Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to express how pleased I am with the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 within the Department of Defense authorization bill. This day is a long time coming, and I am proud we have successfully stood up against hate crimes in this country. Such acts will not be tolerated in our society. The American public supported this goal. According to a Gallup poll from 2007, 68 percent of Americans support extending hate crimes protection to groups based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including 60 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of individuals who frequently attend church.

Hate crimes continue to occur in our country every day. According to recent FBI data, there were over 7,600 reported hate crimes in the United States in 2007. That is nearly one every hour of every day. Over 150 of those instances occurred in my home State of Maryland.

The passage of the legislation demonstrates that the Congress is fighting for people such as Stephen Johns, who was killed at the U.S. Holocaust Museum; Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student murdered in his high school because he was gay; James Byrd, who was beaten and dragged by a truck for 2 miles because he was Black; and for the 28-year-old California woman who was gang-raped by four men because she was a lesbian. Today, we stand and say: No more. No longer shall we tolerate these types of actions.

During the recent confirmation hearing of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, I spoke about the importance of standing against hate. I expressed the importance of a Justice and a Court that will continue to move forward in protecting civil rights and not turning back the clock. I hope the Court will stand with us against such actions and continue to protect important civil rights laws.

According to the recent Leadership Conference on Civil Rights education fund report entitled ``Confronting the New Faces of Hate,'' hate crimes against Latinos has been increasing steadily since 2003. This marked increase also closely correlates with the increasing heated debate over comprehensive immigration reform. There was also a 5-year high in victimization rates in 2007 toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals. That number has increased by almost 6 percent. The number of White supremacy groups has increased by 54 percent, and African Americans continue to experience the largest number of hate crimes, with an annual number essentially unchanged over the past 10 years. While religion-based offenses decreased, the number of reported anti-Jewish crimes increased slightly between 2006 and 2007. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a necessary and appropriate response to this ongoing threat to our communities.

Currently, 45 States and the District of Columbia have enacted hate crime laws and have taken a stand against hate in their own States. Thirty-one of those States have already included sexual orientation in their definition of what constitutes a hate crime. Twenty-seven States and the District of Columbia prohibit violent crimes based on a victim's gender. States have a patchwork of hate crimes statutes that leaves gaps which need to be filled in order to have an effective response and prosecution of these crimes.

The Federal Government has a clear responsibility to respond to hate crimes. Current Federal hate crime laws are based only on race, color, national origin, and religion. We need to include gender, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

Current law also requires the victim to be participating in a federally protected activity, such as attending school or voting. Those who commit hate crimes are not bound to certain jurisdictions, and neither should the people who prosecute them, which is why this legislation removes the requirement that a victim be participating in a federally protected activity. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act will make sure all Americans are equally protected against hate crimes.

The legislation will provide necessary resources to our State and local governments to fight hate crimes. Specifically, it will provide grants for State, local, and tribal law enforcement entities for prosecuting, programming, and education related to hate crimes prosecution and prevention. The bill will assist States and provide them with additional resources, not diminish their role in managing criminal activities within their own States. The bill supplements State and local law enforcement efforts.

Additionally and most importantly, the legislation was carefully drafted to maintain protections for Americans' first amendment rights. Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom to assemble. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such laws do not obstruct free speech. Let me be clear: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech.

Hate crimes affect not just the victims; they victimize the entire community and make residents fearful. We cannot allow our communities to be terrorized by hatred and violence. Today, we hold true to our promise for a better tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during debate on the nominees, all time during quorum call and recess be charged equally to the majority and minority sides.

Mr. President, I take this time to bring to the attention of my colleagues the effect these holds--in most cases anonymous holds that are being placed by Senators on judicial appointments--are having on the lives of judicial officials and on the effectiveness of the judicial branch of government.

So far, President Obama has nominated four circuit court judges who are awaiting confirmation. One of those is Andre Davis to the Fourth Circuit of Maryland. I mention his name because he was appointed by President Obama early this year. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing in April of this

year. In June, the Judiciary Committee recommended his confirmation by a strong bipartisan vote of 16 to 3.

When we finally get a chance to vote on Judge Davis' confirmation to the court of appeals for the circuit court, I am confident it is going to be a lopsided vote among the Members of the Senate. Yet we have been denied the opportunity to confirm his appointment because some Senators put on a hold. Every time we tried to get a time agreement, which everybody says is reasonable, there was an objection. I do not believe it is aimed at Judge Davis; I believe it is a strategy by my Republican colleagues to slow down the confirmation process of judges. I don't know why. I really do not understand. When we have a judge who is qualified, who is not controversial, why would we deny the judicial branch of government the judge it needs in order to carry out its responsibility? Why would we put people through this process of waiting for the Senate to confirm when it is clear the overwhelming majority is in support of the confirmation? I think Judge Davis presents an example. Let me try to put a face on it. You hear the numbers, you hear the statistics, but each one of those holds represents another person being denied the opportunity to serve as a judge.

Judge Davis has an extremely long and distinguished career in the Maryland legal community. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania cum laude and with a JD degree from the University of Maryland School of Law, where he still teaches classes as a faculty member. He has been a judge on the District Court of Maryland since 1995 when he was confirmed by the Senate. He has had a long career--22 years--as a district court judge. He has presided over literally thousands of cases. Many of these have gone to verdict and judgment. His record is one which lawyers and his colleagues on the bench praise as being well balanced, as that of a judge who understands the responsibilities of the judicial branch of government. He tries to call the cases as the law dictates, and there is absolutely no blemish on his record as a trial court judge. He has been praised by lawyers in Maryland as smart, evenhanded, fair, and openminded. He has received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. He will add diversity to the Fourth Circuit. When confirmed, he will be the third African-American judge to serve in the Fourth Circuit.

I bring to your attention and to the attention of my colleagues Judge Davis because we have to bring an end to these holds where a judge is being held not because he is controversial, not because there is a problem, not because you want additional information, but just to slow down the process. That is wrong. That is an abuse of the responsibilities of each one of us, of the power each Senator has. I think it is important that we all speak out, whether Democrats or Republicans. It is just wrong. It is time to move these nominations to the floor of the Senate and to have votes up or down on these nominees.

I urge my colleagues to let us get on with the business we were elected to do, to advise and consent to the President's appointments. If we have a problem with an appointment, let's speak out against it and let's have that type of debate. But delay for delay's sake is not befitting the Senate. I urge my colleagues to allow these appointments to go forward with up-or-down votes on the floor of the Senate.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 30 minutes prior to the 2 p.m. vote be reserved for the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees, with Senator Leahy controlling the final 15 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1816 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. I am joined in this effort by original cosponsors, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Kaufman. Together we are committed to giving our states and

municipalities the tools they need to finally restore water quality in the Chesapeake Watershed and return this national treasure to its rightful position as one of the world's most important ecological regions.

Yesterday morning I stood on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, near Annapolis, Maryland, to outline the provisions of this legislation. I was joined by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland and a tireless champion of the bay. Standing with him was Preston Bryant, Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, representing Governor Tim Kaine. Both states, which embrace the entirety of the Chesapeake Bay, were there to lend their support to this legislative effort. Two of my colleagues from the other body, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Congressman Chris Van Hollen, also joined us, noting that they intend to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives today. A powerful coalition of more than 100 local watershed organizations was there, too, to lend its support. And finally, we were joined by Mr. Luke Brubaker, a dairy and poultry farmer from Pennsylvania who is already demonstrating how local actions can result in real water quality benefits.

Today we take a major step forward in writing the next chapter in the history of one of America's most cherished and celebrated bodies of water--the Chesapeake Bay. The original English colony in Jamestown was settled on its shores. George Washington built his home overlooking one its great rivers. The War of 1812 was fought on its waters, and generations of Americans came to live off its bounty of oysters and blue crabs and rockfish. Harriet Tubman led a life of slavery and heroic freedom among its vast marshes, and James Michener wrote a saga celebrating its majesty.

Today, 17 million people live in its watershed. Its tributaries are home to three state capitals as well as America's center of government. The bay has been called a ``National Treasure'' by American Presidents ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The United Nation's Ramsar Convention recognizes the bay as an ecological region of global significance. In Maryland it is the economic, environmental, cultural and historic heart of the state.

But, the bay and its watershed are in trouble.

By every scientific measure, the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay is poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy primarily because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the water.

These pollutants threaten not just the legacy we have inherited but also our future. The multi-million seafood industry is suffering from chronically small harvests. That is not all. Recreational fishermen, duck hunters, sail boat and power boat operators, bird watchers and others bring tens of millions of dollars into our economies annually. Business leaders and realtors tell us that healthy rivers and a healthy bay add immeasurably to their ability to attract a quality workforce and add value to homes.

At least one estimate suggests that the Bay's economic value to the region tops $1 trillion. The challenge before us is great, but so is the opportunity.

The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives the states strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place.

The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the Chesapeake Executive Council's timeline for Chesapeake restoration. Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally binding part of the Clean Water Act.

The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly created or expanded in the legislation. At least 10 percent of State implementation grants are set aside for Delaware, New York, and West Virginia. These headwater States have never been guaranteed any access to these funds in the past.

At least 20 percent of the implementation grants will go for technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm Bill funds and implement conservation practices. The bill also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the positive experiences of Virginia and Pennsylvania by establishing the framework for an innovative interstate trading program. As Mr. Brubaker recounted for us yesterday, farmers can partner with those who need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that they are releasing into the Bay. These groups can meet their legal obligation to reduce pollution by giving farmers the extra financial support they need to implement additional conservation practices on their agricultural lands. It is a classic win-win situation, and by 2012 it will be available throughout the six state watershed.

The bill codifies President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal departments to restore the Bay.

The basics of this bill are very simple, as most good ideas are. Scientists are telling us what the maximum amounts of pollution that the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act sets a hard cap on pollution, and then we give the states until 2025 to reduce their proportional share of the pollution load. The states have maximum flexibility to reach these goals, but it still won't be easy. In the 25 years since the Chesapeake Bay program started, the number of people living in the watershed has exploded.

The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12 million when the Program started to over 17 million residents today. That is a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing more pollution. The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and eventually the Bay, have increased by about 100 percent over the same time frame. We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every day in the Bay watershed. Simply put, there are millions more of us, and the size of our impact on the Bay watershed has grown twice as fast as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is.

As I have said before, barely holding our own is not good enough. So merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough either. Fortunately, Federal, State and local governments, in cooperation with community organizations are standing up around our region to help renew the region's precious water resources.

We are focused on three major sources of water pollution: runoff from agricultural lands, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and polluted stormwater runoff from the developed lands in our cities, towns and suburbs.

Last year we passed a Farm Bill that today is providing Chesapeake farmers with unprecedented financial support in putting conservation programs into practice. Two years ago we provided our farmers with about $8 million in conservation funding. In the past year, that figure went up to $23 million. This year it is growing to $43 million and next year it reaches $72 million--nearly a ten-fold increase in just 3 years.

Eight years of chronic under-funding for wastewater treatment plants changed dramatically in January. President Obama and the new Congress have teamed up to provide a 350 percent increase in Federal funding this year to up-grade and repair sewage treatment plants. The EPA funding bill that is now nearing final action will sustain that record investment into 2010. We need to make a major investment in our cities and towns, too, to combat the growing problem we have with polluted stormwater. That is why this bill authorizes $1.5 billion to provide the federal funds needed to really attack this problem.

All of us, States and cities, farmers and foresters, sewage treatment plant operators and new home builders, ardent environmentalists and average residents, want to do our part to have clean water flowing through our streams and rivers. All of us want a healthy Bay.

The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives all of the Bay States a clear and fully enforceable goal to clean up our waters

and restore our Bay by 2025. The bill also gives us the resources to get the job done and the tools to do so in a way that is flexible and cost effective.

The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of our region. It is where we work, play, farm, and enjoy the beauty and abundance of the natural resources that surround us. But as anyone who has experienced the shortage of blue crabs and oysters or read about ``dead zones'' in the water knows, the Bay continues to be in trouble. We've made great strides in the last few decades through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. But we remain far from attaining the goals necessary to restore the Bay to a healthy state, one that can sustain native fish and wildlife and maintain the viability of our farmland and regional economy for the near- and long-term future.

Accomplishing these goals starts with the local implementation of the most innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies for restoring and protecting water quality and vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to see local streams returned to good health and the Chesapeake Bay restored to its former glory. People are ready to take action to control pollution, restore water quality and see the living resources of the Bay return in abundance.

The Chesapeake is a region steeped in history. Today, we add our own contribution to that storied past. With the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, we are proposing the most sweeping legislative effort in the history of the Clean Water Act. With the firm commitments and cooperation from the communities across the 64,000 square mile watershed, we will restore the health, productivity and beauty of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come.

Today marks the beginning of that legislative effort. It will not be easy, and we will need all of our best efforts if we are to be successful. But we cannot and will not come up short.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. I am joined in this effort by original cosponsors, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Kaufman. Together we are committed to giving our states and

municipalities the tools they need to finally restore water quality in the Chesapeake Watershed and return this national treasure to its rightful position as one of the world's most important ecological regions.

Yesterday morning I stood on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, near Annapolis, Maryland, to outline the provisions of this legislation. I was joined by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland and a tireless champion of the bay. Standing with him was Preston Bryant, Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, representing Governor Tim Kaine. Both states, which embrace the entirety of the Chesapeake Bay, were there to lend their support to this legislative effort. Two of my colleagues from the other body, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Congressman Chris Van Hollen, also joined us, noting that they intend to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives today. A powerful coalition of more than 100 local watershed organizations was there, too, to lend its support. And finally, we were joined by Mr. Luke Brubaker, a dairy and poultry farmer from Pennsylvania who is already demonstrating how local actions can result in real water quality benefits.

Today we take a major step forward in writing the next chapter in the history of one of America's most cherished and celebrated bodies of water--the Chesapeake Bay. The original English colony in Jamestown was settled on its shores. George Washington built his home overlooking one its great rivers. The War of 1812 was fought on its waters, and generations of Americans came to live off its bounty of oysters and blue crabs and rockfish. Harriet Tubman led a life of slavery and heroic freedom among its vast marshes, and James Michener wrote a saga celebrating its majesty.

Today, 17 million people live in its watershed. Its tributaries are home to three state capitals as well as America's center of government. The bay has been called a ``National Treasure'' by American Presidents ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The United Nation's Ramsar Convention recognizes the bay as an ecological region of global significance. In Maryland it is the economic, environmental, cultural and historic heart of the state.

But, the bay and its watershed are in trouble.

By every scientific measure, the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay is poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy primarily because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the water.

These pollutants threaten not just the legacy we have inherited but also our future. The multi-million seafood industry is suffering from chronically small harvests. That is not all. Recreational fishermen, duck hunters, sail boat and power boat operators, bird watchers and others bring tens of millions of dollars into our economies annually. Business leaders and realtors tell us that healthy rivers and a healthy bay add immeasurably to their ability to attract a quality workforce and add value to homes.

At least one estimate suggests that the Bay's economic value to the region tops $1 trillion. The challenge before us is great, but so is the opportunity.

The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives the states strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place.

The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the Chesapeake Executive Council's timeline for Chesapeake restoration. Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally binding part of the Clean Water Act.

The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly created or expanded in the legislation. At least 10 percent of State implementation grants are set aside for Delaware, New York, and West Virginia. These headwater States have never been guaranteed any access to these funds in the past.

At least 20 percent of the implementation grants will go for technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm Bill funds and implement conservation practices. The bill also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the positive experiences of Virginia and Pennsylvania by establishing the framework for an innovative interstate trading program. As Mr. Brubaker recounted for us yesterday, farmers can partner with those who need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that they are releasing into the Bay. These groups can meet their legal obligation to reduce pollution by giving farmers the extra financial support they need to implement additional conservation practices on their agricultural lands. It is a classic win-win situation, and by 2012 it will be available throughout the six state watershed.

The bill codifies President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal departments to restore the Bay.

The basics of this bill are very simple, as most good ideas are. Scientists are telling us what the maximum amounts of pollution that the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act sets a hard cap on pollution, and then we give the states until 2025 to reduce their proportional share of the pollution load. The states have maximum flexibility to reach these goals, but it still won't be easy. In the 25 years since the Chesapeake Bay program started, the number of people living in the watershed has exploded.

The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12 million when the Program started to over 17 million residents today. That is a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing more pollution. The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and eventually the Bay, have increased by about 100 percent over the same time frame. We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every day in the Bay watershed. Simply put, there are millions more of us, and the size of our impact on the Bay watershed has grown twice as fast as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is.

As I have said before, barely holding our own is not good enough. So merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough either. Fortunately, Federal, State and local governments, in cooperation with community organizations are standing up around our region to help renew the region's precious water resources.

We are focused on three major sources of water pollution: runoff from agricultural lands, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and polluted stormwater runoff from the developed lands in our cities, towns and suburbs.

Last year we passed a Farm Bill that today is providing Chesapeake farmers with unprecedented financial support in putting conservation programs into practice. Two years ago we provided our farmers with about $8 million in conservation funding. In the past year, that figure went up to $23 million. This year it is growing to $43 million and next year it reaches $72 million--nearly a ten-fold increase in just 3 years.

Eight years of chronic under-funding for wastewater treatment plants changed dramatically in January. President Obama and the new Congress have teamed up to provide a 350 percent increase in Federal funding this year to up-grade and repair sewage treatment plants. The EPA funding bill that is now nearing final action will sustain that record investment into 2010. We need to make a major investment in our cities and towns, too, to combat the growing problem we have with polluted stormwater. That is why this bill authorizes $1.5 billion to provide the federal funds needed to really attack this problem.

All of us, States and cities, farmers and foresters, sewage treatment plant operators and new home builders, ardent environmentalists and average residents, want to do our part to have clean water flowing through our streams and rivers. All of us want a healthy Bay.

The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives all of the Bay States a clear and fully enforceable goal to clean up our waters

and restore our Bay by 2025. The bill also gives us the resources to get the job done and the tools to do so in a way that is flexible and cost effective.

The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of our region. It is where we work, play, farm, and enjoy the beauty and abundance of the natural resources that surround us. But as anyone who has experienced the shortage of blue crabs and oysters or read about ``dead zones'' in the water knows, the Bay continues to be in trouble. We've made great strides in the last few decades through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. But we remain far from attaining the goals necessary to restore the Bay to a healthy state, one that can sustain native fish and wildlife and maintain the viability of our farmland and regional economy for the near- and long-term future.

Accomplishing these goals starts with the local implementation of the most innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies for restoring and protecting water quality and vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to see local streams returned to good health and the Chesapeake Bay restored to its former glory. People are ready to take action to control pollution, restore water quality and see the living resources of the Bay return in abundance.

The Chesapeake is a region steeped in history. Today, we add our own contribution to that storied past. With the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, we are proposing the most sweeping legislative effort in the history of the Clean Water Act. With the firm commitments and cooperation from the communities across the 64,000 square mile watershed, we will restore the health, productivity and beauty of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come.

Today marks the beginning of that legislative effort. It will not be easy, and we will need all of our best efforts if we are to be successful. But we cannot and will not come up short.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I have the honor of chairing the United States Helsinki Commission, representing the Senate. The Helsinki Commission is the U.S. participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Fifty-six countries representing Europe, Central Asia, Canada, and the United States got together in 1975 in order to further advancements in security, in human rights, and in economics.

We had our full meeting in Athens this past weekend, and the center subject for that meeting was climate change and the need for the international community to come together to enact meaningful goals for reducing greenhouse gases and carbon emissions. It was clear, from the urgency of this mission, that we need to act now; that the circumstances of floods and droughts in so many parts of the world are causing immediate concern. We now have what is known as climate migrants--people who are forced to leave their countries because of the impact of global climate change. This is causing serious concerns in many parts of the world in regard to stability and security, which affects U.S. interests.

I know each of us in our own States can give our own examples of the impact of climate change. In my State of Maryland, the residents of Smith Island understand that their island is disappearing during their lifetime because of sea level changes, due in part to global climate change. The watermen in Maryland know their livelihood is being jeopardized because of the warming of the Chesapeake Bay, affecting sea grasses, which affects the ability of the blue crab to survive. So we all know the immediate impact.

But in Athens it became apparent to the international community that we need to act now. We need to act now for the sake of our security, we need to act now because of the economic imperative, and we need to act now because of the environmental risk. The good news is it was apparent to all of us that there is a common solution. If we deal with our energy issues, we can solve all three of those problems.

We can strengthen our economies, particularly in these difficult times, by creating good new jobs; we can deal with international security threats, when one nation threatens to cut off its oil or gas to another country; or the fact that so many places in the world that have the mineral wealth have values that are different than our values and we are actually helping to support their values; and for the environmental need of making sure that we deal with global climate change in future generations and we work together.

The question that was asked at this meeting was: Where is the United States? Where is the leadership from the strongest Nation in the world? Well, my reply was: The United States is back. We are ready to assume international leadership on global climate change issues.

The Obama administration has already taken action. They have taken action on CAFE standards for automobiles. They have taken action through the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that we are ready to act. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation, and Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer have brought forward the Clean Energy Jobs and the American Power Act, and I am proud to be part of that effort and that legislation. That legislation builds on the work done in the last Congress with Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner, and it is very similar to the bill that has passed the House of Representatives.

What that legislation will do is to reestablish U.S. leadership on international efforts to deal with global climate change. The legislation would establish a 20-percent reduction by the year 2020. That is stronger than in the House bill and it establishes America as a leader. It dedicates investment toward domestic clean energy and 21st century infrastructure by providing the necessary investments in wind and solar. These technologies were developed in the United States and now it is time for us to put that technology to work creating jobs in America and alternative renewable energy sources that will wean us off the need for imported oil.

The legislation also dedicates funds for other types of green transportation, which we know can be very valuable. Green transportation represents 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of our oil. We can do much better. I am personally working very hard to promote additional funding sources for public transportation. You can't help, when you travel to Europe, but know that their models are much stronger than ours in transporting people through public transportation. I happen to represent two of the most congested urban areas in our country--Baltimore and Washington. Both have transit systems that are in need of expansion. By doubling the ridership on public transportation, we can reduce our imported oil by 40 percent alone.

This legislation is friendly toward alternative energy sources and nuclear energy, which has a very favorable carbon footprint. It also creates jobs. We know that we can create four times as many jobs here in America by investing in green energy rather than in oil or gas. Japan also knows that. They have been investing in renewable energy sources. Germany knows that. They are investing today because they know it is good for jobs. China knows that. They are investing today. They are going forward with these programs for alternative and renewable energy sources in wind and solar and many other areas, because they know that is where the competition will be tomorrow, and they are going to be prepared. We also need to be prepared.

The legislation Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer have brought forward protects the consumers, making sure that in our transition we don't add to the cost of the typical consumer in America. It also helps industries that are very dependent today on carbon energy sources. It helps them in transition so they can transition to the new energy of tomorrow. It invests in clean coal. We have plenty of coal, but it emits too much carbon. Well, this bill invests in figuring out how we can use coal in an environmentally friendly way.

The legislation also deals with our international responsibilities. As a developed nation, we have a responsibility to developing countries. They have already been impacted much more adversely than we due to the impacts of global climate change. We need to strengthen their ability and resolve to protect our forests, to be good stewards of our environment, and to help them deal with development. The bill also provides for wildlife--to preserve wildlife.

One last part about the Kerry-Boxer bill. It is deficit neutral. It will not add any additional debt for future generations. This is truly a bill that my two granddaughters, that all our children and grandchildren will benefit from by having a cleaner environment, a safer country through energy security, good jobs for the future, and all without adding to the deficit.

I reminded my colleagues in Athens that for Copenhagen to be successful, we need to have a bill that sets reasonable targets, absolutely--short term and long term. We have to have the mechanisms that get us to those targets in place in Copenhagen. We also have to have the financing to help the developing countries, and we also have to have enforcement. We have to have enforcement.

What do I mean by that? Well, we are not going to accomplish our goals if the United States does everything it does to reduce carbon emissions but we find other countries don't do that and then they send their products here to America at a cheaper price. That is unfair to U.S. manufacturers and producers, and it doesn't accomplish our international goals of bringing down carbon emissions. So what I have suggested is that in Copenhagen there needs to be a mechanism that says if your country does not meet the international standards, your products are subject to a border adjustment reflective of the cost to bring that product in compliance with international carbon standards. That is fair to the manufacturers in those countries that have met those standards, and it also permits us to make sure that other countries in fact do act to deal with their international responsibilities.

I am optimistic. I am optimistic we are going to be able to achieve these results. The urgency of the issue requires us to act. We have Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer who have brought forward a reasonable bill, and hearings are scheduled before the Environment and Public Works Committee later this month.

Recently Senator Kerry and Senator Graham have gotten together on a blueprint on how we can move forward on global climate change legislation in this Congress, and they bring up two subjects I have already mentioned--the use of nuclear power in America, which clearly needs to be part of the solution, and how we can deal with clean burning coal.

In Copenhagen, in December, we need to achieve the international results that are the strongest in setting these goals and mechanisms in place. I am confident that America will be a leader in Copenhagen, and a leader in bringing forward responsible legislation to deal with energy.

For those who say we should go slow, let me tell you, reviving our economy is intrinsically linked to rethinking how we solve our energy challenges. Investing in new technology creates new jobs. Diversifying our energy sources creates competition, stabilizing and lowering energy prices. And thinking beyond fossil fuel buried in unstable and unreliable countries makes us all more secure. Our dependence on old ways, old patterns, and old resources puts us at a financial and national security disadvantage. Those same fossil fuels we burn to drive our cars, power our homes and heat and treat our water are polluting our air, making our children sick, and raising our planet's temperature. The good news is that in solving our energy security challenge, we can also grow our economy and clean our environment.

But let's remember that any deals we reach in Copenhagen and any laws we pass here are but the beginning. The work must continue with earnest follow-through dedicated to truly changing the way we work and live and move around this Earth.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield, I thank him very much. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for bringing us together. He has been not only a real champion on the public insurance option within the health care debate but a real leader in that we need to do something.

I listened to my Republican friends. They take the position the status quo is acceptable. The status quo is not acceptable. Health insurance reform is vitally important for the American public. I thank the Senator for bringing us all together to talk about it.

There is some general consensus among the Democrats. The first is we need to reform our health insurance marketplace. It is important for the Federal Government to take action to deal with preexisting conditions so people can get health insurance without discrimination, they get the ability to renew their policies, there is no cap on the annual amounts that preventive care covers without copayment or without deductibles. These are all important changes that are included in the health insurance reform that is making its way through the Senate.

Let me tell you, the main reason for all this is cost. I will be honest with my colleagues. We cannot sustain the current health cost escalation in this country. Let me give you a few numbers: 6, 12, 23. Ten years ago in Maryland, a family health insurance policy cost about $6,000. Today it is about $12,000. If we don't do anything, in 2016 it is going to be $23,000. That is not sustainable.

We are currently spending, in America, about $7,400 per person for health insurance, $2.4 trillion. We have to do better.

Let me tell you something. Every family in Maryland who has health insurance is paying an extra $1,100 a year for those who do not have health insurance. So the status quo is unacceptable to the people in Maryland. It is unacceptable to the people of this Nation.

Our objective is simple. Our objective is to reduce the cost of health care to make sure every American has access to affordable, quality care, and we are going to do it in a fiscally responsible way that will not add to the Federal deficit. We want to build on the current system. Those who have insurance, we want to make sure they can continue to keep that insurance; that it remains affordable; that they have the right to choose their doctor. We want to make sure Medicare is

strengthened. One of the best ways to strengthen Medicare is to bring down the escalating cost of health care.

We understand that. Democrats want to make sure the Medicare system remains strong and that is one of the reasons why we think health insurance reform today is so critically important and we want to help small businesses have more choice.

That brings me to the public insurance option. Why do we think the public insurance option is so important?

First, I have heard some of my colleagues come down to the floor and say we want to protect you against the Democrats' bill that is a government takeover. This is not a government takeover. Was Medicare a government takeover? Of course, that is what our Republican friends said when we were considering Medicare in 1965, and if they had had their way we would never have passed Medicare.

But Medicare allows you to choose private doctors, private hospitals. It is all about providing an affordable way that our seniors and disabled population can get access to affordable care. It maintains the private network. We want to make sure we continue that.

Let me tell you the problem in Maryland today. That is that 71 percent of the people in Maryland who have private insurance are in one or two plans. That is not competitive. That is not competitive. One out of every three Marylanders has no choice on the private insurance plan that their employer offers. They must take that. That is not choice.

So the reason I am such a strong proponent of the public option is to bring down costs, to add more competition, to make sure we have an affordable product there to save taxpayers' dollars. That is why I want to see us make sure that we maintain a public insurance option, to be able to maintain your ability to choose your own doctor.

I will give you one more comparison; that is, take a look at what has happened in Medicare. We have Medicare Advantage. You can go to a private insurance option within Medicare itself. It would be one thing if they competed on a level playing field. They do not. Today we are paying 12 to 17 percent more for every senior who chooses private insurance. Let me repeat that. For every senior who goes into private insurance, the taxpayers of this Nation have to spend more money.

The Congressional Budget Office has indicated to us that that amounts to about $150 billion over 10 years. We cannot afford that. I am for private insurance, but I want to make sure it is affordable and that we are not oversubsidizing as we are today. Let them compete on a level playing field.

The reason we want the public option is to keep costs down, to keep basically the private insurance marketplace straight and honest in a way they make their profit, to make sure that in every part of Maryland, indeed every part of this Nation, there is an affordable insurance plan available.

Marylanders know what happened with what was called Medicare-Plus Choice when we had private insurance plans in Medicare and they left overnight. They had no insurance available. Fortunately they still had the public insurance option called Medicare. We want to make sure there is affordable coverage for all Americans, to keep the cost down.

I applaud my colleague from New Mexico for allowing us an opportunity to talk about this. I really do applaud the work that is being done by all of our committees, by the HELP Committee, by the Senate Finance Committee. Their options give us hope that we are going to move forward with health insurance reform and health care reform this year, to bring down the cost of health care, to make sure that every American has access to quality, affordable care and do it in a way that will be fiscally responsible. Democrats are giving us hope that we are going to be able to achieve that in 2009.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2009. I am joined in this effort by Senator Collins. I am also joined by the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown, Senator Mikulski, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer.

This week marks the 1-year anniversary of the tragic murder of John Robert McGraham. Mr. McGraham was a well-known member of the Wilshire neighborhood of Los Angeles, CA, for more than 20 years. On October 9, 2008, he was doused with gasoline and set ablaze as he slept. By the time neighbors and residents ran to his rescue, his clothes had been burned off and his face blackened. The attacker apparently had a dislike toward homeless individuals. Known for rarely asking for money and not bothering anyone in the community, Mr. McGraham lost his life because of his homeless status. Days after his murder, hundreds of people gathered at the spot of his death and created a memorial for him.

Mr. McGraham is just one of many homeless individuals who have suffered hate crimes because they were homeless. In a popular men's magazine, under the blurb titled ``Hunt for the Homeless,'' the following was displayed: ``Kill one for fun. We're 87 percent sure it's legal.'' We have heard the horrific stories: A woman sleeping was pushed into a river; a man was beaten, soaked in beer and urine and covered with trash; a woman was beaten in the face with a tire iron; and many more unfortunate stories. This behavior should not and cannot be tolerated in our society. What kind of society would we be if we allowed these types of attacks to continue without standing up against them?

The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Department of Justice to collect data from law enforcement agencies about ``crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based upon race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.'' In 1994, Congress expanded coverage to require reporting on crimes based on disability. Data collection provides the needed information to policymakers, law enforcement, and communities so they can make informed decisions as to how best to proceed with the problem presented to us. The Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act will again expand coverage by adding ``homeless status'' to the list of categories required to be reported on by the Department of Justice.

In order to measure the level of bias-motivated crimes, data is needed. Currently, there is a significant problem in establishing a baseline for meaningful comparison. The best way to prove or disprove an issue's validity is data collection. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, which has tracked these types of attacks since 1999, they have reported an increase in the number of hate crimes targeted at

homeless individuals in the last decade. If we take the statistics provided by this coalition and compare them to the available statistics currently being collected by the FBI under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the results are startling.

The number of hate crimes resulting in death among listed members, those in the statute, is lower than the known number of fatal attacks on homeless individuals. Between 1999 and 2007, there were 94 hate crime fatalities among the listed individuals, compared to 218 fatalities in the same period directed at homeless individuals. I am introducing this bill today in an effort to get uniform data collection on these attacks so that we have a uniform basis on which to know how serious the problem is.

There are approximately 3.5 million people a year who are likely to experience homelessness. They are mothers, fathers, and children, and they are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Veterans account for 20 percent of our homeless population. Families displaced because of domestic violence make up another 28 percent of the homeless population. With increased funding to provide housing for the homeless, the previous administration had seen a 20-percent drop in family homelessness. However, because of the current economic crisis, an increase in the homeless population has been reported.

The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to Congress revealed that the number of homeless families, particularly those in suburban and rural areas, has increased. The number of families seeking shelter has increased by 9 percent overall and by nearly 56 percent in suburban and rural areas. Our current economic crisis has reversed the progress that we made between 2005 and 2007. There is also evidence that when State and local budgets are cut, homeless services are affected. With an increase in the vulnerable population, with the government unable to provide funding, at a minimum we have a duty to report senseless violence against this risk population.

That is what I am asking, pure and simple, that we find out exactly how many homeless people are being victimized in a uniform way by having reliable data and information so that we, the policymakers, can make the right policy decisions.

Homeless people are part of America. Every day we see veterans, men, women, and families who have been forced by circumstances to live on the streets. We have walked by them on our way to work or to school. In an effort to monitor bias-motivated violence, the first step is to realize the scope of the situation by gathering the data.

I urge my colleagues to support this modest legislation so that we are better prepared to deal with this challenge.

Mr. President, first let me say how pleased I am that we are now considering Tom Perez to head the Civil Rights Division. We in Maryland are particularly proud because Tom Perez hails from our State. He has had a distinguished record in the State of Maryland in service to the people of our State and also to the people of our Nation.

I am very pleased that we finally have gotten to this moment. The Civil Rights Division is the Nation's moral conscience. It has been important to protect the rights of all Americans against all forms of discrimination whether it is in employment, whether it is in education, whether it is in housing, whether it is in voting, whether it is in personal liberties or hate crimes. It is what Americans turn to to protect their rights. It has had a very proud history, the Civil Rights Division, since its inception, both under Democratic and Republican administrations. It has had a steady course.

There has been one notable exception. I think we all understand that during the previous administration there was an effort made to diminish the importance of the Civil Rights Division. It triggered joint reports by the Office of Personal Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General. They issued a joint report on January 13, 2009. It found there was consideration of political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys at the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, which was a violation of Federal law. We also know that during the previous administration, the number of cases brought to protect the civil liberties of Americans was greatly diminished, and the Department took a different view, one that compromised the integrity and independence of the Civil Rights Division.

So it is important we get back on track, and that is why I am so pleased today that we are considering the confirmation of Tom Perez to be the head of the Civil Rights Division. Tom brings a great background to this important assignment. He was educated at Brown University where he received his undergraduate degree, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Harvard Law School. He had experience right out of law school as a prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. So from day one Tom Perez knew he had a calling to help improve the civil rights of Americans. Maybe it was because of his family background, the son of an immigrant, maybe it was because of his commitment to the American dream, but he had that passion to help other people, to protect the civil liberties and civil rights of Americans. He rose to become the Deputy Chief in the Division's criminal section. He was a trial attorney for the Department of Justice. He then later took a very important assignment in the Senate. He became special counsel to Senator Ted Kennedy. What a mentor for him. He has commented frequently about his year in the Senate and what a great learning experience it was to understand the importance of the Civil Rights Division from the champion of civil rights in the Senate, Senator Kennedy.

He then became a professor in civil rights law and later returned with an appointment to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Health and Human Services, continuously working to promote civil rights. He decided to take on a unique challenge and ran for county council in Montgomery County, MD. I am familiar with all the jurisdictions of Maryland. Perhaps the most challenging is to be a county councilman in Montgomery County, one of our most diverse counties and the largest. He was the first Latino to become president of the county council and took on the great challenges in that county in a professional way and was well respected.

Governor O'Malley appointed him as secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, a critically important part of the O'Malley cabinet. Then, President Obama tapped him to be the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. On June 4, the Judiciary Committee recommended, by a 17-to-2 vote, strongly bipartisan, to recommend his confirmation to the entire Senate. As to reservations raised in the committee, after the confirmation vote, we had meetings with Mr. Perez and Members of the Senate to get a

further understanding of their concerns and to understand where Tom Perez would lead the Civil Rights Division. I don't want to comment for my colleagues, but I thought those meetings went extremely well. That is the type of person Tom Perez is. He tries to work things out without compromising the responsibilities of promoting civil rights of all Americans.

With this vote today, we can take a major step forward to restore the integrity, confidence, historical role, and the reputation of the Nation's most important agency to protect the civil rights of all Americans.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support we have received from the following individuals: Martin O'Malley, Governor of the State of Maryland; Thomas Mike Miller, president of the Maryland Senate; Mike Busch, speaker of the house of the Maryland General Assembly; John McCarthy, States attorney for Montgomery County; along with Anthony O'Donnell, the Republican leader of the Maryland house of delegates; and our colleagues in the Congress, Chris Van Hollen, who represents the eighth district; Elijah Cummings, who represents the seventh congressional district; Dutch Ruppersberger, who represents the second congressional district; Steny Hoyer, majority leader of the house from the fifth congressional district; and Erik Paulsen, who represents the third congressional district of Minnesota.

I ask unanimous consent that time during quorum calls be equally charged to both Democrats and Republicans.

I suggest the absence of quorum.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his cooperation as we have moved this nomination to the Senate floor and will have a vote today. I thank him for the manner in which he handled his concerns, his willingness to meet with Mr. Perez, and to talk openly about these issues.

He and I may disagree on one fundamental principle; that is, I think civil rights is a basic responsibility of the Federal Government to enforce. I think every person in this country should have the opportunities that are granted in America. I want to make sure our government actively pursues a civil rights agenda because I think that is important to protect everyone's rights.

I am glad to yield.

Madam President, I thank my colleague for the question. Tom Perez, in our discussions, said he would clearly use a reasonable standard. I might point out that the Executive order to which the Senator is referring was strengthened both under the Clinton administration and Bush administration. President Bush's administration also believed this was an important provision. The Senator is correct.

I also point out in regard to the understanding of English, Tom Perez comes from an immigrant family and believes very strongly that everyone should learn English; that it is an important part of our country. He has expressed that openly. He also has indicated that we should be doing more to help immigrant families be competent in English.

The issue here deals with the receipt of health care. One has to be able to communicate. One has to be able to communicate with the people with whom one comes in contact. We know that is one of the key issues on quality care. It was for that reason that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration adopted regulations to deal with the ability to communicate when people enter our health care system.

Mr. Perez has indicated in interpreting that regulation that a reasonable test must be complied with, but it is certainly an important issue in dealing with quality care.

Let me, if I may, quote one of the individuals who has recommended to us that we confirm Mr. Perez as the head of the Civil Rights Division and compliments President Obama on his choice; that is, the former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under George Bush. I am referring to Dr. Sullivan. Dr. Sullivan states:

Tom Perez is a nationally recognized civil rights lawyer

who enjoys an impeccable reputation as someone who is

knowledgeable, inclusive, effective, and even-handed. He is

an ideal nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights.

I point out it is unfair to judge Mr. Perez on an Executive order, and I think that Executive order is an important part of our health care in this country. He, as the enforcer of our civil rights, will enforce that Executive order because he knows it is important in protecting the civil rights of the people who are in America. But he also has a reputation for doing that in a fair manner, an effective manner, and an evenhanded manner. That should be the judgment that we use in this body as to whether to support his confirmation.

I think third party validators have made it clear that Tom Perez is a person who will exercise that judgment correctly. I hope my colleagues will support his confirmation on the floor of the Senate.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the way he handles the matters that are brought to the floor, the way he handled the nomination of Tom Perez, allowed all sides an opportunity to get all the information they wanted. It was done in a very fair manner, and I compliment him on his leadership on this appointment.

I wish to comment briefly on Senator Sessions' points relating to several issues.

First, in regard to voting rights, I am in complete agreement with Senator Sessions that I want the Civil Rights Division and its leadership to deal with the concerns we have of voting in this Nation.

I am very disappointed that the previous administration basically didn't bring any cases to allow people who were intimidated to be able to cast their votes. We have had serious problems of groups sending out notices on the wrong date of when the elections take place, targeted to minority communities. We have had episodes where letters were sent to minority communities threatening that if they tried to vote and had outstanding parking tickets, they could be arrested. We have seen intimidation. I have been a victim myself of that type of activity in my campaign for the U.S. Senate where on the day before the election fraudulent literature was handed out trying to mislead minority voters.

So I want the next head of the Civil Rights Division to be actively involved in protecting our right to vote. I would hope my colleague from Alabama would join me in trying to strengthen the laws. We had a bill that then-Senator Obama presented that I joined with Senator Schumer and others to give the Department of Justice more power to make sure those types of fraudulent activities can't take place.

I would welcome the support of my friends on the other side of the aisle for this important legislation. Let's work together to make sure every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast their vote and have it counted without intimidation. I know that is certainly going to be a major goal of the Civil Rights Division under the leadership of Tom Perez.

My friend from Alabama mentioned the Black Panther case. Well, let me point this out: The decision in that case was made by a career attorney, not by a political appointee. And that is what I would hope all of us would want from the Civil Rights Division, that we take partisan politics out of that division, as it was so apparent under the previous administration. Tom Perez is committed to allowing career attorneys to make those types of decisions. And quite frankly, there was an injunction to prevent one of the defendants from that activity. So I think we should look at the record and look at what we are trying to achieve. Let's not use labels. Let's look at the issues and not labels. Look at his record.

On the immigrant issue, let me point out that Tom Perez is firmly committed to enforcing the laws in a fair, evenhanded manner. His 10- year record at the Justice Department is the best evidence of that commitment.

Quite frankly, I am going read into the Record endorsements because I think third-party validators are a good way for us to know what type of person we have in Tom Perez. The Judiciary Committee received letters of support from a number of former assistant attorneys general to the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, including Bill Lann Lee, John Dunne, Deval Patrick, Stanley Pottinger, Stephan Pollak, James Turner, Ralph Boyd, and Wan Kim. Several were appointed under Republican administrations. This is a quality person who has the confidence of those who know of his professionalism in moving forward the Civil Rights Division under its traditional leadership in this country.

Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters we have received from law enforcement officials and organizations, including Colonel Terrance Sheridan, the superintendent of the Maryland State Police; Tom Manger, chief of police from Montgomery County, MD; Raymond Knight, sheriff for Montgomery County, MD; and the State Law Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance of Maryland, and others.

We have a quality person who will return the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to its historic role, increasing the morale and professionalism in that Department. I am proud to support him and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the Parks and People Foundation of Baltimore, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Community activist Sally Michel founded Parks and People in 1984. Since then, Parks and People has grown from Sally's kitchen counter to a planned, eco-friendly, LEED Platinum-certified headquarters.

Today, Parks and People Foundation, under the leadership of Jackie Carrerra and the creative energy and advocacy

of Sally Michel, is working hard to make Baltimore green, to educate and enable our communities to get involved in that effort, and to make sure that our children grow up knowing about the importance of the environment and their role in protecting it, whether as a landscaper, arborist, scientist, a business owner, or homeowner.

Parks and People also has become a leader in enriching the lives of Baltimore-area children. Its Kids Grow program provides afterschool environmental curriculum and instruction. SuperKids Camp has become a national model for summer learning, providing rising 2nd and 3rd graders in the public schools an opportunity to sharpen reading and math skills as well as experience the cultural and academic resources in the Baltimore area. Sports Leagues provide coaches, equipment, transportation, and referees for volleyball, lacrosse, soccer, and baseball teams in public middle schools without athletic programs. Participants are required to have good school attendance and grades.

In the 1980s, when support for Baltimore's parks was waning due to budget cuts and lack of leadership, the Parks and People Foundation took up the challenge and worked to establish and financially support groups interested in maintaining and creating parks throughout the city. Partnership for Parks provides grants for projects ranging from garden bed improvement and planting to new fences and benches. Watershed 263 is an ambitious experiment to improve the quality of surface water runoff on 930 acres in 13 urban communities. Parks and People works with residents to reduce litter, clean streets, increase recycling, create community gardens, install storm water management facilities and clean and green vacant lots and plant trees. Improvement here will lead to a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay and serve as a model for other urban watershed areas.

I know the entire Senate will join me in congratulating the Parks and People Foundation on celebrating its 25th anniversary and in thanking the foundation for its work to improve the quality of life in Baltimore for future generations.

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

Madam President, I take this time to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation that has been introduced by Senator Lugar,

the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009. I have joined Senator Lugar as a cosponsor, as have Senator Schumer, Senator Wicker, and Senator Feingold.

Let me first tell you the problem this legislation is attempting to deal with; that is, there are these mineral-wealthy countries, countries that have oil, countries that have gas, countries that have valuable resources and minerals, and sometimes it is called a curse because in many of these countries there is horrible poverty, there are conflicts, open war, and very poor governance. The reason, in most cases, is corruption.

Quite frankly, there are individuals and groups and sometimes leaders within these poor nations that have wealthy resources who make their own individual deals with companies that extract these minerals and use them for their own purpose rather than sharing it, as they should, or using it, as they should, for the people of the nation in which these resources are located.

This is happening in so many countries in the world. It is in the interest of the United States to change the way these nations deal with their resources, their wealth. It is in our interest for many reasons. There are American businesses that would like to do business in these countries. They would like to help the economy of America by having business relationships with countries that have oil and gas and countries that have other mineral wealth. The problem is, they cannot do that because they cannot participate in corruption. It is against our laws for American companies to be coconspirators in corruption in another country, as it should be against our laws. It is also not very stable for them to do business in a country that is corrupt, that does not have the rule of law, that does not have the protections necessary to make sure their business relationships will be honored.

So for all those reasons, it is important for us to clean up the way these nations deal with their mineral wealth. It is also in our interests as far as energy security. I hope we will get into this debate in this Congress on the floor of this body: how we can become energy secure in America. But part of that is having a much more open relationship with those countries that have mineral wealth so we know the arrangements, so we know how the gas and oil and other minerals are entering into the international marketplace, so we can have an open policy in America to deal with our energy. It is important for this country, as I pointed out, for our economics, it is important for our national security to get this done. I might add, it is also going to be important for our environment, and we are going to have that debate, I hope, later this year in this body.

The international community has understood this. As a result of recognizing this problem, the international community came together with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, known as EITI. I mention this because this international effort is to try to bring transparency in what a company pays for mineral rights in a country. So if you are a company, and you are paying a royalty to a nation for extracting its minerals, you need to disclose that so the citizens of that country have the basic critical information necessary to effectively monitor government stewardship of their natural resources.

That is basically what the EITI initiative is. It is all about transparency so companies and governance can be held accountable. I would think we all agree on that. I am proud of the role the United States Helsinki Commission has played on this issue. I have had the honor of chairing that Commission, and we have made the EITI initiative a major priority of our Commission's work because we know if we can get the mineral wealth to the people of that nation, so many of the issues we are charged to deal with on human rights, on the environment, on the economy, and on security can be dealt with, if we could just get that mineral wealth to the people of that nation. That is the reason why the Commission has had a very high priority in getting more participation by countries around the world in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

That brings me to the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009 that Senator Lugar has introduced and on which I have joined him as a cosponsor. It would suggest that the United States should be an implementing country of the EITI, that we should subject ourselves to those provisions, that we should lead by example by showing the United States of America believes there should be transparency in all the contracts we enter into resulting in extraction of mineral wealth from America. That would require the proper disclosure of payments from companies that use public lands for mineral extractions. That is the right thing to do. We should have been doing this all along. The public should know what is being paid by companies to take their wealth. This is Americans' wealth. It does not belong to any one of us. There should be transparency in it. It is the right thing to do.

Another part of this legislation would require companies that are listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange that are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose their payments to other countries for extraction of mineral wealth. In other words, we use the leverage of participating in the U.S. Stock Exchange--to be a listed security that Americans invest in--they have the right to know what that company is paying to other countries to extract mineral wealth. That at least gives us part of the disclosure necessary to find out what a country, which is so poor in the way it treats its people, is doing with the moneys that are being paid for the extraction of their national wealth. That would go a long way to helping us get transparency.

This legislation would urge the President to work with our partners in the G8 and G20 to promote similar efforts by the industrial nations of the world so we can get more credibility on the EITI, where passage of the EITI, joining the EITI becomes a matter of respectability for a nation internationally to make sure the contracts that are entered into with that government are shown to the people of that nation.

The bottom line is, the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009 is asking the United States to take a leadership position in fighting corruption. Unfortunately, in too many of the developing countries of the world there is corruption. You have to deal with that corruption if you are going to be able to develop the type of relationships where that nation can deal with the poverty of its own people and work with us on our international priorities.

It helps developing countries. We give significant resources to date for humanitarian efforts in these nations. These nations should use their own wealth. This is a humanitarian issue. This is a human rights issue. It also provides economic opportunities for the people of that nation as well as the international community so they can participate in an open way to help that nation solve its economic problems.

It helps us with energy security globally. We cannot afford to waste the world's resources, as we look internationally at problems of energy security and global climate change. And it certainly helps in removing conflicts in many parts of the world. It is in our national security interests to make the world safer because it is usually the United States that is called upon first to deal with these conflicts.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to take a look at the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009, and to join us in moving this legislation forward because I believe it does present great hope for America to lead the world in helping these nations take advantage of their wealth in furthering U.S. international goals.

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