomery County. Ray Kight was an Army veteran when he joined the Montgomery County Police Department in 1963. He was sworn in as deputy sheriff in 1967 and was elected sheriff in 1986.

During his tenure, Sheriff Kight transitioned the office into a modern, professional law enforcement agency. In addition to the traditional role in the service of legal process, protecting the courts, transporting prisoners and apprehending fugitives, the Sheriff's Office now provides responsive services to the community, including a family law unit that provides immediate law enforcement and social service intervention in domestic violence situations. Sheriff Kight was part of the strategic planning responsible for designing and implementing the interagency Montgomery County Family Justice Center, which opened in May, 2009, and has since served over 2,000 domestic violence victims.

Under Sheriff Kight's administration, the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office became the first Sheriff's Office in Maryland to be nationally accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, CALEA. Sheriff Kight has also brought professionalism and recognition to the office by requiring uniforms for all deputies, marked Sheriff's office vehicles, and standardized training. He established the Sheriff's Office SWAT team, K-9 explosive detection teams, and hostage negotiators. These units are deployed throughout Montgomery County in cooperation with the Montgomery County Police Department. The sheriff's deputies maintain partnerships and serve in major regional Federal, State, and county law enforcement task forces, including the U.S. Marshal Service's Capitol Area Regional Fugitive Task Force, CARFTF, as well as the Firearms and Gang Task Forces.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Sheriff Raymond Kight for his 50 years of public service. I ask you to join me in thanking him for his dedication to the safety of the residents of Montgomery County, MD, and in sending him best wishes for a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2010.

As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky at a hearing I held on Russia in June 2009.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian anti-corruption lawyer employed by a prominent American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax rebate fraud in Russian history perpetrated by high level Russian officials. After discovering this complex and brazen corruption scheme, Sergei Magnitsky dutifully testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million and naming the names of those officials. 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 and died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.

In April of this year I sent a letter to our Secretary of State urging a visa ban for Russian officials connected to the death of Sergei Magnitsky. I also released a list of 60 senior officials from the Russian Interior Ministry, Federal Security Service, Federal Tax Service, Regional Courts, General Prosecutor's Office, and Federal Prison Service, along with detailed descriptions of their involvement in this matter. My bill reminds the Department of State that I have not forgotten and will not forget this issue. In fact, this bill goes a bit further adding an asset freeze provision to be applied against those implicated in this tragic affair.

Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer with what should have been a promising career ahead of him died at age 37 leaving behind a mother, a wife, and two boys who never saw him or even heard his voice after his arrest. Since his death, no one has been held accountable and some of those involved even have been promoted. Also, there is strong evidence that the criminal enterprise that stole the money from the Russian treasury and falsely imprisoned and tortured Magnitsky, continues to operate. In fact, the American founding partner of Magnitsky's firm fled Russia for his safety in the months following his colleague's death after learning that a similar fraud scheme was attempted by the same criminals.

This is a heartbreaking story, and let me be clear, my bill does not even attempt to deliver justice as that would be impossible since nothing can bring Sergei back. There are obvious limits to what we can do as Americans, but we can deny the privilege of visiting our country and accessing our financial system. This bill 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 and invest abroad. I hope others, especially in the EU, UK, and Canada will adopt similar sanctions.

This measure is also about the future and protecting our business interests abroad by making it clear that, even if your home country allows you to trample the rule of law, we will not stand by and become an unwitting accomplice in your crimes.

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 armful 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 heroic 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 depravations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to such a test. For those corrupt officials who abuse their office, Sergei's life stands as a rebuke to what is left of their consciences. To those who suffer unjustly, Sergei's experience can be a reminder to draw strength from and to know that they are not completely alone in their struggle.

In closing, I wish to address those prominent Russian human rights defenders who just a couple weeks ago appealed to our government and to European leaders to adopt the sanctions I called for in my April letter to Secretary Clinton. You are the conscience of Russia and we have heard your plea. You are not alone, and while you and your fellow citizens must do the heavy lifting at home, I assure you that ``human rights'' are not empty words for this body and for my government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2010.

As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I first learned about Sergei Magnitsky at a hearing I held on Russia in June 2009.

Sergei Magnitsky was a young Russian anti-corruption lawyer employed by a prominent American law firm in Moscow who blew the whistle on the largest known tax rebate fraud in Russian history perpetrated by high level Russian officials. After discovering this complex and brazen corruption scheme, Sergei Magnitsky dutifully testified to the authorities detailing the conspiracy to defraud the Russian people of approximately $230 million and naming the names of those officials. 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 and died in an isolation cell while prison doctors waited outside his door on November 16, 2009.

In April of this year I sent a letter to our Secretary of State urging a visa ban for Russian officials connected to the death of Sergei Magnitsky. I also released a list of 60 senior officials from the Russian Interior Ministry, Federal Security Service, Federal Tax Service, Regional Courts, General Prosecutor's Office, and Federal Prison Service, along with detailed descriptions of their involvement in this matter. My bill reminds the Department of State that I have not forgotten and will not forget this issue. In fact, this bill goes a bit further adding an asset freeze provision to be applied against those implicated in this tragic affair.

Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer with what should have been a promising career ahead of him died at age 37 leaving behind a mother, a wife, and two boys who never saw him or even heard his voice after his arrest. Since his death, no one has been held accountable and some of those involved even have been promoted. Also, there is strong evidence that the criminal enterprise that stole the money from the Russian treasury and falsely imprisoned and tortured Magnitsky, continues to operate. In fact, the American founding partner of Magnitsky's firm fled Russia for his safety in the months following his colleague's death after learning that a similar fraud scheme was attempted by the same criminals.

This is a heartbreaking story, and let me be clear, my bill does not even attempt to deliver justice as that would be impossible since nothing can bring Sergei back. There are obvious limits to what we can do as Americans, but we can deny the privilege of visiting our country and accessing our financial system. This bill 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 and invest abroad. I hope others, especially in the EU, UK, and Canada will adopt similar sanctions.

This measure is also about the future and protecting our business interests abroad by making it clear that, even if your home country allows you to trample the rule of law, we will not stand by and become an unwitting accomplice in your crimes.

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 armful 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 heroic 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 depravations and cruelty without breaking and certainly none of us would want to be put to such a test. For those corrupt officials who abuse their office, Sergei's life stands as a rebuke to what is left of their consciences. To those who suffer unjustly, Sergei's experience can be a reminder to draw strength from and to know that they are not completely alone in their struggle.

In closing, I wish to address those prominent Russian human rights defenders who just a couple weeks ago appealed to our government and to European leaders to adopt the sanctions I called for in my April letter to Secretary Clinton. You are the conscience of Russia and we have heard your plea. You are not alone, and while you and your fellow citizens must do the heavy lifting at home, I assure you that ``human rights'' are not empty words for this body and for my government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to join me today in honoring the work of Terry Allen Perl, who has served the Chimes Family of Services for 40 years.

The Chimes Family of Services is an international agency delivering a wide variety of support to more than 17,000 people. Chimes offers an extensive range of services from educational services to residential support and psychiatric services. It serves people of all ages and varying levels of ability, providing assistance to people with developmental disabilities, mental illness, and other specialized needs. It offers an important support network to people with disabilities and their families as they work to achieve their goals, aspirations, and dreams.

Terry Allen Perl started his career with Chimes, Inc. in January of 1971. He was the first director of a community-based residential facility in the State of Maryland for people with intellectual disabilities. His vision and leadership over the intervening years have led to the extraordinary success of the organization as he has helped to expand its educational, habilitation, employment, vocational, residential, and support services.

Under Mr. Perl's leadership, Chimes has moved from being a provider of services to one of the largest contractors employing people with disabilities. Chimes provides janitorial and facility services for the U.S. Government and for the State of Maryland.

Under Mr. Perl's guidance, Chimes has expanded from serving 200 people in the Baltimore area to more than 17,000 people from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and the State of Israel.

Mr. Pearl has received numerous awards and honors in recognition of his innovative and pioneering programs. He has been a leader and member of numerous professional organizations including: ANCOR, American Network of Community Options and Resources, CARF, Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, AAMR, American Association on Mental Retardation, Maryland Works, Baltimore City Mayor's Commission on Disabilities, Developmental Disabilities Council, Baltimore County Workforce Investment Council, and the Baltimore County Commission on Disabilities. He is a frequent lecturer, consultant, and advisor to numerous provider agencies, advocacy groups, associations, and government entities. During his tenure as president and chief executive officer, Chimes has become nationally and internationally recognized as a provider of services and jobs for those with disabilities.

I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Terry Allen Perl for his 40 years of dedicated service to the Chimes Family of Services organization and for his outstanding contributions to improving the lives of people with disabilities and their families and communities in Maryland, throughout our Nation, and in Israel.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in paying special tribute to the Job Opportunities Task Force, JOTF, an independent advocacy and monitoring organization in Baltimore, MD, that is celebrating 10 years of service.

JOTF was begun in 1996 by a handful of people who were concerned about job opportunities for low-skilled job seekers in the Baltimore area. They called themselves the Job Opportunities Task Force, and they hoped they could help unemployed and underemployed men and women. They had a short-term goal, which was to come up with ideas and recommendations that would break down barriers to better employment and to bring private and public partners together to implement these changes.

In 1997, the Abell Foundation gave JOTF a grant to prepare a report on the job gap that would present detailed information about what types of jobs were available in the Baltimore region, where they were located, what they paid, what levels of education and skills were required, and where the potential workers were. The report, entitled ``Baltimore Area Jobs and Low Skill Job Seekers,'' was published in l999 and revealed many gaps between the workforce and the jobs that were available--far too many impediments to be solved with a few meetings.

Since its incorporation in 2000, JOTF has become a leading voice on workforce issues in Maryland, supporting a range of State policy initiatives and budget decisions, including increased investment in adult education and job training in communities and in prisons. JOTF has lobbied to expand the earned income tax credit, reduce barriers to (re)employment for ex-offenders, and reform unemployment insurance.

JOTF designs programs that create viable career paths for low-wage workers, helping them reach higher wage jobs in industries that need more skilled workers. A good example of JOTF's success is JumpStart, a pre-apprenticeship program created and managed by JOTF that trains 100 low-wage Baltimore residents each year to become licensed electricians, plumbers, or carpenters. JOTF also convenes public meetings on local and national topics related to employment and the workforce. These meetings attract employers, policymakers, interested citizens, and direct service providers. JOTF's research informs policymakers and the public and encourages the development of programs based on best practices. It explores the impact of specific policies and provides recommendations on how policies can better serve workers, families, employers, and the State's economy.

JOTF is making a significant difference in Maryland. I urge my colleagues to join me today in congratulating JOTF's founding chair, Joanne Nathans, whose gentle nature and steely convictions have improved the lives of countless Baltimoreans and their families. Please join me in sending best wishes to JOTF on the occasion of its 10th anniversary and in thanking JOTF for improving the lives of Maryland job seekers, workers, and their families.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate will have a cloture vote shortly on the motion to proceed to S. 3816. I hope that we will overcome a procedural roadblock to the Senate considering this legislation and proceed to the bill and pass it. While the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, has determined that the recession is over, it is clear that we have much more work to do getting Americans back to work. According to NBER, the recession lasted 18 months, which makes it the longest of any recession since World War II.

It is important to note that NBER did not conclude the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, NBER determined only that the recession ended in June 2009 and a recovery began in that month. According to NBER:

(E)conomic activity is typically below normal in the early

stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into

the expansion.

Aggregate employment frequently reaches its trough after the NBER trough for overall ``economic activity'' and the 2007-2009 recession is no exception. That is why this jobs bill is critically important. The economy is still fragile; everyone knows that. So let's do something about it.

S. 3816 has incentives to create jobs here in America and disincentives to moving American jobs overseas.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor certified a Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, petition brought on behalf of human resources personnel at Hewlett-Packard in 10 different States, including Maryland--Ellicott City--that have seen their jobs shipped to Panama. Now, if H-P employees have questions about their pay or their leave or their benefits, they have to call Panama. It is exactly that type of shipping jobs offshore that we need to prevent.

S. 3816 removes tax incentives that allow companies such as H-P to eliminate jobs here, outsourcing that work with the products or services consumed in the U.S. market.

Just since the beginning of 2007, the Department of Labor has certified 50 TAA petitions involving laid-off workers who live in Maryland.

In many cases, the firms involved in these certifications had U.S. tax incentives to ship jobs overseas. S. 3816 helps to eliminate those incentives.

To encourage businesses to create jobs here in the United States, the bill allows businesses to skip the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax for up to 2 years on wages paid to new U.S. employees performing services in the United States. To be eligible, businesses have to certify that the U.S. employee is replacing an employee who had been performing similar duties overseas.

This payroll tax holiday is available for workers hired during the 3- year period beginning September 22, 2010. The Social Security trust fund will be made whole from general revenues, a provision that costs $1.09 billion over 10 years.

The bill eliminates subsidies that U.S. taxpayers provide to firms that move facilities offshore. It prohibits a firm from taking any deduction, loss, or credit for amounts paid in connection with reducing or ending the operation of a trade or business in the U.S. and starting or expanding a similar trade or business overseas.

This provision raises $277 million over 10 years.

The bill would not apply to any severance payments or costs associated with outplacement services or employee retraining provided to any employees who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring.

S. 3816 also ends the Federal tax subsidy that rewards U.S. firms for moving their production overseas. Under current law, U.S. companies can defer paying U.S. tax on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until that income is brought back to the United States. This is known as ``deferral.''

Deferral has the effect of putting these firms at a competitive advantage over U.S. firms that hire U.S. workers to make products here in America.

The bill repeals deferral for companies that reduce or close a business in the U.S. and start or expand a similar business overseas for the purpose of importing their products or services for sale in the United States. U.S. companies that locate facilities abroad in order to sell their products overseas are unaffected by this proposal.

Ending deferral raises $92 million over 10 years.

I think there is a huge need and a great deal of merit in considering a bill to encourage American firms to keep their plants and factories here in America and to hire American workers.

Too many Americans are looking for work and can't find jobs. The recession hasn't ended for them. I hope the Senate will move forward on legislation that will keep jobs in America and put Americans back to work and begin to put this terrible recession behind us. It is time to ship American goods and services--not American jobs--overseas.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue in opposing the Senate Joint Resolution 30. I join him in urging my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

The National Mediation Board is an important entity. They have the responsibility to oversee labor-management relations in the rail and aviation industry. On May 11 of this year, they issued a final rule that allowed a majority of voting employees--let me repeat that, a rule that allows a majority of the voting employees--to determine the outcome of union representation elections.

I don't understand the controversy. I thought we all agreed that majority rules, as far as what should happen. The rule is common sense. Let me explain the problem. I know it has been said before on the floor.

Prior to this regulation, if a person did not show up and did not vote, it was counted as a negative. Suppose we conducted our elections that way. Suppose we were to say that if a majority of people do not show up to vote, you do not have an election. It makes sense that we count the votes that are cast. We don't know, from who does not vote, how they would vote, and to say that is a negative defies the democratic system we hold so dear in this country. Not participating voters were counted as ``no'' votes, and this regulation makes it clear that will no longer be the case.

Opponents of this rule change argue the Board does not have the authority to change the rule. That is not true also. The Railway Labor Act gives the NMB discretion on conducting union elections and procedure is not outlined in the statute. U.S. Supreme Court and District Court decisions have confirmed that authority, so they have that authority.

Then the opponents say this rule is about the Employee Free Choice Act, an issue that has some controversy among some of my Members. But that is not true. This rule deals with areas where we already have union representation.

I was proud to join 38 of my Senate colleagues in signing a letter in December of 2009, encouraging the National Mediation Board to change its outdated union election procedures. That is exactly what they have done. The old procedure is not used in any other union elections. It does not follow the democratic norm for elections that all Americans value and respect. The old procedure does not even make any sense.

I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 30. To me, this is a matter of basic fairness. It is a matter of what the values of our Nation are all about. Those who participate get the right to decide. You cannot participate by not participating and that is what the rule makes clear. We will count the votes that are cast, but we are not going to count those votes that are not cast. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I will withhold it.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the DREAM Act amendment to the 2010 National Defense Administration Act. This is bipartisan legislation that provides sound economic and national security benefits to our Nation.

I have long supported the DREAM Act primarily because it provides a pathway forward for young men and women who have played by the rules all of their lives, graduated high school and now want to give back to this country. These are young people who had no say in how or when they came to our country, but somehow, their parents or other relatives brought them here to live a better life.

Now, we could spend an infinite amount of time debating what to do with the undocumented adults who have come to the U.S.--and I hope that we do eventually get to that debate--but the focus of this measure is the children. We are talking about the innocent children, who, for the most part, have known no other home than America and deserve a way forward now that they are reaching adulthood.

Every year, thousands of undocumented students who live in the United States graduate from high school. Among these students you will find valedictorians, honor roll students, and community leaders who are committed to the United States and their local communities. It is estimated that there are 65,000 such young people who graduate from high school in the United States and find themselves unable to work, go to college, or serve this country in the military.

The young people who would be DREAM Act eligible would have graduated high school, passed a background check and be of good moral character. It is why the DREAM Act is supported by the Secretary of the Department of Education, the National Education Association, the Association of American Universities and many others. Leading businesses like Microsoft endorse the DREAM Act because they recognize these young people are talented and can be a benefit to U.S. businesses in this global economy. DREAM Act-eligible young people are exactly the type of individuals we want to be part of our great society.

The DREAM Act is a smart, targeted piece of legislation that will only benefit children who were brought to this country before the age of 16 and have been living here for at least 5 years.

From an economic perspective, the DREAM Act provides clear fiscal benefits to our local communities and our Nation. State and local taxpayers have invested time and money in these young people through elementary and secondary education expecting that eventually they will become contributing, tax-paying members of our society. With education budgets as tight as they are, why would any community throw away such an investment?

Take this for example: a young immigrant who graduates from college will pay $5,300 more in taxes and cost taxpayers $3,900 less in government expenses each year than if he or she dropped out of high school. Additionally, our own Department of Defense recommended in their 2010-2012 strategic plan the passage of the DREAM Act to help the military ``share and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force.'' The former Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, stated ``the DREAM Act will materially expand the pool of individuals qualified, ready and willing to serve their country in uniform.'' The DREAM Act provides a smart and narrow pathway for eligible young people to go on to college or enter our military.

Lastly, supporting the DREAM Act is the proper next step toward taking up comprehensive immigration reform. The American people have spoken on this issue. They would like Congress to step up and deal with this issue. According to a recent Fox News poll, 68 percent of voters, including Republicans, Democrats and Independents, say that efforts to secure the border should be combined with reform of Federal immigration laws. I agree, which is why I voted in favor of providing $600 million for 1,500 new border patrol agents, additional monitoring and communications equipment in August. That funding and those resources were an important step to ensure our Nation's borders are secure; just like passing the DREAM Act is an important step to ensure our country has the best and brightest individuals contributing to our economy and society.

Additionally, the DREAM Act has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. During this Congress Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar introduced the legislation. But in the 108th Congress the legislation had the support of Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn. During the last Congress, 23 Republican Senators voted in favor of this legislation when it was offered as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill. There is a strong bipartisan history to this legislation and strong public support.

No child should be held accountable for the sins of their parents. This targeted, bipartisan legislation recognizes this fact and shows compassion to the innocent. It provides a pathway forward for young men and women who have played by the rules all of their lives, graduated high school and now want to give back to this country. These are young people who truly deserve a second chance. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about an issue that came up frequently during my townhall meetings in Maryland in August, and that subject dealt with campaign finance reform and what we need to do to restore public confidence in our election system.

I must tell you, there wasn't a single person in Maryland who told me that we needed more special interest corporate spending in elections. There wasn't a single person who told me there is too much disclosure of information as to where contributors come from. It was the reverse. People in

Maryland believe there is too much special interest money in our campaigns. They believe they have a right to know where all campaign contributions and expenditures come from. They want true campaign finance reform.

The interesting thing is that we know how difficult it is to pass campaign finance reform legislation. I was part of the Congress that passed, in 2002, the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It wasn't easy to get it done, and it was a bipartisan bill. We made strong headway in that legislation to restrict corporate money. I must tell you, I think the public appreciated the efforts that were made, appreciated that it was bipartisan, and knew we did make progress in limiting what corporations can spend in Federal elections. Corporations can participate. They can have their employees work for political action committees. But it is very transparent, open, and it is limited, so that we have some control of the amount of special interest money coming into our Federal elections.

Then comes Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that reversed the actions of Congress, that reversed the 2002 bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It was a decision--5-to-4--by the Supreme Court, where the so- called--and I use this term gently--conservative Justices, who, in my view are the most judicial activists, reversed precedent and congressional action and expanded what corporations can do in Federal elections.

I was listening to Senator Bennett talk about how unfair it was that a documentary was treated differently. Well, as Justice Stevens said in that case:

Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited

nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to

give themselves an opportunity to change the law. There were

principled, narrow paths that a court that was serious about

judicial restraint could have taken.

They could have dealt with the issue Senator Bennett talked about. But, no, instead they opened the door completely for corporations to spend money in Federal elections.

Let me quote from Public Citizen Congress Watch. Their research director Taylor Lincoln said:

The Supreme Court has completely lifted restrictions on

corporate spending on elections.

That is moving in the exact opposite direction the people of this Nation want us to move in, dealing with campaign finance reform-- reversing the actions of Congress and indeed their own decisions. This wasn't the first time. I can give you a lot of chapter and verse how the so-called, again, judges who are supposed to be conservative have been judicial activists. They did that in the Lilly Ledbetter case. In that case, they reversed previous precedent and made it virtually impossible for a woman to be able to bring a case based on gender discrimination in the workforce. We took that Supreme Court decision and the Congress did the right thing. We made sure that the intent of Congress was carried out. We passed a bill to give gender equity and opportunity to bring an effective suit if one is discriminated against in the workforce.

We need to do the same thing on campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court has acted. I disagree with their decision. Now Congress needs to act in order to restore some confidence with the American people. I applaud Senator Schumer in his efforts to bring forward legislation-- the DISCLOSE Act--and this bill is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. I don't believe corporations are equal to individuals, as far as spending money and contributing in a campaign. But we will debate that issue on another day. That is not what this bill does. It does something I thought virtually every Member in this Congress agreed on, which is that the public has a right to know who is spending money in a campaign--to disclose where you are spending money, where it is coming from.

If you, as a candidate for the Senate, put an ad on television, you have to identify that it is your ad. The public has a right to know who is responsible for the money being spent on the ad being put on television. That is not true under Citizens United. Corporations can now spend money without accepting responsibility for the ad, and without the public knowing the source of the ad. That is plain wrong. We have an opportunity to correct that, consistent with the Supreme Court decision. This is not about trying to reverse the Supreme Court decision. I would like to do that, but that is not what this is about. This is about making sure the public knows who is spending money in a campaign. I thought everybody agreed on this.

Let me quote from the leaders of the Republican Party in the House and Senate. Senator McConnell said:

Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending

should be expected so voters can judge for themselves what is

appropriate.

Our Republican leader was right on that.

House Republican Leader Boehner said:

I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full

disclosure. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I can quote lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans. Quite frankly, I don't know Members who are against disclosure. Yet some of my colleagues will be voting against it. To me, it is hard to understand why, when this bill is narrowly focused and its principal objective is to make sure voters know who is spending money in an election. Does it do other things? Yes. I didn't think there were objections to the other provisions, such as making sure foreign corporations cannot contribute. Well, you know, I thought that is what we all agreed on. Government contractors--restricting what they can do. It is consistent with the Supreme Court decision, where eight of the nine Justices acknowledged that it would be OK for Congress to enact legislation concerning disclosure.

So I come back to our responsibility. We are not on the Supreme Court of the United States. That is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to enact laws. Our responsibility is to respond to the needs of this Nation, to respond to what our constituents want us to do. Quite frankly, our constituents want us to take up campaign finance reform. They want us to do a lot more than just the DISCLOSE Act, when it comes to campaign finance reform. I am one of those who supports public financing of campaigns.

I think it would be far better for the people of Maryland and this Nation to have less special interest money financing campaigns. I think it would be better to have some public way in which they can know the candidates running. I think we should require our networks to provide air time for debates. That is not today's debate, but it is whether we can move the ball forward on campaign financing that makes sense. In other words, let's not move backward. Let us do what the Supreme Court told us we can do in regard to corporate spending.

Let's do what Members of this body have said we should do, and that is require that we disclose the source not only of those who contribute to our campaigns but those who spend money on behalf of getting us elected or defeated. We have a right, the voter has a right to know that. Those who are responsible for the act should have the courage to disclose the moneys they are spending and take responsibility for the ads they produce.

I could go on with additional information that we have--some of these organizations that are organized under the Internal Revenue Code. I can show you that we are not going to be able to have adequate enforcement of that. One thing we can do, which I hope we can agree on, is to pass the DISCLOSE Act so the public has the information to judge who is getting involved in our campaigns, and then I hope that Democrats and Republicans can join to make sure the integrity of our election system is strengthened.

Confidence in government depends upon the people of our Nation believing that our elections are open and fair. We spend a lot of time in other countries making sure their election process is right. We need to do a better job here in America. It can start this week by allowing us to debate the DISCLOSE Act. Let's not hide behind the filibuster. Let's bring it forward and have the debate on the floor, and let us respond to our constituents. They have the right to know who is spending money in this election.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to pay special tribute to the Dolle family on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Dolle's Candyland of Ocean City, MD. For the past century, Dolle's has been one of the jewels of Ocean City's famous boardwalk, helping thousands of vacationing families build warm summer memories and providing treats for lucky relatives and co-workers back home.

For its entire history, this Eastern Shore landmark has been presided over by men named Rudolph Dolle. The first of the line, the grandfather of the current proprietor, left his home in New York in 1910 to install an old-fashioned hand-made carousel on what was then the small Ocean City boardwalk at the corner of Wicomico Street. Soon after the Dolles built their carousel, the man who sold saltwater taffy next door fell upon hard times and offered to sell his business to Rudolph and his wife Amelia. Sales of salt water taffy quickly became the family's main livelihood and were followed by homemade fudge and caramel popcorn.

The original merry-go-round burned to the ground in 1925 but the candy business continued to flourish. In 1910, shop hands cooked the saltwater taffy in small copper kettles before it was cut and wrapped piece by piece by the store's employees. Today, the copper kettles can cook 150 pounds of taffy at once, and the pulling, cutting, and wrapping is now performed by machines that can produce 650 pieces of taffy every minute, allowing Dolle's to sell an average of almost 3,000 pounds of taffy per day during the busy summer season.

The flagship store has been enlarged but remains on the original site at Wicomico Street and the boardwalk. A second store further north in Ocean City is now open, and Dolle's now offers other homemade candy treats, including caramels, gummy bears, and seasonal chocolates for the holidays.

Four generations of the Dolle family have worked behind the counter and in the kitchen. They take great pride in their customer service and civic engagement and provide free shipping to all orders sent to military addresses.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring the Dolle family on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the founding of Dolle's Candyland, and in sending along best wishes for many more generations of the Dolle family who will continue the family business and tradition on the boardwalk in Ocean City, MD.

Mr. President, I take this time, first, to thank Senator Landrieu for her persistence in bringing forward legislation that is going to help small businesses. We are on the verge, I hope this week, to finally pass in the Senate legislation that will help the small businesses in our country--H.R. 5297 that is now before us. Hopefully we are going to be able to get this legislation through the Senate.

What this bill does is create jobs. I am proud to serve on the Small Business Committee. We have been working long and hard, and many of the provisions we have supported in our committee on a strong bipartisan basis are included in the legislation that is now before us.

This bill is about helping small businesses so we can create more jobs for our communities. I think my colleagues will all agree and acknowledge that more jobs are created through small companies than through large companies. If we are going to be able to grow our economy, we have to be able to help our small businesses.

It is also known that innovation is more likely to come from the opportunities from small companies. So we need to pay attention to and help our small companies help our economy grow. The bill that is before us incorporates many of the provisions that have been voted on in a bipartisan way by the Small Business Committee. But let me tell you this: I traveled the State of Maryland during our August break when we are back in our States. I had a chance to visit all parts of the State of Maryland and visited many small business owners. The No. 1 issue they continued to raise with me is the ability to be able to borrow money, to get credit for their businesses to expand.

We spent a lot of time trying to help the Wall Street bankers, but, quite frankly, it has not gotten to the small business owners. They are not able to get the type of loan at an affordable cost so that they can expand their businesses. This bill will help. This bill provides strength to the SBA.

I think all of us agree, the Small Business Administration has the tools to help small companies. But we need to give them the tools that can work in the current economy. So this legislation extends the 7(a) loans under the SBA from $2 million to $5 million, the 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, and the micro loans. They may not seem like a lot of money, $35,000 to $50,000, but that could be the key piece of the puzzle necessary for a company to start or expand and create more jobs in our communities.

The legislation also extends the SBA guarantees to 90 percent and waives the costs so we can make it affordable. The legislation sets up an intermediary lending program so that we encourage banks to make more loans to small businesses. In all, it is estimated that it will generate $5 billion of credit for small businesses, creating 300,000 jobs. That is quite a step forward, quite an important step forward to help our communities.

In addition, the legislation includes help to our States. In the State of Maryland, we have our own program. Governor O'Malley has a program that is aggressively helping small companies in Maryland. The problem is, as you know, State budgets are strapped. This bill provides $1.5 billion more for the programs our States are operating in order to expand those programs. That will be leveraged to far more than $1.5 billion of new credit to small companies. It will provide substantial help in Maryland and all of the States of our Nation.

The bill also deals with the continuing problem of contracting. If you are a small company, you are trying to get a contract with the Federal Government--you do not have a lot of contract officers in your business, you are trying to be very efficient, you need help so you can get a fair shake in bidding for a Federal contract.

Unfortunately, today there have been abuses known as bundling where agencies have bundled together a lot of small contracts into a large contract, making it very difficult for a small company to get any part of that Federal contract. In addition, there is prime contractor abuse in not paying the subcontractors on time, which are generally more likely to be the smaller companies.

This legislation incorporates the work of our committee to make it easier for Federal procurement officers to enter into contracts with small businesses. The proposal is estimated to create another 100,000 jobs in our communities.

This is what we need to do. These are not partisan issues. These are bipartisan. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with our efforts to try to help small businesses with more credit or make it easier for them to deal with the Federal Government.

One other major part that will create jobs in our communities is to make it easier for small companies to be exporting goods to other countries. We all talk about keeping jobs in America. Let's not outsource. Let's keep the jobs right here in America. Well, again, if you are a small company, and you are trying to get through the bureaucracy of exporting, it can become very difficult. This legislation makes it easier for our small companies to be able to participate in international trade, keeping jobs here in America, creating more jobs, helping our economy, reducing the balance of payment problems we have with other countries. It is a win-win situation for the U.S. economy.

In addition, this legislation provides tax relief for small companies. Tax relief. We all talk about that. You get higher deductions for startup costs so small companies can get help from the Federal Government as far as tax relief.

It provides tax equity for small companies in the deductions of their health insurance costs, and allows for the continued writeoff of capital expenditures that were included in the Recovery Act. So there are a lot of tools to help small companies grow. But here is the good news: It is done without adding any money to the deficit of the country. It is totally paid for. We all understand we have to energize the growth of jobs in our economy, but we cannot do it at the cost of raising the deficit. This bill provides the tools but makes sure that we do not add to the deficit of the country, again, strengthening the underlying economy so that we get true job growth.

I thank all who have been responsible to help bring this bill together. I think it is an important step forward in creating new jobs and helping our economy grow and helping small companies help our country. I am proud to support this legislation and hope we can move it quickly this week and get the tools out there helping our small companies grow, creating more jobs for the people in our communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116, which will celebrate its 75th anniversary on November 6, 2010. The American Legion Department of Maryland has 147 active posts. Reisterstown Post 116 is the largest post and the largest wartime veterans service organization in the State of Maryland. The Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 was formed on November 6, 1935, by a group of 13 charter members. By 1986, the post had expanded to more than 400 members, including a Sons of the American Legion Squadron of 75 members, an American Legion Auxiliary of about 100 members, and an active Legion Riders organization.

Part of the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116's success has been its involvement in the northwest Baltimore County community. The post awards scholarships to students, participates in the American Legion Boys and Girls State programs, and assists the Reisterstown Recreation Council. Post 116 also provides volunteers and donations to many charitable organizations, including the Maryland Special Olympics, the Epilepsy Foundation, United Cerebral Palsy, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Post 116 on its 75th anniversary, and to join me in commending the post's leadership, past and present, and in extending our thanks to its members for their service to Reisterstown Post 116, the Baltimore community, and to our country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for START, the nuclear arms reduction treaty pending before the Senate.

This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, will convene to vote on this New START Treaty. Since the treaty was signed by the United States and Russia in April, both the Foreign Relations and the Armed Services Committees have conducted more than a dozen hearings, both open and classified, to examine the essential goal of this treaty: to advance the national security of the United States.

After hours of testimony from some of the most knowledgeable people in and out of government, as well as public statements of support from countless experts, we can say with great confidence that the Senate's ratification of the START Treaty is in our national interest.

Witnesses who testified before the committee come from wide backgrounds of the government, academia,

and private industry. Former government officials, both civilian and military, who have held positions of the highest responsibility for our national defense and nuclear security--including former Republican administration officials who had negotiated and implemented previous START treaties--were among those who testified and called for the treaty's speedy ratification.

All have been experts, with years, if not decades, of experience in the field of national security and arms control, and all have strongly endorsed ratification of the treaty.

In addition to its contribution to America's security, one of the most compelling reasons for the full Senate to ratify this treaty, and move quickly to do so, is to regain our insight into Russia's strategic offensive arms. Since START I expired last December, we have had no comprehensive verification regime in place to help us understand Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

We need the transparency to know what Russia is doing to provide confidence and stability, and we need that confidence and stability to contribute to a safer world. We will only regain that transparency by ratifying this treaty, and we are in dangerous territory without it.

Previous arms control treaties have been ratified with overwhelming bipartisan support. START I was passed 93 to 6 in 1994, and the Moscow Treaty passed 95 to 0 in 2003. Legislators recognized then that an arms control agreement between Russia and the United States is not just good for the security of our two nations but can lead the way for the rest of the world to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The ratification of this treaty reconfirms U.S. leadership on nuclear arms reduction and nonproliferation.

Over the past several months we have had ample time to review the documents and reports related to the treaty. I am sure my colleagues will join me in recognizing the necessity of ratifying New START. Not only will this treaty enhance the national security of the United States, it will serve as a significant step forward in our relationship with Russia, a key partner in the overall U.S. strategy to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. I am glad to offer my support in the Foreign Relations Committee and look forward to the full Senate's ratification of this treaty as soon as possible.

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

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

More than 12 years ago, Black farmers across America brought a class action suit against the USDA for racial discrimination. The history of that discrimination is a sad one, and it is well documented. Farmers, like 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. But when it came to lending, 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; the average time for a loan application by Black farmers was 387 days. Black farmers had to wait 12 times as long to receive a loan. 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 filed 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 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 downpayment 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 budgets. 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. But the Senate has not been able to do the same. Despite the majority leader's efforts in finding ways to pay for the legislation and move the legislation for full Senate consideration, we have been unable to proceed to a rollcall vote. This bill has come before the Senate a half dozen times. There are no known objections to the settlement, yet we have failed to pass the funding therefore denying the process for funding to these farmers who were discriminated against by our own government.

We must move to appropriate these funds. The settlement that was reached is only valid until August 18, 2010. Failure to appropriate the money by then could cause the agreement to be voided. William Gladstone once said that ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' Let us not be in the business of delaying and denying justice for African-American farmers. Let us be in the business of allowing the justice system to work and provide them with adequate redress. I urge my colleagues to support this funding.