Floor Statements

Mr. President, tomorrow marks the 45th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation which helped guarantee the right to vote to all Americans. As we approach the upcoming midterm elections, it is important to remember the journey of voting rights in America. Without this right, words and phrases like ``democracy,'' ``land of the free,'' and ``equality'' lack true meaning.

The right to vote traveled a long ugly road--a road we must all remember. Edmund Burke once said ``those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it.'' Some would say they are doomed to repeat it. For this reason, on this day and every day, we should remember how Americans, Black and White; young and old; men and women; stood, marched and fought together for equal access to the voting booth. We must ensure that all barriers to voting are removed.

There are many people who contributed to the voting rights movement. Today I would like to highlight one woman--Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, a woman who was ``sick and tired of being sick and tired'' when it came to the denial of equal voting rights. Hamer, a great American hero, led a

life most people could not imagine today. Despite having polio and only 4 months of schooling, Hamer became a matriarch of the voting rights movement.

On August 31, 1962, Hamer decided to exercise her constitutional right to vote by traveling 26 miles in Mississippi to register only to be confronted by the highway patrol and literary test requirements. After being denied her right to vote she didn't just sit down, she stood up and joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and traveled all across the country speaking and registering other people to vote.

Hamer also helped organize ``Freedom Summer'' in 1964. She and thousands of civil rights supporters, many of them White college students, traveled to Mississippi and other Southern States to try to end the long time political disenfranchisement of African Americans in the region. Despite these nonviolent efforts for equality, on the very first day of Freedom Summer, three volunteers were brutally murdered. As America continued to march toward equality the Nation and its political leaders began to realize the horrific battle being waged against African Americans seeking equal treatment under the law.

As violence and frustration mounted, President Johnson pushed Congress to act and pass voting rights legislation. After research, multiple hearings and the longest filibuster in Senate history, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This bill provided all Americans--regardless of color--with nationwide protections against barriers and access to the voting booth. It contained protections against systematic methods of disenfranchisement by States and localities. Since its enactment, Congress has reauthorized the landmark legislation in an effort to remain vigilant against any forms of disenfranchisement.

In 2006, when Congress last took up reauthorization of this legislation, civil rights leader Congressman John Lewis said, ``forty- one years ago I gave a little blood on that bridge. So when I see what's happening in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, it's a beginning of an effort not only to violate the letter but the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And that must not be allowed to happen.'' With overwhelming bipartisan support, the House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 390-33 and the U.S. Senate passed the bill by a vote of 98-0.

Despite the bipartisan support and a large array of evidence demonstrating the continuing need for this legislation, some have argued that this legislation is no longer warranted. To those people, I say you are wrong. I have seen examples in my own State that prove how necessary this legislation is today. During my Senate campaign, just 4 years ago--the very same time the Congress was providing near unanimous support for the Voting Rights Act--I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing deceptive practices and tactics used to undermine the constitutional right to vote. Lines were inexplicably longer and slower at polling locations in African-American districts and not simply because there were more people voting. Phone calls were made to minority districts reminding them to vote on Wednesday, not Tuesday; and a fraudulent sample ballot was targeted to confuse minority voters. I remind you that this was in 2006, not 1956.

Just two years later, in the 2008 election, substantial barriers were implemented making it difficult for eligible voters to vote. These included the purging of voter rolls, misleading voter information and voter intimidation. Take for example, an election administrator in Mississippi improperly purging approximately 10,000 voters from the rolls from her home computer; or the local prosecutor in Ohio who requested via subpoena personal information for 40 percent of voters who had registered during the same day registration and voting period in the State. These are real examples of incidents occurring today--45 years after we passed the Voting Rights Act.

Despite attempts to ignore or chip away at the protections provided to all Americans by the Voting Rights Act, this legislation remains relevant and provides the most significant and essential tool in ensuring continuity and the integrity of our democratic system. Our former colleague Ted Kennedy once said we need to ``seek the reign of justice in which voting rights and equal protection of the law will everywhere be enjoyed.'' On this 45th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, I urge my colleagues to continue their bipartisan support for this critical legislation and for equal access to the voting booth for all.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board's final report on its investigation into the fatal June 22, 2009, Metrorail crash on the Red Line near Fort Totten.

This report is a call to action for Congress to pass legislation that will help prevent such tragedies on our Nation's public transit systems from ever happening again.

Last week, the NTSB presented the findings of its year-long investigation into last year's Metrorail crash that killed eight passengers and the train's conductor nine total. The fatal accident also hospitalized 52 passengers with serious injuries and left approximately 30 others with minor injuries.

The investigation concluded:

The cause of the crash was a series of faulty track

circuits that failed to detect the presence of a stopped

train on the right-of-way.

The severity of the accident was compounded by the poor

crashworthiness of the 30-plus year-old railcars involved in

the accident where most of the injuries and fatalities

occurred.

Lastly, NTSB determined that safety has not been a priority

for WMATA. Simply put, Metro lacks a ``Culture of Safety''

throughout its entire organization.

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman aptly put it in her statement regarding the release of its findings: ``Metro was on a collision course long before this accident. The only question was when Metro would have another accident--and of what magnitude.''

The root cause of the crash was a faulty track circuit that failed to detect the presence of a train pulling into Fort Totten Station.

As a result, the system did not signal a second approaching train to hold at a safe distance on the track.

When working properly, the track circuits are designed to detect and trace the presence of trains on the right-of-way. This effectively prevents two trains from occupying the same stretch of track at the same time.

A particularly troubling finding of the NTSB's investigation is that a 2005 ``near accident'' on the Orange and Blue lines' in the Potomac River tunnel coming into the Rosslyn Station was caused by an identical track circuit malfunction to the one that caused the June 22 crash.

In other words, Metro knew, from firsthand experience, about the serious risks track circuit failures present.

The NTSB concluded that if WMATA had taken a lesson from the 2005 ``near accident'' at Rosslyn and made fixing the track circuit failures throughout the system a priority, the June 22, 2009, tragedy would have been avoided entirely.

The second layer of safety meant to prevent a crash in the case of a track circuit failure are automatic alerts sent to Metro Central Command to alert control officers when a track circuit failures occurs.

However, ignoring these warnings were part of Metro's operational protocol.

The NTSB reported that prior to the Red Line crash, track circuit failures were such a frequent occurrence, that Central Command was receiving an average of 3,000 system alerts a week.

Central Command's response to the overwhelming number of alerts was to implement an automatic override program.

The override allowed Metro to operate around the alerts, rather than fixing the circuit failures triggering the alerts.

The constant barrage of alerts ended up creating a culture of complacency rather than creating a culture of urgency.

This negligent managerial approach to solving the warning rather than solving the problem is entirely irresponsible and exemplifies the lack of a Safety Culture at Metro.

Because the approaching train was under automatic control it was completely reliant on receiving the correct operations signals from the track circuits.

Since the system failed, it was on the train's conductor to stop the train. The investigation concluded that operator Jeanice McMillan, of Fairfax, VA, acted quickly and appropriately to do all she could to stop the train.

The curvature of the track, combined with the high speed that the automatic controls had her train travelling at, made it impossible for Ms. McMillan to prevent her train from striking the train ahead.

Based on the emergency brake marks on the tracks, Operator McMillan acted as soon as she had visual contact with the train ahead.

She made a selfless choice to remain at her post and do everything she could

to slow the train, even when she surely must have realized that a collision was inevitable.

Operator McMillan gave her life to save her passengers. Ms. McMillan's heroism surely prevented an even greater tragedy and for that we are all grateful.

The NTSB pointed to the crashworthiness of the railcars as a major contributing factor in the severity of the accident.

These are the first-generation 1000 series cars that are subject to shearing in crash situations.

Metro has known about the compromised crashworthiness of its oldest railcars for many years.

A relatively low-speed accident at the Woodley Park Station in 2004 demonstrated how dangerous these railcars are in a crash situation. Fortunately, in that accident no one was seriously injured.

After the June 22 accident, Metro implemented a plan to place the older 1000 series cars in the center of trains as claiming that this shelters the older, less crashworthy cars in an accident.

The NTSB has pointed out that there is no factual basis for this practice, known as ``bellying,'' in creating safer trains.

The only way to make for safer trains is to get the old, unsafe railcars off the system. I am happy to report, that WMATA is working to replace the 1000 series cars incrementally with newer, safer cars.

In fact, last Monday, Metro announced it has placed the order for the 7000 series cars that will finally replace all of the oldest, most unsafe, railcars on the system.

The NTSB's top-line recommendations to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are the following:

Expedite the detection and replacement of all faulty track

circuits within the System.

Expedite the replacement or reinforcement of all of the

oldest least crashworthy railcars in operation.

Ensure that all new and current railcar cockpits are

outfitted with event data recorders.

And lastly, management, starting with the board, must

establish a culture of safety that pervades the entire

organization.

The last point is incredibly important because despite Metro's ongoing budget woes, making safety a genuine priority would come at no additional cost to WMATA.

The NTSB also had many compelling recommendations for how the Federal Transit Administration should establish better safety guidance.

Because of Metro's unique relationship with the Federal Government, the FTA should provide immediate guidance to Metro on improving the safety of its operation.

Because the FTA has no actual regulatory authority, Congress must take the NTSB's safety improvement recommendations as a call for legislative action.

We must act to ensure that the NTSB's recommendations to FTA can be implemented in a way that achieves results.

Senators Dodd, Menendez, Mikulski, and I introduced legislation requiring the Transportation Secretary to establish and implement a comprehensive transit Public Transportation Safety program.

With the support of Senator Shelby, this bill was reported out of committee and is awaiting action on the floor.

This legislation will give the FTA the ability to take decisive actions such as conducting inspections, investigations, audits, examinations of public transit systems.

The Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2010 came about at the request of the President and Transportation Secretary LaHood.

I applaud the Obama administration for recognizing the need to give the FTA legal enforcement authority of its standards and rules.

This legislation establishes the type of safety enforcement authority for the FTA that currently exists for the Federal Railroad Administration's over commuter rail systems and that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has for commercial trucking.

It makes sense for public transit systems that receive federal funding to meet federal safety requirements set by the FTA.

These are safety requirements that could have saved the lives lost in last year's Red Line crash and would help make transit systems across the country safer for all users.

Just as I believe that the Federal Government has a role in ensuring Metro is safe for its riders and employees, I also believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to help fund the safe operation of the system since Metro provides the Federal Government and its employees a vital transportation service.

I was proud to work alongside Senators Mikulski, Webb and former Senator John Warner to include major new funding authorization for Metro in the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act, which was signed into law in 2008.

This law authorizes $1.5 billion over 10 years in federal funds for WMATA, and is matched dollar-for-dollar by the local jurisdictions, for capital improvements.

This arrangement will finally provide Metro with the dedicated funding the system needs.

President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget request to Congress includes $150 million for Metro.

This builds on the substantial downpayment Senators Mikulski, Webb, Mark Warner and I were able to secure for Metro last year. I am happy to see that the Appropriations Committee has included this request in the Transportation appropriations bill reported out of Committee.

This is an important investment, but it is not nearly enough to fulfill all of Metrorail's obligations.

Metro maintains a list of ready-to-go projects totaling about $530 million and $11 billion in capital funding needs over the next decade.

When Metro was a relatively new system it was the epitome of safe and reliable public transit.

After 34 years of operation, and a managerial focus on system expansion rather than system preservation, the backlog of maintenance needs have taken its toll.

I find it unacceptable that the transit system in our Nation's Capital does not have enough resources to improve safety and maintain its aging infrastructure.

My deepest sympathies remain with the families and friends whose lives are forever affected having lost someone dear to them in last year's tragedy.

I want them to know that you and the loved ones you lost are not forgotten.

This tragedy has served as a constant reminder and inspiration for my work to fix the problems that led to the tragedy.

I call on my colleagues to honor the memory of those by working to pass the Public Transit Safety Act so that we can prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals Act of 2010 or the SAVINGS Act of 2010. This is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Deborah Halvorson and House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chair Bob Filner.

This bill ensures that beneficiaries of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, program receive financial counseling and full disclosure information regarding life insurance payments. Active duty members of the Armed Forces will be given more information as they decide on disbursement options for their beneficiaries. The SAVINGS Act offers specific protections and alternatives to life insurance policy beneficiaries. This bill requires an explanation of how the retained- asset accounts differ from traditional checking accounts and leaves flexibility for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to add more disclosure guidelines as he sees fit.

I present this bill to improve the process for our servicemembers and their families. My concern is that what has become a common industry practice, may not be an appropriate solution for every family. The SAVINGS Act addresses this challenge by requiring a greater level of disclosure and financial counseling to beneficiaries. This bill helps families make sound financial decisions during a most difficult time.

It will assist Marylanders and other Americans in difficult times. Last week National Public Radio profiled my constituent Cindy Lohman, of Great Mills, MD. Ms. Lohman lost her son Ryan when he was killed in a bombing in Afghanistan in August 2008. She had no idea that the package sent to her from the life insurance company would lead to more difficulty, during an already unbearable time.

While a mother grieved, Prudential the company that administers the SGLI policies on behalf of the Veterans Affairs Secretary began to process her survivor's benefits. Understandably too distraught to take immediate action, Ms. Lohman put away the package for 6 months. After looking over the many pages of printed forms and seeing what appeared to be a checkbook, Ms. Lohman assumed the money was in a checking account.

There were many details in that packet from the insurance company disclaimers and other specifics about the account. It turns out that this was not a standard, FDIC-insured account, but a retained-asset account managed by the insurance company.

As we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our servicemembers and their families must remain steadfast and strong. I am proud to serve in this Congress that has worked to honor our commitment to our nation's veterans and to the families of our fallen heroes. This is a good bill because it shows our commitment to do what is in the best interest of the families of the noble men and women who serve in uniform.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals Act of 2010 or the SAVINGS Act of 2010. This is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Deborah Halvorson and House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chair Bob Filner.

This bill ensures that beneficiaries of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, program receive financial counseling and full disclosure information regarding life insurance payments. Active duty members of the Armed Forces will be given more information as they decide on disbursement options for their beneficiaries. The SAVINGS Act offers specific protections and alternatives to life insurance policy beneficiaries. This bill requires an explanation of how the retained- asset accounts differ from traditional checking accounts and leaves flexibility for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to add more disclosure guidelines as he sees fit.

I present this bill to improve the process for our servicemembers and their families. My concern is that what has become a common industry practice, may not be an appropriate solution for every family. The SAVINGS Act addresses this challenge by requiring a greater level of disclosure and financial counseling to beneficiaries. This bill helps families make sound financial decisions during a most difficult time.

It will assist Marylanders and other Americans in difficult times. Last week National Public Radio profiled my constituent Cindy Lohman, of Great Mills, MD. Ms. Lohman lost her son Ryan when he was killed in a bombing in Afghanistan in August 2008. She had no idea that the package sent to her from the life insurance company would lead to more difficulty, during an already unbearable time.

While a mother grieved, Prudential the company that administers the SGLI policies on behalf of the Veterans Affairs Secretary began to process her survivor's benefits. Understandably too distraught to take immediate action, Ms. Lohman put away the package for 6 months. After looking over the many pages of printed forms and seeing what appeared to be a checkbook, Ms. Lohman assumed the money was in a checking account.

There were many details in that packet from the insurance company disclaimers and other specifics about the account. It turns out that this was not a standard, FDIC-insured account, but a retained-asset account managed by the insurance company.

As we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our servicemembers and their families must remain steadfast and strong. I am proud to serve in this Congress that has worked to honor our commitment to our nation's veterans and to the families of our fallen heroes. This is a good bill because it shows our commitment to do what is in the best interest of the families of the noble men and women who serve in uniform.

(for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Baucus) submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

S. Res. 611

Whereas President John F. Kennedy set as a national goal

the improvement of the health of the members of the United

States Armed Forces;

Whereas President Kennedy, in 1963, issued an Executive

order challenging United States Marine officers to finish a

50-mile race in 20 hours, matching a similar challenge issued

in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt;

Whereas, since that Executive order, thousands of

Americans, not just servicemen and women, have taken up the

challenge of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon;

Whereas, since the inception of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-

Marathon, all members of the Armed Services have been invited

to meet the challenge set by Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt

over an historic race course;

Whereas between 30 and 40 percent of participants in the

JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon each year are active duty military

or veterans;

Whereas each of the branches of the United States Armed

Forces fields at least 1 team each year in the JFK 50-Mile

Ultra-Marathon, and the Navy typically fields several teams;

Whereas much of the course of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-

Marathon is located on Federal land, including the historic

C&O Canal, the Appalachian Trail, and Antietam Battlefield;

Whereas the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon includes the War

Correspondents Memorial Arch, a national monument located in

Gathland State Park in the State of Maryland; and

Whereas following the assassination of President Kennedy,

the first JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon was organized as a way

to honor President Kennedy, and has been held annually, rain

or shine, ever since: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) commends and congratulates the past, present, and

future participants and organizers of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-

Marathon; and

(2) requests the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an

enrolled copy of this resolution to the Cumberland Valley

Athletic Club as an expression of the best wishes of the

Senate for a glorious year of celebration.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a package that would provide critical relief to school districts across the Nation. The proposed amendment would provide $10 billion in additional support to local school districts to prevent imminent layoffs.

It is estimated that this fund will help keep nearly 140,000 educators employed during the upcoming school year.

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act has been credited with saving 300,000 education jobs and has mitigated that impact of the recession.

As that funding comes to an end, however, massive job cuts once again threaten to stall economic recovery and damage our educational system.

Thus far, almost 80 percent of school districts across the Nation have had to lay off educators. My home State of Maryland, which is No. 1 in education according to Education Week for the second year in a row, is not immune. One Maryland county has seen 800 jobs cut, 355 of those classroom positions.

These job losses have an economic ripple effect. The Economic Policy Institute projects that every 100,000 education jobs lost causes an additional loss of 30,000 private sector jobs in local communities.

This can take a devastating toll on families and on whole communities.

As our children prepare to go back to school, let's think for a moment about what these job cuts will mean for them.

For some, the bus route has changed since there are fewer drivers so it takes a bit longer to get to school.

When students get to class, it will be a little more crowded as the class size grows to accommodate more students and fewer teachers.

The lunch lines might be longer because there are fewer cafeteria workers to serve the students.

Art, music, and even social studies programs have been cut and teachers dismissed.

Get sick at your own risk because a school nurse will no longer be available to assist with treatment.

So, the remaining teachers, in addition to performing their traditional roles, now also become nurses, counselors, and custodians to even more students.

Larger class sizes, cutting programs, and cutting support personnel such as school nurses, counselors, bus drivers, and custodians, are just a few of the ways school districts are dealing with budgeting shortfalls.

Other options include unpaid furlough days and shortened school weeks.

All of these are detrimental to the educational experience and fly in the face of what we are trying to achieve with educational reform.

There are many theories about education reform. But to put it quite simply, there can be no educational reform if there are no teachers!

The $10 billion that this package puts into the States will provide immediate relief to school districts across the Nation.

In Maryland, it could mean an estimated allocation of $178 million for Maryland, translating to 2,200 jobs.

Yet it does not add 1 cent to the deficit. The education jobs funding is fully offset, including $8.4 billion in rescissions. This is not without sacrifice. I am particularly disappointed by the rescission of $10.7 million in Department of Education innovation and improvement funds for public television's ``Ready to Teach'' program.

However, I am respectful of the difficult choices that must be made in these times of economic crisis. We need to make choices about spending. And I choose to support putting teachers to

work and giving students the best chance to learn.

I urge my colleagues to think of the mixed messages we would send to our children by not making this investment and passing this amendment.

We say to our children that they should work hard to get the best out of education but then we are not willing to work to put the best into it?

We say that our children are our future but we are not willing to invest in them?

We expect teachers to equip our children with the knowledge they need to succeed but are not willing to equip our teachers with the resources they need to succeed?

It is time to stand up for our students and teachers.

I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for education by voting yes on the proposed amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay special tribute to Simon ``Cy'' Avara on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his business, the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology.

Cy was born in Baltimore where his parents, Vincent and Mary, were working-class Italian Americans. Cy grew up watching his father work as a neighborhood barber. When Cy was 14 years old his father died in a tragic car accident. He decided to follow in his father's footsteps and, after a period of apprenticeship, he passed the Maryland State Board Barber's exam. At age 16, he opened up his own barbershop, charging 60 cents for a man's haircut.

He closed the barber shop for 2 years when he was drafted and served with the U.S. Army in Korea. After the war, Cy returned to Baltimore to establish an upscale salon to showcase his barbering talents. But his real satisfaction came from teaching others how to cut and style hair. He enjoyed helping others develop a skill that they could use throughout their lives to support themselves and their families. In 1960, he opened the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology in his southwest Baltimore neighborhood. His school was so successful that he was able to acquire another school in Dundalk, Baltimore County, 10 years later.

Cy has been recognized as a leader in his profession and he has used his knowledge of the industry to advocate for barbers and stylists. He has served in several posts over the course of his career, including secretary-treasurer of the International Barber School Association, national president of Barber Examiners, and founder and chairman of the Maryland Hair Designers Association. But most important, while the southwest Baltimore and Dundalk neighborhoods have fallen on hard times, the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology has remained as a beacon of hope and opportunity.

As a child, Cy was raised to appreciate his blessings and to help others who were less fortunate. His father gave haircuts to people who wanted to make a good impression so they could get a job; his mother gave out food to those in need in their neighborhood. Cy never forgot these lessons in generosity. For more than 40 years, he has been deeply involved with St. Vincent's Center for Abused and Neglected Children, regularly sending his barber students to cut the children's hair. He has also been a major contributor to the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation, which was started by one of his former barber students, Sam Lamantia, to honor professional football players who have overcome adversity and contributed to the betterment of their community.

On August 29, 2010, Cy will hold a Cut-AThon fundraiser to celebrate his special anniversary. The proceeds from the event will benefit the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation which supports the St. Vincent Center for Abused and Neglected Children.

I urge my colleagues to join me today to salute Simon ``Cy'' Avara; his wife Rita; his sons Michael Thomas, and Lawrence; and his daughter Susan in celebration of their achievements as humanitarians and entrepreneurs on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology.

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

Madam President, let me start by first expressing my appreciation to Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions. I have the honor of serving on the Judiciary Committee, and I think our leadership--our chairman, Senator Leahy, and our ranking Republican member, Senator Sessions--conducted the confirmation process in the best tradition of the Senate.

We had 4 days of hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Every member of the committee was afforded ample opportunity to question Solicitor General Kagan on a far range of issues, and we got complete responses. We had chances for followup questions. We even had a third round of questioning. We had outside witnesses who were before our committee. We had a chance to ask them questions as third-party validators. We also went through tens of thousands of pages of documents.

This was a very thorough confirmation process, a very open confirmation process, and a very fair confirmation process. I do thank Senator Sessions, the ranking Republican member, for the way he cooperated with Senator Leahy to make sure the Senate did its business in getting a full record before voting to confirm Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan has the experience, the intelligence, the integrity, and the temperament to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As to her experience, she was the first woman Solicitor General in the history of our Nation. She was the first woman to be dean at the Harvard Law School. Her intelligence has been acknowledged by all as to her being a person who is very capable to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Previous Solicitor Generals, including Charles Fried, Ken Starr, Ted Olson, and Paul Clement--Democrats and Republicans--stated that Elena Kagan would ``bring to the Supreme Court a breadth of experience and a history of great accomplishment in the law.'' They are Democratic and Republican former Solicitors General.

She has the integrity. We have seen third-party validators--Democrats and Republicans--testify to her integrity and legal career. She certainly has the temperament. She put up with the Senators' interrogations with a calm demeanor and good humor, which I think will serve her well on the Supreme Court of the United States.

She brings to this position experience from being a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall. I heard his name mentioned many times during this confirmation process. We in Maryland are particularly proud of Thurgood Marshall. He comes from the State of Maryland. He comes from Baltimore. He was one of the great leaders on the Supreme Court, one of the great lawyers of our time. I think we all are very proud of what America is today thanks to Justice Thurgood Marshall. I think it only adds to the qualifications of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to have clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall.

I heard my colleague talk about her commitment to our military. Let me point this out: This was a very difficult issue for Harvard Law School in regard to their policies. But let me quote, if I might, from a letter from Iraqi war veterans:

During her time as dean, she has created an environment

that is highly supportive of students who have served in the

military. . . .Under her leadership, Harvard Law School has

also gone out of its way to highlight our military service. .

. .

Students have complimented the way she acted as dean to support our veterans. She comes from a military family. In fact, during the time in question, the number of Harvard Law School students who were recruited into military service went up. So I think you have to look at the record. She has been extremely supportive of our veterans, extremely supportive of those who serve our Nation in military service.

As a last point, let me quote from Miguel Estrada. I think most people know Miguel Estrada. He was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and considered to be one of the conservative nominees. He said:

If such a person, who has demonstrated great intellect,

high accomplishments and an upright life, is not easily

confirmable, I fear we will have reached a point where no

capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial

service.

So I would hope we all could agree that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is well qualified to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

What we want from an Associate Justice is a judge who will follow legal precedent, giving due deference to Congress, following the best traditions of the Supreme Court in protecting the rights of Americans against the abuses of power. To me, that is judicial restraint, to stay within the mainstream of American values.

I believe Solicitor General Kagan represents that best tradition of following legal precedent, giving due deference to Congress, standing for ordinary Americans against the abuse of power. For those reasons, I will vote to confirm her to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

During the confirmation hearings, I used that opportunity to explain to my constituents, indeed, to the people of this Nation, that Supreme Court decisions have real consequences on the lives of our constituents. If you are a woman, if you are a consumer, if you are a worker, if you are a voter, if you care about the air you breathe or the water you drink, you should be very concerned about Supreme Court decisions. It affects your life.

I am very concerned, and I think my constituents are concerned, about recent 5-to-4 decisions where the majority, the so-called conservative Justices, legislated from the bench on the side of powerful corporate interests over protecting ordinary citizens.

During the confirmation process, I raised these issues and questioned Solicitor General Kagan on these cases in which there were 5-to-4 decisions, which reversed precedents. In my view, they were cases where they were legislating from the bench and they were restricting the rights of ordinary Americans.

I mentioned the Ledbetter case. I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with the Ledbetter case, in which a 5-to-4 decision from the Supreme Court effectively told the women of our Nation they would have no effective rights to bring wage discrimination cases based upon gender. The Supreme Court basically said the statute of limitations would run even if you did not have knowledge of the discriminatory act. Lilly Ledbetter was denied her claim as a result of that decision.

I think it is going to be healthy for America to have more women on the Supreme Court of the United States. When Elena Kagan is confirmed, she will, for the first time in America's history, be the third woman out of nine on the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that is going to give us more commonsense justice in this Nation and certainly one that reflects the diversity of our country.

It was not just the Ledbetter case. There have been other cases in which workers have found the Supreme Court has ruled on the side of special interest corporate America over the rights of

ordinary workers. In the Gross case, the Supreme Court reversed precedent, here again by a 5-to-4 decision, and ruled that we would use a different test for age discrimination, effectively denying claims by those who were discriminated against because of their age. This is another example where the so-called conservative Justices on the Supreme Court reversed precedent, reversed the clear intent of Congress, and ruled against workers in favor of corporate America.

It is not just limited to worker cases or wage cases. In the Citizens United case--this is a case we have talked about a great deal on the floor--the Supreme Court not only ruled against Congress, because we had legislated the McCain-Feingold bill, but ruled against prior Supreme Court decisions to reverse the rights of ordinary Americans in their election process. What the Citizens United case said is corporate America could spend more on elections--not already spending enough, but they could spend more. Even though Congress had passed bipartisan laws to rein in the amount of special interest corporate money and even though other cases were upheld by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went out of its way, by a 5-to-4 decision, to rule on the side of corporate America against ordinary Americans.

Here, if I might, let me quote from Justice Stevens in his dissent. Justice Stevens said:

Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited

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

themselves an opportunity to change the law . . . there were

principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious

about judicial restraint could have taken.

I agree with Justice Stevens. We all talk about wanting to see judicial restraint. We all talk about wanting to see a Supreme Court that will give due respect to the actions of Congress. We talk about following judicial precedent. We talk about following the tradition to protect your constitutional rights. Well, this Supreme Court, too many times, by 5-to-4 decisions by the so-called conservative Justices, has been the most activist Court on ruling on the side of corporate America over ordinary Americans.

It is also true in environmental cases--the Rapanos case. I have the honor of chairing the Water Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We work very hard, Congress has worked very hard, to protect our environment. It is not easy to get legislation passed in the Congress. I know all of us are frustrated that we cannot get more legislation passed. But we have gotten some very important bills passed to protect our environment, such as the Clean Water Act, and we have protected our waterways. The courts have upheld our power to do that.

But in the Rapanos case, the Court ruled, again, by the narrowest of margins, on the side of corporate America against protecting our environment, against congressional intent, against prior decisions of the Supreme Court, ruling on the side of corporate America over protecting our environment for future generations.

That was also true very recently in the Exxon v. Baker case. This was particularly important because it took over a decade for those who were damaged by the Exxon Valdez oilspill, by the episode in Alaska, to be able to get their claims brought through the courts. The Supreme Court, again, by the narrowest margin, reduced the claims of those who were damaged as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill.

I know all of us are very concerned about what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. We want to make sure BP is held fully accountable for all the damage it has caused. We in Congress need to do our work to make sure that is done. I expect we will get it done. But we also need the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the power of Congress to pass laws. We are the legislative branch of government, and too often this so-called conservative majority of the Supreme Court has ruled the other way.

I believe Solicitor General Elena Kagan will follow in the best traditions of the Supreme Court. She will follow legal precedent, allowing Congress to legislate. I say that, in part, because of her testimony before our committee. I questioned Solicitor General Kagan as to our environmental statutes and the role Congress plays.

She replied:

Congress certainly has broad authority under the

Constitution to enact legislation involving the protection of

our environment. When Congress enacts such legislation, the

job of the Court is to construe it consistent with

Congressional intent.

That is the type of Justice I want on the Supreme Court in order to protect our air and protect our water, while yielding to Congress to pass the statutes rather than legislating from the bench. Basically, I want to make sure the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is on the side of ordinary Americans.

Once again, let me quote from Solicitor General Kagan from her opening statement to the Judiciary Committee. When she was talking about equal justice under the law she said:

It means that everyone who comes before the Court--

regardless of wealth or power or station--receives the same

process and protections . . . What it promises is nothing

less than a fair shake for every American.

That, again, is what I would like to see from the Supreme Court. I want them to be on the side of ordinary Americans, giving them a fair shake, protecting them from the abuses of power, whether those abuses come from the halls of government or from corporate America. In too many cases, this Supreme Court, by narrow margins through the more conservative Justices, has not been on the side of ordinary Americans. I believe Solicitor General Kagan, as Associate Justice Kagan, will give Americans a fair shake and will continue in the best traditions of the Supreme Court in advancing Americans' rights against the abuses of power. For that reason, I intend to vote for the confirmation of Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, while speaking in support of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, I quoted from a letter received from former Solicitors General in support of Solicitor General Kagan for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It is dated June 22, 2010, signed by former Solicitors General in support of the confirmation of Elena Kagan.

I also spoke about the endorsement received from Miguel Estrada. He wrote an extraordinary letter that speaks to the qualifications of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It is addressed to the chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, and the ranking member, Jeff Sessions, dated May 14, 2010.

I ask unanimous consent these two letters be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy diRusso, an APSA legislative fellow in my office from the CIA, be accorded floor privileges during the debate on Elena Kagan to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a resolution I have submitted supporting the goals and ideals of National Infant Mortality Awareness Month. I am joined by my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, in drawing attention to this important health issue.

Infant mortality is an important indicator of the health of a nation, and since 2000, the infant mortality rate in the United States has remained stagnant, generating concern among researchers and policymakers. The United States ranks 29th among industrialized countries in the rate of infant mortality, with 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

The primary reason for the United States' higher infant mortality rate is the higher percentage of preterm births, that is, babies born before 37 weeks of gestation. In 2004, one in eight infants born in the United States was preterm, compared with one in 18 in Ireland and Finland. Among reported European countries, only Austria has a comparable preterm birth rate; the other countries, including England, Sweden, and France, have far lower rates. Preterm infants have much higher rates of death or disability than infants born at full term. In fact, if the United States had the same gestational age distribution of births as Sweden, with fewer preterm births, the U.S. infant mortality rate would decrease by about 30 percent. These data from the National Center for Health Statistics suggest that preterm birth prevention is crucial to lowering the U.S. infant mortality rate.

The rate of preterm births in the United States rose by one-third between 1984 and 2006, and in 2004, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that 36.5 percent of all infant deaths in the U.S. were related to premature birth. This accounts for 12.5 percent of babies born in the United States. In addition to contributing to a higher infant mortality rate, this high rate of premature births constitutes a public health concern that costs society more than $26 billion a year, according to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report.

There are indications that the situation is improving. Following a long period of steady increase, the U.S. preterm birth rate declined for the second straight year in 2008 to 12.3 percent, from 12.8 percent in 2006, marking the first two-year decline in the preterm birth rate in nearly three decades.

We have seen similar trends in my own state of Maryland, where the infant mortality rate decreased by ten percent from 2008 to 2009, improving from 8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births to 7.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that despite these positive trends, significant racial disparities in infant mortality rates persist. In 2006, the infant mortality rate for African-American infants in the U.S. was more than twice the rate for non-Hispanic White infants, at 13.4 deaths per 1,000 live births for African-Americans compared to 5.6 for non-Hispanic Whites. In American Indian and Alaska Native populations, the death rate is 50 percent higher than in non-Hispanic Whites, and the sudden infant death syndrome, SIDS, mortality rate for this population is also twice as high as the SIDS mortality rate for non-Hispanic Whites. The Puerto Rican population also experiences significant disparity in this area, with an infant mortality rate 40 percent higher than that for non- Hispanic Whites.

Disparities in prenatal care also contribute to higher infant mortality among minority populations. Nationwide, African-American mothers were 2.5 times more likely than white mothers to receive late or no prenatal care. This trend is also evident in Maryland, where in 2009, the number of babies born to all mothers receiving late or no prenatal care was 4.7 per 1,000 live births, but the number of babies born to African-American mothers lacking prenatal care increased from 6.3 per 1,000 live births in 2008 to 7 in 2009. A lack of prenatal care can contribute to low birth weight and increased risk for

birth defects, which can cause higher infant mortality rates. So, despite the progress we are making in reducing infant mortality, evidence of the progress is not being seen equally everywhere.

To combat these disparities, the HHS Office of Minority Health, OMH, began the ``A Healthy Baby Begins with You'' campaign in 2007. This is a nationwide effort to raise awareness about infant mortality with an emphasis on African Americans. The goals of this campaign include reaching the college-age Black population with targeted health messages emphasizing preconception health and health care. The campaign trains college students to be health ambassadors and reaches out to historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Based on the success of that campaign, OMH developed the Preconception Peer Educators Program, launched in 2008. This program addresses the need to emphasize preconception health as an important factor influencing outcomes for maternal and infant health. The program enlists college students as peer educators on college campuses and in communities to disseminate essential health messages that may seem irrelevant to students who are not seeking to start a family. Because more than 50 percent of pregnancies are unplanned, good preconception health is essential. This program has held trainings across the country over the past year, and there will be a national training for the PPE program this September during National Infant Mortality Awareness Month.

I also commend the work of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau at the Health Resources and Services Administration for providing national leadership on the issue of infant mortality. Their efforts provide critical insight into the Nation's progress toward ensuring quality of care, eliminating barriers and health disparities, and improving the health infrastructure and systems of care for women and children. All of these areas influence the infant mortality rate, and the work of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau will help target our resources efficiently to decrease the number of infant deaths nationwide.

Although some indications are that the U.S. infant mortality rate is decreasing, there is room for substantial improvement. In some pockets of the country, including Baltimore, Memphis, and Washington, DC, the rate is more than twice the national average, and evidence of racial disparities in this area cannot be ignored. We must continue to research the causes and contributing factors to infant mortality and to support effective education and awareness campaigns so that mothers get the prenatal care that they need to have healthy babies. I thank my colleagues who have agreed to support this resolution drawing attention to National Infant Mortality Awareness Month in September and to support Federal efforts to decrease our national infant mortality rate.

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am pleased today to introduce, together with fellow Senate Commissioners Brownback, Whitehouse and Shaheen, a resolution marking the historic Helsinki Final Act, signed by President Ford and the leaders of thirty-four other nations on August 1, 1975. The Final Act provides a comprehensive framework for advancing security in all its aspects through the military security, economic and human dimensions.

For more than three decades, the Final Act and the process it set in motion, have served as an important vehicles for advancing U.S. interests in the expansive OSCE region and beyond. In a very real sense, the Helsinki process was a catalyst that helped usher historic changes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In his Berlin speech as candidate, President Obama emphasized that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom--a struggle in which freedom eventually prevailed in bringing down the walls of a divided city, country and continent. The years following the fall of the Berlin Wall have witnessed stunning successes as well as serious setbacks, notably the genocidal war that raged through the Balkans, including the massacre at Srebrenica.

The principles reflected in the Final Act have withstood the test of time and proven their enduring value as we seek to address lingering and new challenges. A survey of developments in the OSCE, now comprising 56 participating States, is a reminder of the scale of work that remains: from simmering tensions throughout the Caucasus region and so-called frozen conflicts elsewhere to violations of fundamental freedoms. There are a number of troubling trends in the human dimension: from the harassment, persecution and physical attacks on journalists and human rights defenders to the adoption of restrictive laws aimed at reigning in freedom of religion and other fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and assembly. Other longstanding concerns include the plight of national minorities and Roma as well as other manifestations of discrimination and intolerance, particularly anti-Semitism.

The OSCE is uniquely positioned to contribute to efforts to address these and other issues in the military security, economic and human dimensions. Indeed, a large body of common commitments has been agreed to over the years, beginning with the Helsinki Final Act. The challenge remains to translate these words on paper into meaningful action. As parliamentarians, we have a unique role to play in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Final Act and security in all of its aspects, including efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was evident at the just concluded OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Norway, where many human rights and other concerns were voiced by the U.S. delegation and others. Among several initiatives we undertook at the Oslo meeting was a resolution on investigative journalists I introduced as a follow up to a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on ``Threats to Free Media in the OSCE Region.''

As one who has been active in the Helsinki Process for many years and as Commission chairman, I want to underscore the vital role played by NGOs in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Accords. For over three decades the Helsinki Commission has worked closely with NGOs focused on a wide-range of human rights concerns.

In closing, I recall the remarks by Soviet human rights defender Dr. Andrei Sakharov made while he and his wife were living in internal banishment in the early 1980's as punishment for standing up to the authorities in defense of fundamental freedoms: ``The Helsinki Accords, like detente as a whole, have meaning only if they are observed fully and by all parties. No country should evade a discussion on its own domestic problems. . . . Nor should a country ignore violations in other participating states. The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' At the Helsinki Commission we take seriously our mandate to uphold the principles enshrined in the Final Act, especially respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thirty-five years after its signing, the Helsinki Final Act remains an enduring charter for European security in all its aspects.

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

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am pleased today to introduce, together with fellow Senate Commissioners Brownback, Whitehouse and Shaheen, a resolution marking the historic Helsinki Final Act, signed by President Ford and the leaders of thirty-four other nations on August 1, 1975. The Final Act provides a comprehensive framework for advancing security in all its aspects through the military security, economic and human dimensions.

For more than three decades, the Final Act and the process it set in motion, have served as an important vehicles for advancing U.S. interests in the expansive OSCE region and beyond. In a very real sense, the Helsinki process was a catalyst that helped usher historic changes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In his Berlin speech as candidate, President Obama emphasized that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom--a struggle in which freedom eventually prevailed in bringing down the walls of a divided city, country and continent. The years following the fall of the Berlin Wall have witnessed stunning successes as well as serious setbacks, notably the genocidal war that raged through the Balkans, including the massacre at Srebrenica.

The principles reflected in the Final Act have withstood the test of time and proven their enduring value as we seek to address lingering and new challenges. A survey of developments in the OSCE, now comprising 56 participating States, is a reminder of the scale of work that remains: from simmering tensions throughout the Caucasus region and so-called frozen conflicts elsewhere to violations of fundamental freedoms. There are a number of troubling trends in the human dimension: from the harassment, persecution and physical attacks on journalists and human rights defenders to the adoption of restrictive laws aimed at reigning in freedom of religion and other fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and assembly. Other longstanding concerns include the plight of national minorities and Roma as well as other manifestations of discrimination and intolerance, particularly anti-Semitism.

The OSCE is uniquely positioned to contribute to efforts to address these and other issues in the military security, economic and human dimensions. Indeed, a large body of common commitments has been agreed to over the years, beginning with the Helsinki Final Act. The challenge remains to translate these words on paper into meaningful action. As parliamentarians, we have a unique role to play in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Final Act and security in all of its aspects, including efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was evident at the just concluded OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Norway, where many human rights and other concerns were voiced by the U.S. delegation and others. Among several initiatives we undertook at the Oslo meeting was a resolution on investigative journalists I introduced as a follow up to a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on ``Threats to Free Media in the OSCE Region.''

As one who has been active in the Helsinki Process for many years and as Commission chairman, I want to underscore the vital role played by NGOs in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Accords. For over three decades the Helsinki Commission has worked closely with NGOs focused on a wide-range of human rights concerns.

In closing, I recall the remarks by Soviet human rights defender Dr. Andrei Sakharov made while he and his wife were living in internal banishment in the early 1980's as punishment for standing up to the authorities in defense of fundamental freedoms: ``The Helsinki Accords, like detente as a whole, have meaning only if they are observed fully and by all parties. No country should evade a discussion on its own domestic problems. . . . Nor should a country ignore violations in other participating states. The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' At the Helsinki Commission we take seriously our mandate to uphold the principles enshrined in the Final Act, especially respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thirty-five years after its signing, the Helsinki Final Act remains an enduring charter for European security in all its aspects.

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

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in marking the 100th anniversary of the passing of Joe ``The Old Master'' Gans, a great American who inspired millions with his feats in the boxing ring. At a time of pervasive racial discrimination and inequality, Gans provided the country with a glimpse of the true potential of African Americans by rising to the top of what was then the most popular sport in America.

Gans had the humblest of beginnings. He was born in Baltimore, MD, in 1874, and orphaned 4 years later. Then, he was raised by a foster mother in a segregated world in which the future seemed to hold no more for him than the same menial labor he performed at the Baltimore harbor in his teenage years. In an ironic twist of fate, the racist conditions that hemmed in his world eventually lifted him out of it. His incredible talent for boxing was first discovered when he emerged victorious in a Battle Royale, a cruel sporting event in which white gamblers bet on which of 10 black youths thrown together in a ring would be the last standing.

In the years that followed, Gans honed his skills and accumulated success after success as a lightweight boxer, becoming famous for his perceptive, impregnable defensive tactics and devastating counterpunch. With an easy one-punch knockout victory in 1902, Gans first earned the world lightweight title, at the time the greatest athletic achievement made by an African American. Four years later, he solidified his hold on the title, which he would keep until 1908, with his victory over Matthew ``Battling'' Nelson on Labor Day, 1906, in Goldfield, NV.

The Goldfield fight, held outdoors under a blazing Sun, drew an audience of 8,000 people. The purse was $30,000. Gans's foster mother, Maria Grant, sent him a telegram urging him to ``bring home the bacon,'' a phrase that caught on in the media accounts when Gans won what was dubbed ``the fight of the century'' after 42 grueling rounds. It was the longest gloved championship match recorded under Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Despite winning the fight, Gans received much less prize money than his white opponent who lost. But the winnings were enough for Gans to found the Goldfield Hotel, a leading incubator of Black culture where, among others, the great jazz pianist Eubie Blake first attracted notice. Gans' achievements became a beacon of hope for the African- American community. The prominent preacher and civil rights leader Francis J. Grimke once remarked that the great Booker T. Washington had done much for African Americans, but he ``never did one-tenth to place the black man in the front rank as a gentleman as has been done by Joe Gans.''

Gans was one of the first practitioners of scientific gloved boxing, following the era of bare-knuckles fights. Nat Fleischer described his footwork as ``beautiful side-stepping, and legwork'' in ``Black Dynamite.'' The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Gans ``was in and away or inside as it suited him best, with will-o-the-wisp elusiveness.'' Jack Johnson said, ``Joe moved around like he was on wheels.'' All in all, he fought in three divisions--featherweight, lightweight, and welterweight--for 18 years, compiling over 150 career wins and over 100 knockouts.

The remarkable life of Joe Gans was cut short at age 34 when he succumbed to tuberculosis. I ask my colleagues to join me, a century after his death, in recognizing the inspiring accomplishments of an American hero whom the great Baltimore writer H.L. Mencken called ``probably the greatest boxer who ever lived.''

Madam President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her incredible leadership and work in regard to the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. This is the work of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and the Finance Committee.

As Senator Landrieu pointed out, it has been the work of Democrats and Republicans working together on many important provisions to help the small business community. It truly is a bipartisan bill. It is a critically important bill. I, quite frankly, do not understand why there are those who want to oppose us getting this done.

It contains many provisions that have been brought to us by the small business community that we need to get done. We all profess and understand that the growth engine of America is in small business. That is where new jobs are created. Sixty-four percent of the net nonfarm new jobs are created by small businesses.

Innovation is the way for America to stay on the cutting edge. More patents and more copyrights are created through small businesses per employee than a larger company.

This bill is about creating jobs for Americans who desperately need them. This legislation combines many bills reported out of the Small Business Committee. I say congratulations to Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe. These are bills that both of them worked on together that are important for us to get done.

Let me just summarize some of the important bills that came out of our committee that are included.

We helped small businesses with international trade, leveraging $1 billion of export capital. This alone will affect 40,000 to 50,000 jobs. We deal with government contracting. We have had hearings--I had a hearing in the State of Maryland on behalf of the Small Business Committee--where small business companies pointed out how difficult it is for them to access the government procurement system. So our committee went to work.

Thank you, Senator Landrieu; thank you, Senator Snowe. We went to work and reported out a bill that is incorporated that deals with the abuses of bundling. Bundling is when the agency puts together a lot of small contracts into a large contract where a small company can't compete for it. We have taken action to correct that in this bill so that small companies can access government procurement in an easier way.

We started to attack what is known as prime contract abuse, where prime contractors don't pay their small contractors on time or abuse their small contractors, which are more likely to be small businesses. That is dealt with in this legislation.

We deal with gender equity by investing in the Women's Business Center. As Senator Landrieu has pointed out, working with the Finance Committee, we deal with tax equity. Business owners can deduct the cost of health care for their families in calculating the self-employment tax. This is a matter of fairness for small business owners to be treated equally with larger companies; to be able to increase the amount of startup costs that can be deducted from $5,000 to $10,000.

These are all important issues. If you are a small business owner struggling to make payroll or to keep your doors open, this help could be the difference between hiring another employee or not.

Lastly, Madam President, it deals with credit. It extends credit to small businesses. We all talk about that.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

The credit provisions are critically important. We make permanent the SBA guarantee programs--90 percent guarantees, the cost reductions, the 7(a) limits from $2 million to $5 million, the 504 limits from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, the microloans. We boost lending, by that alone, in the first year by $5 billion. Then, as our chairman has talked about, the State programs are funded as well as the community bank programs.

I want to mention one additional point, if I might. I am disappointed the surety bond extension is not in this bill. I will work with the chairman of the Small Business Committee and the Finance Committee to make sure we find a way to include that in the American Recovery Act. We increase that from $2 million to $5 million. It deals with small construction companies.

It is very important because for State and Federal contract projects over $100,000, you need to have a surety bond. If you are a small business owner, what you need to pledge in order to get that surety bond can deny you credit in the market. We have to extend that to the $5 million that was included in the Recovery Act, and I feel confident, after talking to the chairman, that we will find a way to get that done.

The bottom line is this is a critically important, well-balanced bill that will help small businesses. This is our opportunity to vote for it. In half an hour, we will have a chance to decide whose side we are on. Are we on the side of small business owners, to help this economy recover, or are we just going to continue this partisan division in the Senate? I hope my colleagues will vote on the side of small businesses.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues who are expressing our frustration on the inability of the Senate to take up for confirmation judges who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. You have heard our colleagues from Colorado, Minnesota and Rhode Island and there are many others who have come down and given similar circumstances about their judges being held up from a final vote.

I know next week we will be considering the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States and that will get a lot of attention and rightly so. It should get a lot of attention.

Let me point out the facts. The Supreme Court will issue less than 100 opinions in a given year; whereas, our circuit courts of appeals will issue many more opinions that will have a direct impact on the lives of the people of this Nation. Most Americans who have contact with a court are going to have contact with the district court and the circuit court, where the cases are heard, where the juries are convened in trials. So there is a great interest in making sure we have confirmed judges for our intermediate appellate courts and our district courts.

Here is the problem. The vacancies in these judgeships today are about 11 percent of the court. More than 1 out of every 10 judicial spots is vacant currently in the United States. My colleagues have told you about the backlog. So let me try to put it in, I hope, terms that those listening to this debate will understand as to why we are so frustrated by the obstructionist tactics being taken by our Republican colleagues.

Most nominees for judicial vacancies, once they have cleared the Judiciary Committee, are brought forward under unanimous consent; that is, if they have the support of their home State Senators, if there has not been controversy in their nomination, if the Judiciary Committee has approved them by a bipartisan vote, they will come to the floor of the Senate by unanimous consent and will be handled that way.

Well, we are not able to do that because Republican Senators are objecting to that process. So we go to the next level. We say: OK, if we need to have debate on the floor, how much debate time do you need-- 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours? Well, we cannot get consent to the number of hours in order to debate the nominee and then vote on the nominee in an up-or-down vote. The majority leader said we could have that time, but they will not allow us to bring the nomination to the floor.

So then the only course the majority leader has will be to file a cloture motion. A cloture motion takes several days, and we have 100 vacancies on our district and appellate courts. Obviously, we do not have enough time.

So let me give you an example on the Fourth Circuit: Judge Barbara Keenan. I chaired her confirmation hearing. I chaired that confirmation hearing on October 3 of last year. The Judiciary Committee reported her out by a voice vote on October 29. That was October 29 of last year. It took us until March of this year to be able to get her nomination to the floor, and then it was not by unanimous consent. It was not by a consent as to the amount of time necessary to consider this nominee on the floor and then a vote afterwards. It came to the floor through a cloture motion the majority leader had to file--a cloture motion-- because we could not get consent to bring up her nomination almost 5 months after the committee acted on her nomination.

What happened with the cloture motion? It was approved 99 to 0 on the floor of the Senate, and she was ultimately approved as an appellate court judge by a 99-to-0 vote.

My point is simple: These were dilatory actions in order to slow down the process of the confirmation of judges which my friends on the Republican side have used. That is why we had these huge numbers. As my colleague from Rhode Island pointed out, the numbers tell the facts. There were twice as many judges confirmed by this time when a Republican controlled the White House than there are today. In other words, we are working at less than one-half the pace than when the tables were turned. That is wrong.

My friend from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, talked about two vacancies we want to fill in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit includes the State of Maryland. The two vacancies we want to fill are the North Carolinian spots, in which the two Senators--one a Democrat, one a Republican--have recommended their confirmation: James Wynn and Albert Diaz.

Well, we held that confirmation hearing--and I chaired that also--in December of last year. The committee reported them out in January of 2010. In Mr. Wynn's case, the vote was 18 to 1; and in Mr. Diaz's case, it was 19 to 0. Both of these judicial candidates were considered ``well qualified''--the highest rating by the American Bar Association--and they would add greatly to the diversity on the Fourth Circuit, a circuit that is not known for its diversity. James Wynn would be the third African American to serve on the Fourth Circuit and Albert Diaz would be the first Latino.

It is time--well past time--for these nominees to be confirmed by the Senate. I do not think anyone doubts, once this issue is taken up, both these individuals will be confirmed. Look at the votes in committee.

For noncontroversial judicial nominations, it has taken, on average, 2 months, after the Judiciary Committee has acted, for a district court nominee to be considered by the full Senate; and over 4 months for a circuit court of appeals nominee. That is not doing the work the Senate should do. There have been dilatory actions in order to slow down the process, and that is not what we should be doing as Members of the Senate.

So I urge my colleagues, as my friends who have taken the floor today have done, let's get on with the process of confirming these noncontroversial judicial nominees. Let's give the people what they deserve; that is, a full complement of their judges. We should do better than we have done in the past. I urge us to put aside our partisan differences. This is not a tactic that should be used. It is time we move forward on the confirmation process.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on May 5, 2009, over 14 months ago, I chaired a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled the Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud. Today we are holding Part II of that hearing. During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light.

Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. A U.S. passport can be used for many purposes in this country, and it gives an individual the ability to travel internationally, which is an important tool for someone who wants to do us harm, including terrorists, spies, and other criminals. So the integrity and security of the passport issuance process is extremely important because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States.

A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, has revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud.

As a result, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein and Lieberman, the Passport Identity Verification Act. This legislation is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access information contained in Federal, State, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations, procedures, and policies to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. But we have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

We simply cannot issue U.S. passports in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. We have the technology and the information to prevent such issuance. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud.

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