Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Star- Spangled Banner Commemorative Coin Act. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Maryland, is a co-sponsor. This legislation will honor our National Anthem and the Battle for Baltimore, which was a key turning point of the War of 1812, by creating two commemorative U.S. Mint coins.

The War of 1812 confirmed American independence from Great Britain in the eyes of the world. Before the war, the British had been routinely imposing on American sovereignty. They had impressed American merchant seamen into the British Royal Navy, enforced illegal and unfair trade rules with the United States, and allegedly offered assistance to American Indian tribes which were attacking frontier settlements. In response, the United States declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812, to protest these violations of ``free trade and sailors rights''.

After 2 \1/2\ years of conflict, the British Royal Navy sailed up the Chesapeake Bay with combined military and naval forces, and in August 1814 attacked Washington, DC, burning to the ground the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and much of the rest of the capital city. After finishing with Washington, DC, the British moved to capture Baltimore, which in 1814 was a larger city.

As the British Royal Navy sailed up the Patapsco River on its way to Baltimore, American forces held the British fleet at Fort McHenry, located just outside of the city. After 25 hours of bombardment, the British failed to take the Fort and were forced to depart. American lawyer Francis Scott Key, who was being held on board an American flag- of-truce vessel, beheld at dawn's early light an American flag still flying atop Fort McHenry. He immortalized the event in a song which later became known as the Star-Spangled Banner.

The flag to which Key referred was a 30' x 42' foot flag made specifically for Fort McHenry. The commanding officer desired a flag so large that the British would have no trouble seeing it from a distance. This proved to be the case as Key visited the British fleet on September 7, 1814, to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes. Dr. Beanes was released, but Key and Beanes were detained on an American flag-of-truce vessel until the end of the bombardment. It was on September 14, 1814, that Key saw the great banner that inspired him to write the song that ultimately became our National Anthem.

The Star-Spangled Banner Commemorative Coins will honor this symbol of our nation and our National Anthem. Under this Act, the U.S. Treasury would mint up to 100,000 $5 gold coins and 500,000 $1 silver coins in 2012, in coordination with the 200th Anniversary of the War of 1812. Proceeds from surcharges for the coins will be paid to the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission, for bicentennial activities, educational outreach, and preservation and improvement activities pertaining to the sites and structures relating to the War of 1812. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure in a fitting tribute to a seminal chapter in American history.

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

Mr. President, I am deeply troubled by the rise in anti- Semitic acts around the globe, which is why I am joining the junior Senator from Maine in introducing a bipartisan resolution that condemns anti-Semitism and calls upon world leaders to speak out against it. The concurrent resolution reaffirms that the U.S. is committed to making the fight against anti-Semitism a top foreign policy priority.

Senator Collins, the other co-sponsors of this resolution, and I are extremely concerned about the safety and well-being of Jewish communities worldwide. In recent weeks and months, Jewish communities around the world have been subjected to vicious anti-Semitic attacks. These attacks include acts of violence and hatred against members of the Jewish community. The criminal acts include physical attacks, arson, and vandalism against synagogues, cemeteries, and Holocaust memorials.

In some nations, demonstrations have included chants of ``death to Israel'' and expressions of support for suicide terrorism against Israeli or Jewish civilians. Placards held at many demonstrations have compared Israeli leaders to Nazis, accused Israel of carrying out a ``Holocaust'' against Palestinians, and equated the Jewish Star of David to the Nazi swastika. Anti-Semitism is not a legitimate form of policy or public protest. We cannot, in good conscience, allow these acts of hatred to continue without swift and strong action from world leaders. We must speak out against these atrocities.

We applaud those world leaders who have spoken out against these acts, but call on those who have yet to do so to take firm action against anti-Semitism in their own countries. We must continue to impress upon our allies and other nations the critical importance of combating anti-Semitism. At the same time, the United States must bolster its own initiatives to address anti-Semitism as a foreign policy priority. The resolution we are introducing today helps to do that so I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Ronald Kirk, of Texas, to be the United States Trade Representative?

Mr. President, with the coming parliamentary elections scheduled for April 5, Moldova is once again at a crucial juncture in its domestic political development.

In recent years, Moldova's cooperation with the United States has deepened, with steady progress through the initial stages of the Millennium Challenge Threshold Program, which promises to bring significant material assistance to Moldova in the near future. Additionally, Moldova has advanced in its quest for greater European integration. To continue to build upon and consolidate these positive developments, it is crucial that the current campaign and voting on April 5 be conducted in a manner consistent with Moldova's commitment to meeting OSCE election standards.

Since achieving independence in 1991, Moldova has had a generally positive record in conducting and respecting the results of free elections. However, there have been shortcomings and it is essential that Moldova avoid repeating practices that have drawn criticism in previous contests.

Specifically, national and local authorities must make every effort to ensure a level and transparent playing field for all candidates during the campaign and avoid the use of administrative resources to hamper political rivals. It is also important that the authorities make efforts to ensure access to the media for all candidates and representatives of political parties. Finally, law enforcement bodies must safeguard the public's basic right to freely and publicly assemble to express their views in a peaceable manner.

As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I would underscore the importance that all involved in Moldova's upcoming parliamentary elections ensure compliance with international norms. This is crucial, not only for the future of democratic reform in Moldova, but also for the country's further economic development and progress along its chosen path of European integration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, March 12, the Senate resume consideration of the Ogden nomination at 12 noon and that it be considered under the parameters of the order of March 10; that the vote on the confirmation of the nomination occur at 2 p.m.; further, that upon confirmation of the Ogden nomination, the Senate remain in executive session and consider Calendar No. 23, the nomination of Thomas John Perrelli to be Associate Attorney General; that debate on the nomination be limited to 90 minutes equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1127, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 70, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar, under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, March 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order.

Mr. President, under the previous order, the Senate will vote at 2 p.m. on the confirmation of the nomination of David Ogden to be the Deputy Attorney General. Tomorrow the Senate will also consider the nomination of Thomas Perrelli to be Associate Attorney General. That vote is expected to occur tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I take the floor in defense of one of our most successful environmental statutes. Since its nearly unanimous passage in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has protected nearly 2,000 species from extinction. That success has contributed significantly to the economic benefit of this Nation. According to a study by the Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife-related recreation--meaning hunting and fishing and wildlife watching--generated more than $122 billion in revenue in 2006. So this statute has protected wildlife diversity and has protected our economy.

In my home State of Maryland, wildlife watching generated over $1 billion in revenue and sustained over 10,000 jobs.

In December of 2008, the Bush administration finalized two rules that undercut the success of the Endangered Species Act. Now, that was in December of 2008, after the elections, after Senator Obama was elected President of the United States. The Bush administration issued two regulations in an effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act.

One rule undermines important safeguards for all threatened and endangered species. The other withholds key protections from the polar bear.

I believe it is critical the safeguards that have worked to protect endangered species for decades be reinstated. Section 429 of the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act would give the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce the authority they need to do that. It will allow the Secretaries to reverse the Bush administration's midnight regulations and reinstate the regulations previously in place.

To understand why this special authority is needed, I think it is helpful to understand how devastating the rule changes are. So let me say a little bit about the two rules President Bush put in place.

For decades, under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies have consulted with scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to make sure an agency's planned actions do not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species.

In line with a long record that expressed a low regard for science, in December, 2008, the Bush administration finalized a rule that effectively eliminated the critical role scientists play in the section 7 system of checks and balances. What the Bush administration regulation did was to allow a Federal agency to avoid consultation with the scientists in making its determination as to whether there was an impact on an endangered species.

Professional scientific organizations argued, came out and said, quite frankly, this is unacceptable. The agency does not have the capacity to make a determination as to whether a species is endangered by the action of the agency. They do not have the budget. They do not have the expertise. And, quite frankly, they have a different mission. So the impact of this regulation could have a devastating impact on the protection--legitimate protection--of wildlife.

Now, some of my colleagues argue that requiring consultation with independent scientists will slow infrastructure projects funded through the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But let me remind my colleagues that the projects that are ready to go have already gone through this environmental review. They are ready to go. They will not be delayed as a result of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. We are ready to proceed. And as President Obama recently said:

With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy

today and preserve the environment.

But, quite frankly, these changes to the consultation rule were not the only regulations the Bush administration issued. We had the one that would compromise consultation with scientists in issuing the appropriate safeguards under the Endangered Species Act. The other was specifically aimed toward the polar bear. The new rule granted no new protections to the polar bear. Now, the President's regulations said differently, but that is not the case. The special rule not only denied additional protections normally provided under the Endangered Species Act, but it set a bad precedent for weakening ESA safeguards.

The new rule does not require plans to monitor, minimize, or mitigate impacts that could harm the bears. And the rule does not allow scientists and agencies to even consider climate change as a factor that could injure polar bears.

Last year, I had the opportunity, along with members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to visit Greenland. We saw firsthand what is happening in regard to the loss of the snow caps and the impact it is having on the polar bear population.

Global climate change is clearly affecting the future stability of the polar bears, and the regulation that was issued in December compromises that. It is quite clear why. Seven editorials from newspapers in 32 States oppose the Bush administration's efforts. Dozens of wildlife, scientific, and environmental organizations oppose the change. In addition, eight State attorneys general, including the attorney general of Maryland, have filed suit to have these regulations withdrawn.

So we have an amendment that has been offered. The amendment would take out of the omnibus bill the additional authority we want to give to the agencies so that they can reverse the midnight changes attempted by the Bush administration. I would urge my colleagues to reject that amendment. Let's not compromise the protections we have in the Endangered Species Act that allow Federal agencies to have the best information before they take action on their projects. It is what we should be doing. It does preserve the diversity of wildlife in this Nation. It maintains the leadership of the United States on these types of issues. It is the right policy. We should go through regular order when we change it. The Bush administration did not do that. They did this as a last-minute gesture of the Bush administration. Let's restore the status quo, and then let's look at the normal regulation process for modifications that may be needed.

I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered that will undermine the Endangered Species Act.

With that, I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue. Let me tell my colleagues, I think this is a major human rights issue. I have the opportunity of representing this body as the chairman of the Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission deals internationally with issues of human rights. It is interesting that the United States has taken the leadership on protecting the rights of individuals to vote and to be able to determine their own government. So we have invested a lot of resources in the Helsinki Commission to protect steps to monitor elections around Europe and central Asia and to fight for minority communities to have the right to vote and to have open and honest voting.

Let me tell you, last year there was a resolution filed in our Parliamentary Assembly of the CSCE to encourage America to give the people of the District of Columbia the right to vote. The international community understands that we are out of compliance with basic international norms on giving our citizens the right to participate in their parliament.

So I look at this bill first as a basic right, that every American should be able to have their voice heard here in the Congress of the United States. I support this bill because it moves us in the right direction. But I must tell you, I believe the people of the District should have two Members of this body, two U.S. Senators, and a voting Member of Congress, and I know we tried to do that in the 1970s with a constitutional amendment. I was proud at that time to be a State legislator in Maryland as speaker of the Maryland House. We passed and ratified that constitutional amendment because we thought it was the right thing for the District to have full representation in this body and to have a voting representative in the House of Representatives.

So this legislation, as I said, moves in the right direction. It gives the people of the District a voting Representative in the House of Representatives. That, we should do. And then it even goes further, recognizing the political sensitivity of having another Congressman who may represent one political party. Since the District registration is heavily Democratic, the compromise is to give another Representative to the State of Utah because they are the closest to having been able to obtain another Representative and the registration in Utah is heavily Republican. So it balances it from a political point of view. I understand that is how the system works here. I think this is a fair compromise. What I do not understand is why we are getting all of these other amendments on this bill as an effort to try to kill the underlying bill. Let's have an up-or-down vote on it.

The people of the District have been waiting a long time. I think it is the right thing for us to do to say: Let's give them a vote. Let's get rid of these amendments because these amendments are not aimed at trying to solve the problem, they are aimed at trying to defeat the bill, which brings me to the amendment offered by Senator Kyl that is currently pending.

I find this amendment somewhat surprising. Let me tell you why. It would cede the District back to the State of Maryland. It would change the border of my State that I represent in this body. Now, I would have thought--maybe I am naive about this--that if a Senator was introducing an amendment which would change the border of a particular State, that he would talk to the Senators from that State, he would talk to the Governor from that State, he would try to work with the Representatives from that State because if this amendment were adopted, it would affect every single person in Maryland. Our formulas for aid to our counties and Baltimore City are based upon population. If all of a sudden Maryland grows by a couple hundred thousand people, it affects the way our counties operate essential services. Yet there was no effort made by the author of this amendment to consult with the political leadership of my State.

I do not know how another Senator would feel if I introduced an amendment--and I am glad to see Senator Kyl has returned to the floor. I don't know how Senator Kyl would feel if I introduced an amendment that said, perhaps, Arizona's borders should change a little bit because it makes more sense to do it that way, and there is no need to talk to the Senators from Arizona about it or the government of Arizona, we are just going to do it. I do not think that is the right thing to do.

So I am somewhat puzzled. I must tell you, to me, it is a matter of an unfunded mandate on my State. It is a matter of what federalism is about. It is a matter of States rights, and it is a matter of common decency.

Now, I read the amendment coming over, and I am not sure how these lines were drawn, but I would have thought, if Maryland were to get the District, we would at least get the Kennedy Center. But it looks as if they took the Kennedy Center out, for reasons I cannot explain. I do not know how these lines were drawn. So perhaps my friend will help me understand this better and understand whether the courtesies of the Senate mean you can put legislation in affecting the borders of one State or another without even having the courtesy to talk to the Members of that State.

I can tell you that Maryland very much works very closely with the Mayor of Washington and the people of the District. We have a wonderful regional governmental organization. We work cooperatively on providing services to the people of this region. We have an excellent relationship. We support giving the people of the District representation in Congress because it is the right thing to do, and we want them to have their own Representatives here. We think it is a wrong suggestion to now say: Oh, we can solve this problem by changing the borders of the State of Maryland for that.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Kyl amendment and let us get on with passing this very important bill for Americans who have been denied a voice in the Congress of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Does he believe it is fair to say to the people of the District of Columbia that their right to have a voice in the House of Representatives depends upon the will of the people of Maryland?

Will my colleague yield further?

I am wondering how my colleague would feel if legislation was introduced here by a Senator not from Arizona saying: I understand what the people of Arizona want better than the Senator does. I want to introduce a bill affecting land rights or property rights or anything in the State of Arizona, and I will make it subject to the vote of the people of Arizona. It will change the border area a little bit, and I know you don't want this, but I am going to do it anyway. I am curious how the Senator would respond if such legislation was introduced and the Senator who introduced it said: I am allowing your Governor to take it to the people. I know there will be a lot of pressure building up on that. But it is not relevant to the Senators from Arizona.

Will the Senator yield?

Let me make a brief comment with regard to the mandate on Maryland. Maryland would be under tremendous pressure to change funding formulas consistent with what aid the District currently receives. It would have a major impact on the ability of our State to carry out its fundamental aid formulas to local governments, considering how significant the District would be, the population, relative to the State of Maryland.

The second point is, I can tell you how the people of Maryland feel. They believe the residents of the District of Columbia should have their voting representative in the House of Representatives. That is how the members of our congressional delegation have acted. That is how Senators are acting. We know that is what the District wants. We agree with that. I hope we can get an up-or-down vote on this bill and let's move forward.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Having served in the House and also going through redistricting, the courts are now requiring an exact number of equality. So it would be improbable that the lines would remain the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice Integrity Act of 2009. I am pleased that Senator Specter, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has joined me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I think it is important to

begin this discussion with the first words that appear in the Constitution of the United States. ``We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . .'' The Founding Fathers chose Justice as a cornerstone for the foundation of our country. Justice is defined as fairness, moral rightness, and as a system of law in which every person receives his or her due from the system, including all of their guaranteed rights. There are many perceptions and realities that surround our criminal justice system.

Our Constitution guarantees that all Americans, no matter their race, color, creed or gender, have the right to equal protection under the law. Yet statistics, reports and data reflect a possibility of bias in our justice system. For example, a distressing statistic shows that one out of every three African-American males born today can expect to go to jail during his lifetime. African-Americans are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated, they are more likely to be pulled over by a police car while driving, and they are three times more likely to be arrested for a drug offense than white Americans and are nearly 10 times as likely to enter prison for drug offenses. Take for example, how two forms of the same drug are handled differently in our justice system: crack cocaine and powder cocaine. In 2006, blacks constituted 82 percent of those sentenced under federal crack cocaine laws while whites constituted of only 8.8 percent, despite the fact that more than 66 percent of people who use crack cocaine are white. Government data further demonstrates that drug rates are similar among all racial and ethnic groups.

A 2007 study released by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that while Black, Hispanic and White drivers are equally likely to be pulled over by police, Blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to be searched and arrested. These types of disparities and the perception of bias is unacceptable and we should take bold steps to correct these injustices. During the last Congress, my good friend and former member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, introduced this bill and during his introductory speech he stated ``nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important than in our criminal justice system.'' I couldn't agree more with that statement, which is why I have reintroduced this very important legislation.

Just last week Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech for African-American History Month. In that speech, Attorney General Holder asked us, as a nation, to ``find ways to force ourselves to confront that which we have become experts at avoiding''. One way to do that is to look at the disparities in our justice system that have existed for many years and can be traced back to slavery and the Jim Crow era. In President Obama's March 2008 speech on Race, he asked Americans to ``march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.'' He further stated that in order to perfect our union we must continue to ``insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.'' I heard President Obama that day, and I heard Attorney General Holder last week. I believe we are at a crossroads today where we can either take on the challenges and attack these injustices or continue to turn our heads away from the problems in our justice system. The Justice Integrity Act responds to the racial and ethnic disparities and perceptions that surround our Federal justice system.

The Justice Integrity Act will create 10 pilot programs across the country that will help create a plan that will ensure that law enforcement priorities and initiatives--including charging and plea decisions, as well as sentencing recommendations are not influenced by racial or ethnic bias but instead apply the law in a just and fair manner to all individuals. These 10 pilot programs will be set up at the discretion of the Attorney General in 10 different U.S. attorney offices. Each U.S. attorney will create an advisory group including all the major stakeholders in the justice system. Each of the individuals will gather information and examine data which will lead to a report on their findings and recommendations to the district on how to reduce unjustified racial and ethnic disparities.

Our current justice system is not working at its greatest potential. This bill will not only help restore the public's trust in our justice system but also restore integrity in our justice system. Any form of bias in our criminal justice system erodes the core principles in our Constitution specifically that ``all men are created equal'' under the law and that our justice system is not only fair but just.

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