Floor Statements

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am going to talk about an amendment we

have not yet cleared unanimous consent for it to be brought up. I am hopeful that will come. But in order to advance the issue, I intend to talk about my amendment, No. 1475, without offering it at this time. I think it is an appropriate amendment to talk about at this point following Senator Lieberman's amendment because his amendment deals with increasing our forces.

One of the reasons it is important to do that is the stress that the restricted numbers provide on our military personnel. Senator Lieberman mentioned, and I will repeat, the number of suicides and attempted suicides by our young men and women serving in the military has increased and one of the reasons, frankly, is that the repeated deployments and the length of the deployments have added to the stress of our servicemen.

Health experts agree that there is most likely a combination of factors leading to this increase in suicides. Many of these factors are simply the results of the prolonged conflict that our Nation finds itself in, including multiple deployments, extended separations from family and loved ones, and the overwhelming stress of combat experiences; each placing a unique and tremendous strain on the men and women of our all-volunteer force.

But while Congress has recognized these strains, and acted to help provide relief by increasing the size of our forces and thereby reducing the number and frequency of deployments, we cannot as easily remedy the stress or mental trauma created by combat experience.

For those who have had to witness the ugliness and devastation of war first-hand, they have encountered something very unnatural for the human mind to comprehend or accept. For these service members, recovering from these experiences involves a long and arduous journey in learning to identify, control and cope with a wide array of emotions. And this learning process is often only accomplished with the guidance and management of highly trained mental or behavioral health specialists.

In this light, we in Congress have acted to increase funding for more mental health providers and improved access for our troops and their families, and we have sharpened the focus of the military on addressing these care needs. That is very positive and has had a very positive effect.

What we must now focus on, and direct the military's attention to, is the potentially harmful practice of administering antidepressants to a population that frequently moves throughout a theatre of war and is therefore susceptible to gaps in mental health management. We are not certain they are getting the follow-up care they need.

A 2007 report by the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team indicated that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops, about 12 percent of combat troops in Iraq, and 17 percent of combat troops in Afghanistan, are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope with this stress. This equates to roughly 20,000 troops on such medications in theatre right now.

What I find particularly troubling, when reviewing these figures, is that the Pentagon has yet to establish an official clearinghouse that accurately tracks this kind of data. In fact, the Army's best reported estimate can only tell us that the authorized or prescribed drug use by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is believed to be evenly split between antidepressants--mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs--and prescription sleeping pills. My amendment would provide us with the information so we know what is happening with the use of these drugs.

Providing that this best estimate contains some degree of accuracy, it is important for us to also recognize that many of these same antidepressants, after strong urging by the FDA, recently expanded their warning labels to state that young adults--ages 18-24 years old-- may be at an elevated risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior while using the medication. This same age group--18-24 years old--represents 41 percent of our military forces serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While keeping this warning label in mind, it is imperative that my colleagues understand that nearly 40 percent of Army suicide victims in 2006 and 2007 are believed to have taken some type of antidepressant drugs--and overwhelmingly these SSRIs. And as I mentioned at the beginning of this statement, the number of Army suicides reported each month are outpacing each preceding month.

This class of antidepressants--these SSRIs--are unlike most earlier classes of psychiatric medications in that they were, from their inception, specifically designed for use as an antidepressant --that is, they were engineered to target a particular process in the brain that plays a significant role in depression and other anxiety disorders. More significantly, however, these SSRIs are unlike most other antidepressant medications because they are still allowed by Department of Defense policy to be prescribed to service members while they are deployed and directly engaged in overseas operations.

Now, to be fair, there is widespread consensus in the community of professional mental health providers, and empirical evidence to support, that SSRIs do offer significant benefit for the treatment of posttraumatic stress and some forms of depression. And although there are some side effects, they are reportedly much milder and shorter in duration than other antidepressants. Additionally, SSRIs are also believed to potentially prevent, or at least some believe, lesson the more harmful long-term effects of posttraumatic stress disorder.

My concern, however, and hopefully that of my Senate colleagues, is not the long-term efficacy of these SSRIs, but more pointedly the volume and manner in which these drugs are being administered to our service men and women overseas.

You see, unlike medications that work on an as-needed basis, SSRIs only begin to work after having been taken every day--at a specific dosage--for a significant period of time. This frequently translates to a 3 to 6 week latency period before the therapeutic effect materializes and patients begin to feel improvement. In light of the population I have been discussing, there are two very readily apparent problems with this shortcoming--first, is that service members serving in forward operating areas, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, are quite frequently subject to moving between bases or into other areas--some so remote that there may be no trained mental health provider available to administer the treatment and to make sure it is effective.

Second, and more importantly, is that this initial period is when patients, particularly younger patients, often suffer an escalation in the severity of depression and/or anxiety.

In essence, DOD may be prescribing SSRIs to its service members, without the assurance that they will remain in a capacity to be observed by a highly trained mental health provider. Worse yet, these same patients may very likely find themselves ordered off to conduct combat operations during this same latency period.

Let's return our focus back to the alarming increase in the number of military and veteran suicides reported in 2008 and 2009.

At what point do we step forward to direct that action be taken by DOD to capture, track and report this data? And at what point do we ensure that DOD is properly prescribing, dispensing and administering these drugs to our troops without having in place the necessary controls and or patient management practices?

As a first step in this direction, the amendment I intend to introduce will accomplish a better understanding as to the potential magnitude of this issue. This amendment directs the Department of Defense to capture, at a macro level--at a macro level, not individual information, without divulging or violating any protected patient health information--the volume and types of antidepressants, psychotropics or antianxiety drugs being prescribed to our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will also require DOD, beginning in June of 2010 and then annually thereafter through 2015, to report to Congress an accurate percentage of those troops currently and previously deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005 who have been prescribed these types of drugs.

I wish to reiterate that this measure specifically directs the disclosure of

this information by DOD to be done in such a way as to not violate the individual patient privacy rights of our service men or women as defined by HIPAA.

This legislation further directs DOD to contact the National Institute of Mental Health and provide any and all data as determined necessary by the Institute to conduct a scientific peer reviewable study to determine whether these types of prescriptions, and/or the method in which they are being prescribed and administered by DOD, are in any way contributing to the rising number of suicides by servicemembers or Iraq or Afghanistan veterans.

I want to specifically address one issue I have heard from some who express concern about this amendment by saying it would stigmatize, in the eyes of our troops, those seeking mental health care. Nothing could be further from what this amendment does. This amendment would collect information in an anonymous manner, and it will be invisible to the servicemembers serving on the front line.

The men and women serving in our military, and equally so their families, deserve our utmost assurance that we are doing everything in our power to see that our Nation's warfighters are provided the best medical care available. An integral part of our commitment must also be to ensure that these service men and women volunteering to serve our Nation are not being exposed to what may potentially endanger them when they seek medical care and mental health service.

This amendment is very simple. It asks us to gather information so we can make a judgment in a macro sense, without violating the individual privacy of our service men and women. It allows us to gather the information, to have the best information. This Congress has a proud record of providing the necessary resources for the health care of our warriors and their families.

This amendment will complement that by making sure that we have the analytical tools to make sure we are providing the right type of mental health services to our service men and women who are in theater. It gets us the information in order to judge what is being done today.

I would hope my colleagues would agree that we would want to have this information, and I hope at a later time I will have the opportunity to actually offer the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am gratified that the Senate is poised to approve S. Con. Res. 11, which condemns all forms of anti-Semitism and reaffirms the support of Congress for the U.S. Special Envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism around the world.

I cosponsored this resolution with Senator Collins to affirm my commitment to ending global anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hatred. In the 21st century, there is no place for people or groups who would harm or deny rights to others based on their religion, race, gender, or ethnic identity. Yet anti-Semitism--spawned from centuries of hatred, persecution, and repeated attempts to destroy the Jewish people from their early days of slavery through the Inquisition, Holocaust, and beyond--still pervades many cultures and societies.

In some places around the world, this deeply rooted hatred can quickly turn political rallies into hate crimes, with chants of ``death to Israel'' and expressions of support for suicide or terrorist attacks against Israeli or Jewish civilians all too frequent. These calls have often been followed by violence and vandalism against synagogues and Jewish institutions. Hate crimes send a powerful message because they affect more than the individual victims; they are meant to intimidate and instill fear in entire groups of people. Hate crimes create a sense of vulnerability and insecurity in others who may share characteristics with the victims. And this sense of fear is precisely the intent of those who commit such crimes.

Even here in the United States, anti-Semitism frequently rears its ugly head, most recently in the horrific shooting attack at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

I am privileged to be chair of the Helsinki Commission and a member of the both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. In those capacities and as a Senator generally, I am afforded numerous opportunities to speak out against the scourge of anti-Semitism, racial bigotry, and ethnic hatred worldwide. Part of the battle is to publicize intolerant and hateful activities. This resolution is meant to shed light upon anti-Semitism, and I am grateful that so many of my colleagues have joined me in these efforts and on this resolution.

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

Madam President, I take this time to speak in favor of the pending amendment, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This is similar to an amendment we considered last year to try to advance the modifications of the Federal hate crimes statute.

Some have questioned whether we need this act. They claim that the instances of hate crimes in America have diminished. I wish that were the case. I wish we did not need to have a separate law to deal with hate-motivated violent acts in America.

All we need to look at is what happened at the Holocaust Museum on June 15 of this year, when Stephen Johns, a security guard, was murdered. He was murdered by someone who had extreme views. Look at Lawrence King, a 15-year-old who died on February 12, 2008, because he was gay; or look at what happened after the last elections, when two men went on a killing spree to find African Americans; or look at what happened in July 2008, when four teenagers were brutally beaten up because they were immigrants.

All we need to look at are the FBI statistics that indicate in 2007 there were 7,600 hate crimes in America. That is the reported hate crimes. We know many of these acts go unreported and the numbers are much larger. Ethnic communities are reporting an increase in violent acts motivated by hate.

Unfortunately, this law is needed, and we need to strengthen the law so it can effectively accomplish its purpose. What do I mean by that? This amendment, this law, builds on federalism. It builds on what our States are already doing to combat these crimes. Forty-five States have separate laws that deal with hate crimes--31 deal with violence against someone because of their sexual orientation, 27 include gender violence. What we need to do is strengthen our Federal law so federalism, in fact, can work.

The Federal Government has resources which the States don't always have to be able to pursue these types of violent acts. This amendment would strengthen the Federal statute so it would apply to acts of violence based upon someone's gender, sexual orientation, or disability. And it would go beyond the current Federal law, which only allows Federal involvement if the crime occurs during some protected activity.

It also provides the resources to help our States, in that the bill provides grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement entities for prosecution, programming, and education related to hate crimes prosecution and prevention.

The bill contains a requirement that the Department of Justice certify that Federal prosecution is necessary because the States cannot or will not effectively prosecute the crime. This is to supplement the actions of the State, to work with our States, to respect what federalism should be about. Most of these matters will be handled by the State, but the Federal Government may be able to help the State, and this bill will allow us to do exactly that.

The bill also contains provisions broadening the categories of hate crimes tracked by the FBI. So these are improvements in the law that will maintain our ability to deal with this type of outrageous activity.

Some have questioned: Well, isn't every violent crime a hate crime? The answer is no. A hate crime occurs because the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. Similar to actions of terrorism, hate crimes have a greater impact because they cannot only affect the victim, they affect our entire community. We are all diminished when someone in our community is violated because of his or her ethnic background or because of race or sexual orientation.

We need to speak to our national priorities. This amendment speaks to what America should stand for--that we will not permit or tolerate someone to be victimized because of that person's gender or race or because of that person's sexual orientation or disability.

This is a bill that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in this body. Many of us have worked for many years in order to improve the Federal Government's ability to respond in these areas. This is the next chapter that needs to be done. I hope my colleagues will do what we did in the prior Congress and pass this amendment to the Defense authorization bill so we can move forward to strengthen our resolve against this type of hate activity in America.

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

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Robert M. Groves to serve as the Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. I believe that he is extremely qualified to serve in this position. Dr. Groves is highly recognized by the academic community for his extraordinary work in survey methodology. He has previously held positions at the Census Bureau, including Associate Director and visiting researcher. His extensive academic and professional background makes him well suited for the responsibilities and challenges he will face as U.S. Census Director.

As the year 2010 draws near, the Census Bureau is preparing to conduct the 23rd census of the United States. This national decennial census, as mandated by our Constitution, will yield results that will affect each and every citizen. The census serves to determine the apportionment of legislative seats, the distribution of Federal funding, and it provides important data as to what community resources are needed and how these resources should be allocated. Additionally, census data can offer a better understanding of the changing dynamics of our country. Thus, it is imperative that the census count be accurate. The Census Bureau must be led by a Director who understands the challenges presented by this daunting task. Mr. Groves is ready to face these challenges with the help of a comprehensive technology strategy and a dedicated workforce.

I am proud to say that many members of this dedicated staff are based at the U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters in Suitland, MD. Since 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau has been headquartered in Suitland. Currently, approximately 4,300 individuals are employed there, working hard to ensure that we have the data necessary to make important decisions affecting the lives of all Americans. I commend each of them for their valuable work.

Coordinating the census is a herculean task. To compile socio- economic

data on each and every individual in this country is a daunting, mind- boggling task. The timeliness, relevancy, and quality of the data collected and services provided by the men and women at the Census Bureau Headquarters with Dr. Groves at the helm will ensure the successful completion of the upcoming decennial census and the future of the Census Bureau.

I am pleased to support the nomination of Robert M. Groves as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, the Republic of Moldova holds repeated parliamentary elections on July 29, after previous elections on April 5 this year were followed by youth protests to display their lack of trust in the electoral process. These protests turned violent and led to arrests of hundreds of protesters, their severe beatings, and inhumane treatment while in police custody. Even an independent member of Parliament, Valentina Cusnir, was abused and beaten by police, suffering injuries. Three young men have died, and the cause of death is reported to be injuries from the beatings they received. Foreign journalists were expelled and local reporters were arrested and intimidated, their equipment was confiscated. The parliamentarian opposition parties, which accused the Communist Party in power of election fraud, have boycotted elections of the new President that, ultimately, triggered repeated elections. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe stated that Moldova's recent elections had ``shortcomings that challenged some OSCE commitments, in particular the disregard for due process in adjudicating complaints of alleged irregularities and deficiencies in the compilation of voter lists lodged by opposition political parties.''

On July 29, the Government of Moldova has another chance to show her citizens and the international community that it remains committed to

democratic principles and international standards. Moldovan authorities must provide access for all electoral participants and civil society experts to public media outlets, as well as ensure the ability of voters abroad to participate in this important poll. The United States should condition good relations with the new government of Moldova based on its respect for the rule of law and human rights. The U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I chair, will continue to monitor the conduct of the electoral process in Moldova and will hold a public briefing following the elections.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the administration for promptly issuing guidelines implementing President Obama's March 2009 Executive Order on stem cell research. This week, the administration removed the barriers to responsible scientific research involving embryonic stem cells that had been imposed by the previous administration in 2001. The new guidelines establish sound policy and procedures under which the Federal Government will fund such research and help ensure that the research is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable laws.

President Obama's action will have a profound impact on the long-term health and well-being of millions of Americans. More than 100 million Americans have chronic, debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ALS. In addition, many Americans have serious spinal cord injuries. Embryonic stem cell research offers hope for advancements in treatment that will improve the quality of life for countless numbers of Americans.

For the past 8 years, American scientists have received limited Federal funding for stem cell research. In 2001, soon after taking office, President Bush issued his stem cell policy. It permitted the use of Federal funds to support research only on the stem cell lines that were in existence as of the date of his Executive order, August 9, 2001.

The Bush compromise seemed reasonable to many in the scientific community at the time, as researchers at NIH believed between 60 and 78 stem cell lines would be available for use. In fact, only 22 lines were available and some of these were found to have been contaminated. In addition, the 22 available lines were developed using science that has since seen significant improvements. Scientists have testified that these lines lack the genetic diversity necessary to perform research for

several diseases that disproportionately affect minority populations. In short, there were real deficiencies in the former administration's policy. It reduced the opportunities available to our scientists, undermined progress, and it discouraged scientific exploration.

Perhaps the best case for stem cell research comes from the patients in the communities we represent here in Congress. I have learned first hand of the importance of moving forward on groundbreaking scientific research through my friendships with three individuals.

A few years ago, my closest friend in law school, Larry Katz, was diagnosed with ALS. Once an active attorney in Baltimore, Larry's body experienced a rapid decline from the symptoms of this debilitating disease, and he died soon after his diagnosis.

Later, I was privileged to meet a young man named Josh Basile, who served as an intern in my House office. Three years before he came to Capitol Hill, he was a healthy young man, leading an active life. But while wading in the Atlantic Ocean, a wave caught him, and he became a quadriplegic overnight. Josh is determined to walk again, and he is making substantial progress. He is also dedicated to helping others make similar strides, and he has established a foundation called ``Determined-2-Heal.'' Through hard work and rehabilitation, Josh has regained movement that many doctors thought was impossible. Josh is also asking the Federal Government to do its part, by funding research and allowing scientists access to the tools they need to make medical advances possible.

Later, in 2006, I came to know Michael J. Fox, a brilliant and talented actor with a remarkable spirit. In 1991, Michael was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. He has used his prominence as a tireless advocate for stem cell research.

The time I have spent with these three people has taught me much about the burden of debilitating diseases. Those of us who have loved ones experiencing these and similar circumstances share a responsibility to do everything we can to promote medical research. Our scientists need the tools to discover cures and treatments, and stem cell research holds hope for dramatic progress.

There is an added benefit for our Nation beyond improving the health and lives of patients. We are also talking about maintaining the international preeminence of the United States in the field of medical research. My State of Maryland is home to some of the world's leading research institutions, including Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland Medical Centers. These institutions have cutting-edge research technology and freeing up these important stem cell lines would jumpstart the numerous promising research tracks in this area.

I meet regularly with scientists like Dr. John Gearhart and Dr. Douglas Kerr to try to get a better understanding about this issue. I am not a scientist nor do I know all the technicalities, but I have had a chance to meet with these scientists to see what they are doing. They have been able to implant embryonic stem cell growth in mice and see movement where there had been paralysis. This research is extremely promising and is happening right now in my State.

The new National Institutes of Health funding guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research are the next important step to expand this research even further. It will result in the availability of approximately 700 lines for research, a dramatic increase over the number of currently available lines.

The new guidelines are based on solid principles. First, that Federal funding for responsible research with human embryonic stem cells has the potential to improve our understanding of human health and illness and discover new ways to prevent and treat illness. Second, individuals donating embryos for research purposes must do so freely, with voluntary and informed consent. They must be derived from embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization and not for research purposes, and they must be excess embryos. To be eligible for NIH funding the embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained through monetary payments or other inducements.

Additionally, human embryonic stem cells eligible for testing must have originated from facilities with proper documentation that the embryos were obtained in a voluntary and legitimate manner. Finally, the guidelines prohibit Federal funding of research that would introduce human embryonic stem cells into breeding animals or into nonhuman primate blastocysts. These guidelines are responsible, have stringent safeguards, and they are ethically sound.

As the new NIH guidelines are implemented, America's knowledge of the potential of stem cell research will continue to broaden. President Obama's courageous actions will accelerate this process. The guidelines send a clear message to scientists across the United States that their important work is now backed by the confidence and resources of the Federal Government.

I commend the administration for this decisive action which will strengthen America's position as the global leader in medical research and for the tremendous hope and promise that its new policy is bringing to millions of Americans.

I yield the floor.

Admendment No. 1378

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

Mr. President, I take this time as the Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, for which I had the opportunity to lead a delegation of 13 members representing the United States at the 18th Annual Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We attended meetings in Europe, along with representatives, parliamentarians from 56 countries representing Europe, central Asia, Canada, and the United States.

We first decided to stop in Bosnia, and we did that because I am sure my colleagues recall the bloody conflict that erupted in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia, in which communities were dislocated and people were killed because of their ethnic background.

We found in Bosnia, because of outside interference, the three ethnic communities that had coexisted for many years were drawn into a conflict. The United States, in the Dayton Accords, took the leadership in trying to figure out a way in which we could get the ethnic communities to live together in peace. As a result of the Dayton Accords, there was this government established for Bosnia which is a bit unusual. There are three Presidents, one representing the orthodox community, the Serbs, one representing the ethnic Bosnians, and one representing the ethnic Croats. And this government brought an end to the open violence.

But we knew in recent weeks and months there had been problems in Bosnia. So we traveled to Sarajevo to talk to all of the ethnic community leaders to see what was happening. And I must tell you, there has been progress in that region, particularly with the neighboring countries that are now progressing, some of which are our strong allies in NATO, and we have seen progress to integration in Europe. So we can take pride in what we have been able to achieve in that region of Europe in the Balkans.

But Bosnia needs our attention. I am pleased we were there. I think it is clear to each member of our delegation that if Bosnia is going to be able to continue its integration into Europe--we hope that will occur--if Bosnia is going to be able to move on a path toward NATO membership, it needs to have constitutional reform so it has a functioning federal government protecting the rights of the three entities. But it needs to have a government that can function, and during our trip I think we delivered that message. We were there shortly after Vice President Biden was there.

We then traveled to Vilnius, where the annual meeting was taking place. But we took the opportunity to visit Minsk in Belarus. We did that because Belarus is a repressive state in which the President, Mr. Lukashenko, rules with an iron fist. The political opposition is denied the normal opportunities of a government.

We went there because we wanted to have an opportunity to advance the OSCE principles. The Helsinki Commission, which is our arm in implementing the OSCE, is known for advancing human rights, it is known for advancing economic cooperation, it is known for advancing security issues. And we went to Belarus because we wanted that country, which is a member of OSCE, to live up to its OSCE commitments, to allow its people basic human rights, the right of a free press, the right to express their views, the right to challenge their government peacefully, the right to organize the religions of their choice, and the right for economic reform, which is being denied to the people of Belarus. We met with President Lukashenko, and we met with the leaders of the different factions, of the activists.

We also carried a humanitarian request. There was an American, Mr. Zeltser, Emanual Zeltser, who was imprisoned in Belarus. We do not know why he was imprisoned. There were secret indictments and a secret trial. The United States was not permitted to monitor the trial. He was sentenced to 3 years. He has a very serious medical condition. It is believed he could not survive if he remained in Belarusian prisons. So we carried a humanitarian request that he be released. Mr. Lukashenko had the power to do that, and we were very pleased that our humanitarian request was granted. During our meetings, the President told us he would honor our request that he be released immediately, and Mr. Zeltser was released later that afternoon, and he is now back in safe care. So we appreciated that effort, and we hope that represents a change in the direction of Belarus.

We made it clear that if the Belarusian Government made concrete steps toward the OSCE-type reforms on human rights, on economics, and other issues, then it would be a signal to the international community that we would bring Belarus more into the family of nations.

This Congress passed the Democracy Act, which imposed sanctions against Belarus because of their repressive regime. I hope our trip, which was the highest delegation to visit Belarus in over a decade, will be the first step to seeing change in that country and a better relationship between Belarus and other countries in Europe and the United States.

The main reason for our visit was to go to Vilnius, Lithuania, to participate in the Parliamentary Assembly. One member of our delegation visited Latvia in order to advance relations. At the Parliamentary Assembly, I was pleased that Congressman Robert Aderholt was elected vice chairman of the Third Committee, which is human rights. There are only three committees in the OSCE: for human rights, economics, and security. An American, Congressman Aderholt, will be vice chairman of the Human Rights Committee. I was elected vice president. That follows in the footsteps of Congressman Alcee Hastings, former President of the Parliamentary Assembly.

The United States proposed three resolutions in addition to the normal work. All three were adopted--one on maternal mortality, one on Afghanistan encouraging the Obama administration's policies in Afghanistan, and one on Internet freedom. All three of these resolutions were adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly.

We also recommended 26 amendments to the core resolutions. All 26 amendments were adopted. I wish to cover some quickly because I think they are important to U.S. policy and we now have the support of the OSCE, of the European and central Asian communities in advancing these goals.

One was to seek Pakistan's interest in becoming an OSCE partner. They are not eligible for membership because it is central Asia, Europe, and North America. But we have partners in cooperation that work with us. We have Mediterranean partners, including Israel and Jordan and Egypt. We have Asian partners that belong, including Afghanistan. We think it would be helpful if Pakistan sought membership as a partner in cooperation within OSCE. By way of example, OSCE has a mission in Afghanistan that deals with border security. They know how to do nation building, how to help countries. We think that could be useful in dealing with U.S. policies against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan if both had an arrangement with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. That amendment was approved by the Parliamentary Assembly.

We offered another amendment dealing with combating anti-Semitism. The U.S. Helsinki Commission has been a leader in developing strategies to deal with the rise of anti-Semitism. We have made a lot of progress. We continued to make progress at this meeting in dealing with the rise of anti-Semitism.

There were amendments offered dealing with water issues, energy, climate change, and preserving cultural heritage sites. We had a very active delegation, and we advanced many causes that were important to the United States.

We had bilateral meetings. We met with our counterparts from Russia to try to improve the dialog between Russia and the United States. This was a day or two before the meeting of our Presidents in Moscow. I think it is in keeping with the Obama strategy of trying to have a more effective dialog between the United States and Russia. We have differences, but we need to understand each other's positions to try to bring about the type of change that would be in the interests of both countries. We underscored those points during our bilateral meetings with the Russian parliamentarians.

We also met with the parliamentarians from Georgia. We were very disappointed that the OSCE mission in Georgia was terminated as a result of Russia's veto of the continuation of that mission. That mission deals with conflict prevention. It is there to keep peace in Georgia, where we know there is still the potential for conflict to erupt at any moment. We had a chance to meet with the Georgia parliamentarians to go over those issues.

We met with the parliamentarians from Lithuania. The last time I was in Lithuania was February 1991, when the Soviet tanks were in Lithuania, where they had taken over the TV towers. We returned to the TV towers. We were there in 1991 and saw the tragedy that the Soviets had committed in that country. We also went to the parliament building, where it was barricaded in 1991 because of Soviet tanks. Now we were able to enter a free country, a close ally of the United States, a member of NATO. It was a proud moment to return to that site and see what has happened. The United States has a proud record of always recognizing the independence of Lithuania and never recognizing the Soviet takeover of that independent country. We had a chance to meet with the President. We had a chance to meet with the parliamentarians, and we met with the Prime Minister. We mentioned an issue that is still pending that needs to be resolved; that is, property restitution issues and community property issues dating back to the Nazi occupation. We urged the Lithuanian Parliament to promptly pass an appropriate law so that the payments can be made to the appropriate victims as quickly as possible since many of the families are dying out and it is important that this issue be handled as quickly as possible. I hope Lithuania will follow through on those recommendations.

We had a very busy agenda. I am very proud of the work of each member of our delegation. We advanced the interests of the United States. We will be following through on the different discussions we had to make sure progress continues in each of these areas. It was an honor to represent the Senate with the Helsinki Commission. We will keep Senators informed on the progress we are making.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tara Magner, a consultant on the staff of Senator Leahy's Judiciary Committee staff, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of this work period, until August 8, 2009.

Mr. President, I rise today to show my support for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

On June 15, 2009, Stephen Johns was killed in the U.S. Holocaust Museum. On February 12, 2008, Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student, was murdered in his high school because he was gay. On election night 2008, two men went on an assault spree to find African Americans, because then-Senator Obama won the Presidential election. In July 2008, four teenagers brutally beat and killed a Mexican immigrant while yelling racial epithets. Hate crimes continue to occur in our country every day. According to recent FBI data, there were over 7,600 reported hate crimes in 2007. That's nearly one every hour of every day. Over 150 of those incidents occurred in my own home State of Maryland.

The number of hate crimes occurring across the country is likely underestimated. At least 21 agencies in cities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000 did not participate in the FBI data collection effort for the 2007 report. Additionally, victims may be fearful of authorities and may not report these crimes. Local authorities may define what constitutes a hate crime differently than other jurisdictions. But what we do know is that hate crimes are occurring and have increased toward certain groups of individuals.

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 five 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 supremacist 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 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 upon a victim's gender. States have a patchwork of hate crimes statutes which 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, like 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 American public supports this goal. According to a Gallup poll from 2007, 68 percent of all Americans support extending hate crime protection to groups based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including 60 percent of Republicans, and 62 percent of individuals who frequently attend church. This legislation also enjoys the support of 43 Senators from both sides of the aisle. The legislation has also already passed the House of Representatives.

This legislation will also 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 prosecution, programming and education related to hate crime prosecution and prevention. The bill will assist States and provide them with additional resources, not diminish their role in managing criminal activity within their State. 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 any American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press, or the 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 violent acts, not speech.

Hate crimes affect not just the victims; they victimize entire communities and make residents fearful. We cannot allow our communities to be terrorized by hatred and violence. I encourage my fellow colleagues to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

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 for up to 20 minutes, with the time counting toward the postcloture debate time.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic collision of two Metro trains this past Monday evening. This accident is the most devastating, by any measure, in Metro's history, and it has affected our entire region. My prayers are with those who lost their lives and my deepest sympathies are with their families, friends, and all those they touched.

I want to take a moment to praise the first responders, who worked tirelessly through the night to rescue the injured and save lives. It is during tragedies such as this that we can fully appreciate the heroism and bravery of our first responders.

At this time, we don't know the cause of the crash, and it may take considerable time for the National Transportation Safety Board to complete its investigation and make a determination. We certainly will do everything we can in this body to assist the National Transportation Safety Board in their investigation, make sure it is thorough and complete, and that we fully understand how this tragedy occurred.

News reports found that the train car that caused the fatal accident was an older model that the Federal safety officials had recommended for replacement. It didn't have the data recorder or modern improvements to stand up to a collision, and it may have been 2 months behind in its scheduled maintenance. Metro officials are replacing these aging cars that date back to the 1970s. These costly replacements are being made but at a pace that is too slow.

Funding shortfalls have caused Metro to make repairs instead of replacing aging equipment or structures throughout the system. Last year, I visited the Shady Grove Station and witnessed firsthand how they literally are using wood planks and iron rods to prop up station platforms. They have been forced to make accommodations to keep the system running in the safest possible manner.

The Washington Metro rail system is the second busiest commuter rail system in America, carrying as many as a million passengers a day. It carries the equivalent of the combined subway ridership of BART in San Francisco, MARTA in Atlanta, and SEPTA in Philadelphia each day. But more than three decades after the first train started running, the system is showing severe signs of age. Sixty percent of the Metro rail system is more than 20 years old. The costs of operations maintenance and rehabilitation are tremendous.

This is not only the responsibility of the local jurisdictions that serve Metro--the State of Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC--but there is also a Federal responsibility in regard to these cars. Federal facilities are located within footsteps of 35 of Metrorail's 86 stations. Nearly half of Metrorail's rush hour riders are Federal employees. This is our Metro system. We have a responsibility. Approximately 10 percent of Metro's riders use the Metrorail stations at the Pentagon, Capital South, and Union Station, serving the military and the Congress.

In addition, Metro's ability to move people quickly and safely in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster is crucial. The Metro system was invaluable on September 11, 2001, proving its importance to the Federal Government and the Nation during the terrorist attacks of that tragic day.

There is a clear Federal responsibility to this system.

Metro is unique from any other major public transportation system across the country because it has no dedicated source of funding to pay for its operation and capital funding requirements. But we are close to resolving that issue.

I was proud to work alongside Senator Mikulski, Senator Webb, and former Senator John Warner last year to pass the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act, which was signed into law in October 2008. This law authorizes $1.5 billion over 10 years in Federal funds for Metro's governing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, matched dollar for dollar by local jurisdictions, for capital improvement. The technical details of this arrangement are nearly complete, and when done, Metro finally will have its dedicated funding sources. I compliment the States of Virginia and Maryland and the District for passing the necessary legislation.

Earlier this year, as a regional delegation, along with our new colleague, Senator Mark Warner, we requested that the Appropriations Committee provide the first $150 million. While this is a substantial downpayment, it is not nearly enough to fulfill all of Metrorail's obligations. At the time of the bill's passage, Metro had a list of ready-to-go projects totaling about $530 million and $11 billion in capital funding needs over the next decade. Yesterday, I joined with my colleagues from Maryland and Virginia in sending another letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee reiterating our urgent request for a first-year installment of $150 million in funding for WMATA. Earlier today, I was pleased to announce $34.3 million in additional funding for the purchase of new Metro cars. This was the last installment of a 3-year, $104 million commitment. However, only a steady, major stream of funding will help WMATA make the investments needed to reassure the commuters, locals, tourists, families, and all Americans who ride Metro that the system is as safe and reliable as it can possibly be. I find it unacceptable that the transit system in our Nation's Capital does not have enough resources to improve safety and upgrade its aging infrastructure. While we may not know the cause of Monday's tragic collision for some time, it shined a spotlight on the dire need for improvements and upgrades to the Metrorail's infrastructure.

Again, on behalf of all our colleagues, I extend our deepest sympathies to all those affected by this horrific accident, in particular the families and loved ones of those who were killed. I hope my colleagues will join together, working with the Virginia Senators and Maryland Senators, to ensure that this body does everything it can to make sure a similar tragedy is never repeated.

Madam President, I next wish to talk about the urgent need to pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. We passed this 2 years ago, and unfortunately we were unable to reconcile it with the other body.

In the last 2 years, we have had constant reminders of the need to pass this legislation. Just this past June 15, Steven Johns, a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, lost his life to a person who was deranged but who also was acting under hate. On February 12, 2008, Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student, lost his life because he was gay. On election night, we saw two men go on a killing spree against African Americans because America elected its first African-American President. In July of last year, four teenagers killed a Mexican immigrant and used racial slurs, making it clear it was a hate crime. In 2007, there were 7,600 reported hate crimes in America--150 in my own State of Maryland. So we need to do something about this. The trends have not been positive. They have been negative. Crimes against Latinos, based upon hate, have increased steadily since 2003. In 2007, we saw the highest number of hate crimes against lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgendered, up 6 percent from the year before. The number of supremacist groups in America has increased dramatically. There has been an increase in anti-Semitism between 2006 and 2007. The list goes on and on.

My point is this: We are seeing a troubling trend in America, with increased violence caused by hate-type activities. We need to act. The Federal Government needs to act. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 will do just that. It expands the current hate crimes legislation we have on the Federal books so that it covers not just protected Federal activities but all activities in which a hate crime is perpetrated, and it extends the protections against hate crimes generated by gender, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It will supplement what the States are doing. Many States are aggressively pursuing these matters. In fact, 45 States and the District of Columbia have passed their own hate crimes statute, and 31 include sexual orientation as a protected right.

The reason we need the Federal law is that the Federal Government has the resources and the capacity to respond when many times the States cannot. And I want to make it clear that this bill fully protects first amendment rights. This protection is against violent acts, not against speech. Hate crimes not only affect the victim, but they affect the entire community. It is time for us to act, and I hope we will soon pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 11 a.m., to hold a roundtable entitled ``Iran at a Crossroads?''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 9 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Type 1 Diabetes Research: Real Progress and Real Hope for a Cure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen

Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 24, 2009, from 10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 24, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is considering S. 962, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act. I would like to commend Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar--the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectively for introducing this important legislation and working to achieve its passage. I am proud to cosponsor this bill.

Pakistan's stability is of vital strategic importance to the United States of America. A nuclear-armed nation, Pakistan is also home to Taliban and al-Qaida militants who have taken countless innocent lives in their quest to impose an extremist vision on the world. We must support the Government of Pakistan as it confronts the threat of violent extremism, and we must support the people of Pakistan to enable them to resist extremist threats. Reports indicate over 2 million Pakistanis have been displaced following Taliban advances in recent months. This humanitarian crisis is compounded by fundamental problems of widespread poverty and underdevelopment. The United Nations Development Program reports two-thirds of Pakistan's population live on less than $2 a day. America's efforts in Pakistan must empower Pakistanis to improve their living conditions and resist propaganda campaigns by extremist groups. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is an essential effort in accomplishing this mission.

America's relationship with Pakistan has too often relied on military aid and not enough on promoting a deeper, long-term strategic engagement with the Pakistani people. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is intended to transform this relationship. The bill calls for a tripling of nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and conditions assistance of the United States on Pakistan's continued progress and achievement of benchmarks. In these difficult economic times, we must ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act requires the President to submit regular reports to Congress to ensure this is the case, and resources have the desired impact.

I look forward to continuing to build our relationship with the people of Pakistan as we tackle shared challenges and explore shared opportunities.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support for S. Con. Res. 26, apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African Americans. I thank Senators Harkin and Brownback for introducing this resolution and note that the Senate's approval of this resolution will occur on the eve of Juneteenth. Also known as Freedom or Emancipation Day, Juneteenth commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas and marks the day when Union troops started to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation throughout the United States.

In 2007, Maryland became the second State after Virginia to adopt a resolution officially expressing profound regret for its role in instituting and maintaining slavery and for the insidious discrimination that followed, which became slavery's legacy. I am proud that my home State's elected officials publicly acknowledged and showed remorse for its part in that sad and enduring chapter in our Nation's history. And now we have an opportunity to do the same as an entire country.

From 1700 to 1770, thousands of West Africans who survived the middle passage slave trade route ended up in the Chesapeake Bay region. Annapolis, our capital, was the main port of entry for slaves in the mid-Atlantic region. Millions of Africans were forcibly uprooted from their families in their native lands and shipped across the Atlantic in chains. Most died. Only one in four African-born slaves survived his or her first year in the Chesapeake area. By 1790, more than 100,000 slaves, a third of the State's total population, lived in Maryland.

True patriots with Maryland roots fought to end the institution of slavery, and they merit our gratitude and honor. Frederick Douglass, born into slavery in 1818 on Maryland's Eastern Shore, escaped in 1836 and became a free man in Massachusetts. Upon gaining his freedom he made it his life's work to advocate for the abolition of slavery and for racial equality. Harriet Ross Tubman spent nearly 30 years as slave in Maryland's Dorchester County, also on the Eastern Shore. She escaped in 1849, and returned many times over the next decade to Dorchester and Caroline counties to lead hundreds of slaves north to freedom. Known as ``Moses'' by abolitionists, she reportedly never lost a ``passenger'' on the Underground Railroad.

The abolitionists eventually succeeded, but only after a monumental struggle that culminated in the Civil War and the executive orders President Abraham Lincoln issued which comprised the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1864, with the adoption of a new State Constitution, slavery officially ended in Maryland. A year later, in 1865, the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, officially abolishing slavery throughout the United States. Yet following Reconstruction, the period in which newly freed men and women made significant social, economic and political gains, a new era of ``Jim Crow,'' the pernicious system of de jure racial segregation, dawned.

Maryland was among the border and southern States that perpetuated segregation, passing 15 Jim Crow laws between 1870 and 1957. It was during these years that numerous organizations were founded to be catalysts for change. One such organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People--NAACP--was founded on February 12, 1909, in response to the horrific practice of lynching. I am a lifetime member of the NAACP and am proud that its tradition continues to this day, and that my city of Baltimore is home to its national headquarters.

Maryland might be considered a microcosm of the Nation as a whole. While Maryland instituted and perpetuated the institutions of slavery and ``Jim Crow,'' there arose some truly inspiring heroes who courageously fought against the system and succeeded. Baltimore's own Thurgood Marshall, for instance, developed into one of the most influential and inspiring legal minds of the 20th Century. He was a true leader of the civil rights revolution in the 1950s and 1960s, working through the courts to eradicate the legacy of slavery and destroy the racist segregation system of Jim Crow. And he succeeded. He won multiple Supreme Court rulings, including the landmark Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka case, effectively ending legal segregation in schooling, housing, public transportation, and voting. He went on to become the Nation's first African-American Supreme Court Justice.

We have made substantial progress but it has been shamefully slow. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., remarked, ``Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.'' At long last, we have elected an African-American President. We still have more to do. The harmful legacies of slavery and ``Jim Crow'' persist in America today, with glaring racial disparities in our criminal justice system, health care, home-ownership rates, and wealth. We need to do more as a Nation to confront and eliminate these gaps. And although we have truly come a long way since those days, America must acknowledge the atrocities of our past, so that we can fulfill the ideals on which our nation was founded. This resolution is that acknowledgement.