Floor Statements

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about a fair shot for American families on quality, affordable higher education. It is very appropriate that the Senator from New Jersey is presiding because he has been one of the great leaders in the Senate on the affordability of higher education, and it has been a pleasure to work with him.

Let me go through some of the numbers because they are somewhat shocking. We have 20 million students who enter college every year, and 60 percent will exit with student debt. The majority of students who now attend college will have to borrow money in order to be able to get a college education. Thirty-seven million Americans today have college loans that are outstanding. Yes, we know some are young professionals and some are older people. I was surprised to learn that almost 8 million Americans over the age of 50 have college loans that are still outstanding. So this is a burden many American families will have for the rest of their lives.

The average debt today is $29,000, and that number is rising dramatically every year. So when a student graduates, the average debt they carry is $29,000. There is $1.2 trillion in outstanding college loans--more than credit card debt.

As the Senator from New Jersey pointed out earlier today, the percentage of a family's disposable income they need in order to pay for a college education--which we need for global competition and for competition in this country--is far higher than any other industrialized country in the world by far, equaling almost 50 percent of disposable income. That is a shocking number. Education is the great equalizer, and for many American families it is out of reach because of the cost and the necessity to borrow money.

Let me get beyond the numbers for a moment and talk a little bit about the people. Last Thursday Senator Mikulski and I were on the campus of Bowie State University and UMBC. Bowie State is one of our historically Black colleges and universities in Maryland, located in Prince George's County. We had a chance to not only meet with Dr. Mickey Burnim, the president of Bowie State University, but with students as well around a table to talk about how they go about trying to arrange for scholarships and loans in order to be able to afford a college education.

Bowie State University is a good buy compared to other colleges; tuition is only around $5,000. One would think those students are in good shape, but let me tell my colleagues about the realities.

Dr. Burnim was explaining to us that on the first day of school, many students who they thought would be enrolled were not enrolled. Why? Because they couldn't put together the total financial package in order to satisfy the tuition costs, so they were not formally enrolled.

I was talking to some students at that roundtable discussion who explained to me that there were students who showed up for the first day of class without the textbook because they couldn't afford the textbook. Now they are going to be behind before they even start because of the high cost of a college education.

Here we are at a State college, and the average debt held by a student graduating from Bowie is $27,800--at a State college. That is a shocking number.

The same number, if we go through the same thing at UMBC--where the president is Dr. Freeman Hrabowski--one of the great universities of our country--they find so many tools to help their students with loans, scholarships, work-study programs, and the debt there is also over $20,000 a year for their graduating seniors. It is affecting their ability to perform in college.

What do I mean by that? There are large amounts of debt they have to take care of. The students do everything they can to reduce their debt, so they work. In some cases they work more than one job and attend college. It affects their ability to perform and successfully complete college.

At Bowie State it takes about 6 years to do a 4-year program because the students are working and are having a hard time meeting the credit requirements.

In some cases I was told there are students who want to take a summer class because it was offered, it was needed for their major, and it would allow them to graduate in a more timely way, but they couldn't afford to take the summer class because the Pell grants aren't available in the summertime.

I thank Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, for offering legislation that would correct that, that would allow for Pell grants to be available on a 12-month basis. That would help.

Yes, the effect of the high cost of education is first and foremost on the individual. Too many children are not going to college, too many children are not going to the college of their choice, and too many students are taking too many years to graduate because of the high cost of college. Too many students aren't going on to those advanced degrees because they have too much debt, they have to work, and they have to pay off their student loans.

Too many students don't have all the training they need in order to do the best for themselves, and it is affecting their ability to succeed economically. They are delayed in their career choices because of extra years of college, and it is affecting their ability to buy homes because they have student debt.

It is affecting our communities. There are less retail consumers than there would otherwise be. Yes, it is affecting our global competition; yes, we have to increase Pell grants; yes, we have to increase public support; and,

yes, we have to increase transparency, but we can, this week and next, do something about it by passing the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act.

I thank Senator Warren and Senator Franken for leading our effort. This will allow us to refinance loans. People can't today, they can't refinance student loans. They can't take advantage of the lower interest rates. People who have student loans are paying thousands of dollars of extra interest costs.

Let's refinance it. The government shouldn't be making money off the backs of student loan holders because the interest rates are lower than what they are charging. Let's refinance. That will save thousands of dollars for families and would help us have more affordable opportunities for education in our community.

Let's give a fair shot to American families. Let's take up and pass the Bank on Student Emergency Loan Refinancing Act to allow those millions of Americans who are currently holding student debt to refinance at lower rates, saving thousands of dollars and helping Americans afford a college education.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support all three of these nominations, but I want to talk a moment about Dr. Henry Aaron. I have had a chance to work over my legislative career with Dr. Aaron. I do not know of a person who is more qualified to serve on this board. He has been involved with Social Security his entire professional life dating back to 1979 when he chaired the Advisory Council on Social Security, which is a bipartisan group that works on Social Security.

He is an individual who will work across party lines in order to deal with the short-term and long-term needs of Social Security. He is currently the Bruce and Virginia MacLaury senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings, a fellow faculty member at the University of Maryland, Stanford University. He is very well qualified.

I know personally of his commitment to work with all Members of the Senate.

I urge my colleagues to support all three of these nominees.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to honor Robert ``Bob'' Perciasepe, the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Bob is a true public servant and dear friend who will be departing government service shortly. He has spent the past several decades protecting our environment and his work in this regard has been exemplary. The air we and our children and grandchildren breathe and the water we drink are cleaner because of Bob Perciasepe.

Bob graduated in 1974 from Cornell University with a bachelor of science degree in natural resources and then received his master's degree in planning and public administration from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. After Bob graduated from Syracuse, he began his career in public service with the Baltimore City Planning Department in 1976, eventually becoming the city's assistant director for planning in 1986. Later, he served as the Maryland secretary of the environment. It was during his service in my home State of Maryland that I first had the opportunity to know and work with Bob, particularly as he worked on an issue near and dear to me--protecting the Chesapeake Bay.

Following Bob's service in Maryland, he served President Bill Clinton in two different capacities at the EPA, first as the Assistant Administrator for Water and then as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. In these positions, he continued his tireless work to improve the air we breathe and protect our drinking and recreational waters.

Bob was instrumental in working with us in Congress to pass the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act--a law that provided critical protection standards for drinking water. When he led the Office of Air and Radiation, he signed the first official finding that mercury pollution from our Nation's power plants should be controlled.

Bob left government service but he didn't stop working to protect human health and the environment. He went to work for the National Audubon Society, where he continued to champion conservation and environmental progress. When Barack Obama became President in 2009, Bob returned to Federal service as the EPA's Deputy Administrator and served as Acting Administrator between the tenures of Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy.

Bob's dedication to public service and his practical approach to problemsolving were evident from my first interactions with him. His fun-loving nature, intellectual capacity, and devotion to duty make him an exemplary public servant. We all breathe easier--literally--because of Bob Perciasepe, so I wanted to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for his service and congratulate him on his countless contributions to protecting our Nation's environment during his long tenure at EPA. I have no doubt that Bob will maintain his untiring commitment to the betterment of the environment in his next venture, and I wish him all the best.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. He serves on the Appropriations Committee that has brought us this supplemental appropriation. He is also the chair of the Judiciary Committee.

I had the great privilege for a short period of time to serve on the Judiciary Committee--too short a period of time--and saw his extraordinary leadership. I know it was his committee that brought together an immigration reform bill that would have dealt with some of the major problems we have in our immigration system. Through great work we got that bill passed in the Senate over 1 year ago.

I find it somewhat ironic that in the House they are now talking about how they can change the immigration law while we have a bill that is over there. Pass our bill and it would go a long way toward helping this issue.

I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on immigration issues and his passion on the humanitarian issues we have before us.

I join Senator Leahy, and I hope the majority of this membership will, in support of the emergency supplemental. I hope we can pass it today, and I hope our colleagues in the House will also pass it.

I thank Senator Mikulski, my colleague from Maryland, for her leadership as chair of the Appropriations Committee and bringing forward a supplemental appropriation that deals with the humanitarian crisis on our border.

We all know about the unaccompanied children on our border. In fiscal year 2014 it will equal 60,000. That is an extraordinary number. But let me make it clear. It is not because of border security issues that we have this problem. When these children approach our border they say: We are here. They are not trying to sneak into the United States. They are trying to get to our country and then they turn themselves in. We know most are coming from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and we know the circumstances in those three Central American countries.

First and foremost, the information they have about the transit and welcome in America is different than reality. The reality is that if children are transited to our border, they are very likely to be at great risk, great risk because of the traffickers who could very well abuse them--certainly very costly transit--and give them information that is not accurate about the laws of our country.

If they make it to our border, what happens is they are put in deportation. There is no right to enter America. We have to evaluate their circumstance. Those are our immigration laws.

First and foremost, we want to make sure the people of Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala understand the risk factors and that their children should remain in their country.

But the root cause, as Senator Leahy pointed out, is also the current circumstances in these three Central American countries. It is not safe. Too many young people have the choice to either join a gang of violence or themselves be victimized by violence. The economic circumstances in these three countries give little hope for an economic future for these children. It is in our interests to partner with all three of these countries to deal with the root causes of why parents would put their children in transit to our borders at great risk or why families would try to come to America and leave their native country.

So it is in our interests to deal with that, and the supplemental appropriations bill that is now on the floor provides $300 million of help that we can use to deal with root causes in the Central American countries. We can make a difference.

I will give the dollars for one second. Three hundred million dollars might seem like a lot of money, but it is not the billions we need to take care of the problems on our border as a result of families sending their children to our border.

We can make a difference. Our development assistance programs work. They work. It is part of our national security. We understand that if we have stable countries, it provides a more stable relationship and strategic partnership with us and other countries, helping our national security interests, and we can make a difference.

Let me remind my colleagues that under President George W. Bush, in a bipartisan manner in 2003, we passed the PEPFAR law which dealt with HIV/AIDS because we recognized the security of the world was being jeopardized by the spread of HIV/AIDS. And guess what. Our PEPFAR initiative made a huge consequential difference. Today the landscape is totally different than it was just a decade ago. That is because we, the United States, showed leadership.

We can show the same kind of leadership in dealing with the root problems in Central America that can make our hemisphere safer--and, by the way, help children and help children of the future who could help their country and help the global economy. We have programs in these countries. We have the Partnership for Growth as one example in El Salvador.

But we have to make it consequential. We have to make it consequential to get rid of these gangs, to give economic hope, to deal with good governance. The first step is in this supplemental appropriation that provides $300 million of help to these countries. These children at the border require a humanitarian response from the United States.

I have the honor of chairing the U.S. Helsinki Commission. It is known for many things. It is known for standing up for human rights globally.

We have talked about America asking the international community to have open borders when there is instability in their community--most recently the problems in Syria. We thank the people of Turkey and the people of Jordan for having open borders so people can find safe havens. We had better take care of our issues at home first.

We have humanitarian responsibilities, and this supplemental appropriation takes care of that, with $1.2 billion to help human services to deal with adequate shelter for these children so they are properly cared for. That is our responsibility; they have certain rights.

The majority will be returned to the host country in a safe manner, but there are many who are entitled to asylum. There are many who have been victimized by the traffickers and are in fear of their life and there is no safe option and have a right to expect our country to reach out in a humanitarian way to take care of their needs.

This supplemental takes care of that--with moneys for HHS, moneys for the Department of Justice--$124 million to deal with the judges so we can handle these issues in a prompt manner--to deal with adequate legal representation.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, yes, we have to improve our immigration laws. We have already done it. The bill from the Senate is at the House. All they have to do is take up our bill, pass it, and in a balanced way, representing I think not only the philosophical views of the Congress--which can be a challenge at times--but representing the views of most Americans.

I hope we will support the supplemental bill. I might also add it provides $615 million for wildfires in the West. We know that is an emergency, an urgent situation that needs to be dealt with. It provides help to our ally and friend Israel, $225 million to replenish the missiles that have been used in Iron Dome to shoot down the missiles coming into Israel. It is a well-balanced supplemental. It represents the best interests of this country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial Products for Students: Issues and Challenges.''

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 July 31, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building a hearing entitled ``Domestic Challenges and Global Competition in Aviation Manufacture.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 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 July 31, 2014, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2014, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2014, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the GAO Report on Expectations of Government Support for Bank Holding Companies.''

Madam President, I wish to honor the extraordinary life

and service of ADM Charles R. Larson. Admiral Larson passed away on July 26, 2014, in his Annapolis, MD, home. He leaves behind his beloved wife of 52 years, Sally, three loving daughters, and seven grandchildren.

Throughout his 40 years of service, Admiral Larson exemplified the ideals of a devoted public servant. After he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958, he served tours of duty aboard the aircraft carrier USS Shangri-la as an aviator and he served as a submariner on board the nuclear submarines USS Nathan Hale, USS Nathanael Green, and USS Bergal. After serving as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior and naval aide to the President of the United States, he returned to sea duty aboard the USS Sculpin. In 1990 Admiral Larson was promoted to the rank of four-star admiral. One year later, he assumed duties as commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Command.

Admiral Larson's career was marked with many notable accomplishments. His naval service as both an aviator and a submariner was unique and admired. In 1979, at the age of 43, he became the second-youngest admiral in the history of the U.S. Navy. Admiral Larson's service is also unique in that he served as both the 51st and 55th superintendant of the U.S. Naval Academy. Larson's second appointment as superintendant, while unusual, was something that the Navy desperately needed. Prior to his second tour of duty as superintendant, the Naval Academy was rocked by a cheating scandal. Admiral Larson was brought in to restore honor and integrity to his alma mater. The task was not an easy one, but he accomplished his mission by pursing two goals that he outlined when he took the job: ``No. 1: to develop character. No. 2: to prove the worth of the service academies to the people of the United States''. By the time his second tour as superintendant was over, Admiral Larson had succeeded in restoring the Naval Academy's reputation as one of America's premier educational and military institutions.

In closing, when I think of ADM Larson, I am reminded of a quote from another famous Admiral, ADM Leighton Smith: ``The United States Navy is the envy of every other navy in the world. They don't want to be like us--they want to be us.''

I believe this quote is true because of the outstanding devotion and competence of those who serve in our Navy. Ships and weapons systems are of little value if the service men and women operating them are not the very best. Admiral Larson understood this, and his service helped the Navy produce other exceptional leaders who have bravely defended and immeasurably enriched our Nation. Few could ask for a more honorable legacy.

I believe that Admiral Larson's legacy is one of duty, honor, and a sincere devotion to serving and improving the Navy he loved. I ask that all Members of the Senate join me in remembering this extraordinary man and his admirable years of service to our Nation.

Next week, between August 4 and August 6, the United States will welcome leaders from across the African Continent to Washington, DC.

I first wish to acknowledge the work of our colleague Senator Coons, the chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Foreign Relations Committee, for the work he has done on behalf of the Senate to make this opportunity a real chance to strengthen the economic ties, to strengthen the strategic ties between the countries of Africa and the United States.

We expect there will be robust discussions that will be encouraging economic growth, unlocking opportunities, and fostering greater ties between our country and Africa.

One of the areas that I hope will get some debate and discussion during next week's meetings will be a key government trade initiative that makes these ties possible; that is, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

AGOA provides qualifying sub-Saharan countries duty-free access to the U.S. market for a wide variety of products. It was first signed into law in 2000 by President Clinton and has been strengthened and extended by Congress and both President Bush and President Obama.

AGOA enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout the years because its advocates recognize the crucial role Africa plays in the global economy.

The African Continent is one of the world's fastest growing regions. For instance, by 2035, it is estimated that Africa will have a larger working-age population than China. I mention that because it is certainly in our interest to have stable partners who develop their economy and can work in strategic partnership with the United States, but it also means we are going to have stronger markets for U.S.- produced goods and products. As we have a growing middle class in Africa, it represents a market for U.S. manufacturers, producers, and farmers, which creates more jobs in the United States.

AGOA allows the United States and Africa to both take advantage of this dynamism. Since the act was fully implemented in 2001, U.S. imports under AGOA have tripled. Nonoil AGOA trade has increased fourfold.

Some of the sectors that AGOA has helped open are apparel, textiles, jewelry, handicrafts, and electronics. AGOA has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in those sectors, most of those in the apparel sector, where women comprise 75 to 90 percent of the industry.

In sub-Saharan Africa women are at the highest risk of being poor. AGOA has tackled barriers to poverty reduction by eliminating tariffs on goods that come from many sectors in which women are employed.

Modern trade agreements and initiatives are much more than just lowering tariffs. It also involves dealing with good governance practices.

In an increasing global economy, we can no longer consider issues such as labor rights, human rights, and good governance as issues that are separate from trade.

Trade with our country is a benefit with deserving nations that share our values. Strong commitments to the rule of law and human rights are an essential part of those values and level the playing field between the United States and our partners in the global marketplace.

AGOA is no exception. The Act has been encouraging these commitments since it was first enacted. In other words, this is not only an opportunity by lowering barriers to our markets, it is also about expectations and enforcement that the African countries will improve their good governance and their labor rights so we have a more level playing field.

To qualify for AGOA benefits, countries must establish or make continual progress on measures that promote good governance and a fair economic system. These include fundamental rights, the rule of law, a system that combats corruption, and policies that increase access to health care, education, and expand physical infrastructure. In other words, the African countries involved that take advantage of AGOA must have continuing progress on the good governance key issues.

For example, as part of the annual AGOA review process, the U.S. Department of Labor examines AGOA countries' efforts to implement and enforce workers' rights, including the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, prohibitions on forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and acceptable conditions of work.

These are the International Labour Organization standards. The ILO standards are very much a part of the progress we made under AGOA in the African countries. Improvements in these areas have been shown to foster the kind of inclusive economic growth and opportunities that raise families and nations out of poverty.

We understand that by developing stronger economies in African countries, we are building more stable African countries, countries that are more reliable to be partners with the United States in dealing with global issues.

We understand that by doing that we are going to have a stronger partner sharing U.S. values. This is just one of the tools we use. We also use our transparency initiatives. We included in the Dodd-Frank legislation transparency on extractive industries that operate globally but also in Africa so we could find and make sure the wealth of a country is actually going to its people. That requires good governance. AGOA is one of our tools to accomplish that good governance.

So these countries that have mineral wealth, the wealth is not a curse but truly benefits the people of that country.

AGOA helps, the transparency initiatives that we passed help, but this is the issue: The current authorization of AGOA expires on September 30, 2015. Once again, Madam President, as you know, as you worked so hard, we need predictability in our law. Short-term extensions don't do much good. What we need is a long-term economic commitment with the continent of Africa.

A bipartisan effort in Congress to extend and improve this important legislation is already underway. The U.S. Trade Representative has been reviewing AGOA's successes as well as the areas that can be improved. Later today in the Senate Finance Committee we will be holding a hearing on AGOA, and Ambassador Froman will be one of the witnesses at that hearing. So we will have a chance to work together, bipartisan members of Congress with the administration.

One of the areas we are looking at is strengthening the eligibility criteria to further incentivize improvements in human rights, and I will be talking about that in the Finance Committee. Another area is providing coordinated technical assistance and capacity building. This is very important. Too often trade and development policies operate on separate tracks. Granting trade preference means little without providing countries with the ability to take advantage of those benefits. We have development assistance that we provide to countries. We have trade that we do. Let's combine it and recognize that these trade opportunities can only be taken advantage of if the country has the capacity to deal with the issues we are talking about.

Capacity building is already underway in Africa. For instance, the Department of Labor provides capacity-building assistance to AGOA countries to improve workers' rights through partnerships with a broad range of organizations, from NGOs, to health organizations, to social and economic researchers. By providing this aid in a more efficient and clearly measurable fashion and seeking more input from local cooperatives and groups, we can help foster more sustainable growth in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The time to develop consensus on AGOA improvements is now. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and strengthening the AGOA Act so we can maintain this important tool to increase the trade relations between the United States and Africa and fight global poverty. I look forward to seeing the results of next week's meetings with the African leaders. It is my sincere expectation that these meetings will produce concrete ways we can improve the ties between Africa and the United States, and I certainly expect it will help us lead to the improvement and reauthorization of AGOA.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I wish to draw attention to the fact that July 20 marked the 40th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by a Turkish army. Sadly, this year also marks more than 50 years since a power-sharing arrangement between the two communities on Cyprus collapsed following independence from Britain. As the situation in the eastern Mediterranean and the wider Middle East is becoming more volatile and fragile, it is time to end the forcible division of Cyprus, which has endured for far too long.

The continued presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of Cyprus exacerbates a number of human rights concerns including property restitution, restrictions on freedom of worship, and damage to religious and archeological sites. I have consistently raised these concerns and want to emphasize that all religious sites in the north must be protected.

It is gratifying that the Government of Cyprus remains fully committed to the U.N.-sponsored process to reach a sustainable and enduring settlement that would reunify Cyprus based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation in accordance with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The joint statement agreed to by Greek Cypriot President Anastasiades and Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu on the island in February of this year lays a solid foundation for results-oriented talks. The basic parameters for a solution laid out in the statement should be fully respected.

I applaud the efforts of both leaders to move this process forward. Following the signing of the joint statement in February, President Anastasiades called the chance for peace a ``win-win situation.'' ``I believe that a solution that would be accepted by the Greek Cypriots would create stability in the region. Greater cooperation with Turkish Cypriots will contribute to foster growth . . . to do that you have to have a settlement that is not at the expense of one community or to the benefit of the other,'' he said.

After meeting in April with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu said that during negotiations with Greek Cypriot President Anastasiades, ``we'll try to bridge our differences and find a comprehensive settlement in the shortest possible time.'' ``We can finalize a settlement and take it to a separate simultaneous referenda in 2014.''

Many observers believe the discovery of vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean could be a game changer in pressing negotiations forward and could potentially also act as a stabilizing and unifying factor in the eastern Mediterranean. The cheapest and most expeditious way of exporting the reserves, discovered first by Israel and then by Cyprus, would be through an underwater pipeline to Turkey. I certainly

hope this potential for economic empowerment for all of the people of Cyprus will help both communities to visualize and then implement a final settlement.

In keeping with the numerous U.N. resolutions on Cyprus and the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, it is time for Turkey to remove its troops from the island. The people of Cyprus cannot wait another 40 years for reconciliation.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation that the Senate has passed H.R. 4028, a bipartisan bill Representatives Grace Meng and Doug Collins introduced that amends the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the right to religious freedom. Last month, Senator Risch and I introduced a Senate companion bill, S. 2466, to H.R. 4028.

In 1998, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act to affirm America's commitment to religious freedom, enshrined both in the U.S. Constitution and in numerous international human rights instruments. The act acknowledges the pressure and persecution that many people around the world face because of their religious beliefs and requires the Department of State to issue an annual report on international religious freedom.

Freedom of religion requires respect for those practicing their faith alone as well as in community with others. It also requires protection for those who identify as members of a religious community, for the symbols of the community, for the houses of worship, and for other institutions of the community. The defacing or destruction of a cemetery based on an affiliation with a particular religious or spiritual group should not be tolerated by governments and must factor into our international religious freedom reporting. This bill, H.R. 4028, will ensure inclusion of these acts in the annual State Department reports and will better aid those of us working to monitor and combat anti-Semitism and other religious discrimination.

There is no question that we need to report on these crimes. In recent years, we have witnessed with growing concern a number of cases involving the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in the Netherlands, Hungary, Russia, Poland, France, Germany, Georgia, Moldova, and Argentina. This legislation is even more important and timely given the rise in anti-Semitism across Europe. In just the past few weeks, large- scale anti-Semitic protests have taken place in major cities across Europe. In this year's European Union elections, extremist parties espousing anti-Semitic platforms have made alarming progress. And in Hungary and Greece, extremist parliamentary parties associated with street militias have been successful in elections.

I have served on the Helsinki Commission for nearly 20 years. During my tenure, I have worked tirelessly to combat anti-Semitism and religious discrimination. Ensuring that religiously motivated cemetery desecration is reported is the first important step to combating this serious crime.

I thank Senator Risch for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senators Menendez and Corker for taking up H.R. 4028 and moving it quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee. Finally, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supporting this bill and for helping to recognize the desecration of cemeteries as a violation of the right to religious freedom.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his comments and the manner in which we are proceeding.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Pennsylvania, and for many reasons.

First, let me compliment Senator Boxer and the leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Because when we approved MAP- 21, we took up this issue. We dealt with it. It was not without controversy. We had strong views on both sides of this issue. Because what the Senator from Pennsylvania is doing is removing completely replacement facilities from any--not just the NEPA procedures, but also from the Endangered Species Act, from the Clean Water Act--basically putting a dome over the process so anything goes, basically. Anything.

We debated that issue in the Environment and Public Works Committee. There were different views. Quite frankly, Senator Boxer was extremely accommodating to the legitimate concerns the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised. That is why there is an expedited procedure already in law, passed in MAP-21, that deals with this issue. The Senator talks about using the proper legislative process. We did that. The committee of jurisdiction debated it. We had difficult compromises, but we reached these compromises.

Let the process work, because the process is working. Let me point out, I was one of those who was not excited about giving up any of our environmental protections on replacement facilities, because I pointed out the fact that when we had a bridge collapse in Minnesota, that bridge was replaced within a matter of a very short period of time, before we did our compromise, which now expedites the process. My point is, in emergencies we seem to work things out. But in order to deal with the concerns the Senator has raised, we put into the law this expedited procedure for replacement facilities. It is in MAP-21. It is the law.

This amendment would open it to significant abuse. It is very conceivable that when you give this type of an exemption, you basically are exempting a geographical spot so that anything goes. It could be a total ending of the protections that we have in the Federal Clean Water Act. It could be eliminated.

I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is unnecessary. It certainly opens it to tremendous abuse. We have a process in place. It was negotiated. I would urge my colleagues to accept it.

Before I yield the floor, I want to thank Senator Wyden. I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Hatch--I see them on the floor--and Senator Carper for their incredible work on this bill. I agree with Senators Boxer and Wyden. It is very important that we pass a bill before we leave this week so that there is no delay in making sure the Federal Government pays its bills to our State and local governments on transportation projects.

I strongly support Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch's effort in our committee to get a better funding flow for the patch so we deal with collecting the taxes that should be paid, rather than causing a disruption in some of the revenue sources that are in the House bill. I strongly support Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch's efforts in our committee.

I certainly support Senator Carper's amendment that would say it is our responsibility to act in this Congress.

Let me point out, we have 5 months left before this Congress goes out of business. It would be wrong for us to pass just a patch and not to do the 6-year reauthorization. The Environment and Public Works Committee, by unanimous vote, recognized that we could get a 6-year bill done. We have already talked about from where revenues can come. There are bills we could take up dealing with supplemental ways to fund infrastructure, infrastructure banks, using the Tax Code. I am sure we can get bipartisan agreement on some of these issues.

The Carper amendment says we are going to get our job done in this Congress and we are not going to subject our States to the uncertainty of just a patch. In my State of Maryland, we have many long-term commitments that we are trying to get funded. A short-term patch will put us in a hole.

We are okay to the end of the year, but let's make sure we enact a 6- year bill before this Congress leaves.

I would be glad to yield to my colleague from California.

I say to Senator Boxer, through the Chair, she is absolutely right. It is even worse than that, because the contractor could be using a subcontractor whose principal work may not even be directly related to the replacement. It would be virtually impossible to detect what they are doing on the replacement site as to what they are doing on other sites. So it could be absolutely used as a shield in order to avoid the laws that we have to protect public health, protect our clean waters, our drinking water, et cetera. It opens a huge potential abuse. It is throwing out the laws, rather than making the laws work. That is exactly what our committee did after a very lengthy debate and which, quite frankly, we did certain things that make it a lot easier for a replacement facility to be done in an expedited process.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this issue was dealt with in MAP-21 in the committee. My friend from Pennsylvania talks about using regular order, and we did. We had a very serious debate and we had many different views and we compromised, and there is an expedited process to deal with replacement facilities. It is in MAP-21. It deals with a way to get this done.

The problem with the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is it totally eliminates all of the protections that are in the law. It eliminates all of the protections under the Clean Water Act and under the NEPA process.

We handled this in the committee. It was bipartisan. It was done. There is no need for this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

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

Madam President, in a few moments we are going to have the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of Pamela Harris for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am very proud to have joined Senator Mikulski in recommending to President Obama the appointment of Pamela Harris to the Fourth Circuit.

I have interviewed many candidates for judicial appointments. I can tell you Pamela Harris is at the top, as far as her qualifications for this appellate court position. She is an extraordinarily talented person who has devoted the prime part of her life to public service and seeks this appointment for the right reasons--to continue her public service.

I mentioned that Senator Mikulski and I both recommended her appointment. Senator Mikulski has set up, as the senior Senator in our State, a process by which we solicit the strongest possible candidates of interest to fill judicial vacancies. We understand these are lifetime appointments. We understand the importance of these appointments. We have a screening process and an interview process in addition to the White House and Justice Department vetting process, which we think will give us the highest quality person to fill these lifetime appointments. In Pamela Harris's case, I am extremely proud. I thank Senator Mikulski for her commitment to a process that gives us the very best people for these positions.

Pamela Harris is the granddaughter of Polish-Jewish immigrants who came to this country to seek a better life for their children. Pamela's mother worked her way through law school. Pamela herself went to Yale College and then Yale Law School. She was helped in the process with Pell grants. She is a product of the Montgomery County public schools. We are very proud of the fact that she has really lived the American dream and has been able to accomplish so much in her career through hard work and believing in this country.

When we take a look at her professional accomplishments, I don't know what else we could ask. She has the highest rating from the American Bar Association, which gives us that information on the candidates who are nominated for judgeships.

She clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens in the Supreme Court of the United States. She has been an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, codirector of Harvard Law School's Supreme Court and appellate litigation clinic, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and she was in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy. At Georgetown University Law Center, her clinic prepares lawyers for their arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States. In other words, she is basically the person who teaches and gives practical experience for those who have to appear before the highest Court in this land.

It is interesting that she has dedicated about half of her time to civil cases and about half to criminal cases, so she is well versed on the responsibilities of our appellate court. I don't think we could have found a more qualified person to fill this extremely important position on the Fourth Circuit.

I also want my colleagues to know that she understands the responsibilities of a lawyer and a judge to provide access to all. She will take an oath if she is confirmed--and I am hopeful she will be in a few moments, literally--to serve justice regardless of a person's wealth or poverty. As a private attorney, she helped develop a relationship with the public defender of Maryland to provide help to indigent individuals who needed additional services. She is committed to pro bono service and she is committed to equal access to justice in addition to everything else she has done in her career. She really understands. She has the talent, she has the commitment to all in our communities, and she understands what the appropriate role is for a member of the bench, for a judge.

I know Senator Grassley has mentioned his concerns, but Senator Grassley asked a lot of questions for the record, which is the right of any Senator to do. These are lifetime appointments, and I fully support that. But I wish to state Pamela Harris's own words in response as to understanding the difference between an advocate and a judge, between a lawyer representing a client and a judge. I know when I practiced law, I gave everything I could to help the clients I represented. I didn't always 100 percent agree with their position, but it was my responsibility to advocate for their position. That is how our system of justice operates. That is our rule of law.

Pamela Harris said:

I fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely

different from the role of an advocate. If confirmed as a

judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent

impartially to the facts of a particular case.

She gets it. She understands what the role of a judge is.

Quite frankly, I want people who are active in the legal system to apply and become our judges because they understand the importance of the work a judge does.

She continues:

It is inappropriate for any judge or Justice to base his or

her decision on their own personal view or on public opinion.

. . . If confirmed as a circuit judge, I would faithfully

follow the methodological precedence of the Supreme Court and

the Fourth Circuit, applying the interpretive approaches and

only the interpretive approaches used by those courts.

Perhaps that is exactly what we want from our judges. We want them to be worldly. We want them to understand the law. We want them to have been involved in the law. In Pam Harris's case, she has been a professor, she has taught the law, and, yes, she has been actively engaged. But once they become a judge, they need to apply the

precedence from that circuit, from the Supreme Court, and that is exactly what Pam Harris said she would do. Her reputation for being straightforward and telling it exactly the way she believes has been well documented in the record before the Judiciary Committee.

I thank Senator Leahy for the incredible manner in which he operates the Judiciary Committee in the best traditions of the Senate. They had a full hearing on Pamela Harris's nomination. They had a full record. One of the letters that is part of that record that is also part of the record of the Senate was a letter--the Judiciary Committee received numerous letters of support for Pamela Harris. I will quote from one letter that was signed by more than 80 of her professional peers, which included individuals appointed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents to key positions, including Gregory Garre, the former Solicitor General for George W. Bush. In that letter where these 80 signatories to that letter strongly endorsed Pamela Harris's confirmation for judge on the Fourth Circuit, it says:

We are lawyers from diverse backgrounds and varying

affiliations, but we are united in our admiration for Pam's

skills as a lawyer and our respect for her integrity, her

intellect, her judgment, and her fair-mindedness.

Continuing:

Many of us have had the opportunity to work with Pam on

appellate matters. She has been co-counsel to some of us,

opposing counsel to others, and a valuable colleague to all.

In her appellate work, Pam has demonstrated extraordinary

skill. She is a quick study, careful listener, and acute

judge of legal arguments. She knows the value of clarity,

candor, vigor, and responsiveness. Of equal importance, she

has always conducted herself with consummate professionalism,

grace, and congeniality, and has a humble and down-to-earth

approach to her work.

The letter concludes:

Her well-rounded experience makes her well prepared for the

docket of a federal appellate court. Pam's substantive

knowledge, intellect, and low-key temperament will be great

assets for the position for which she has been nominated.

I pointed out before and I will again that there are many questions that were posed to Pamela Harris during the confirmation process. I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at those. I did. I read her answers to those questions. They were very well documented and very professional. Her reputation is one of being a straight shooter and saying exactly what is on her mind. Read her responses. She understands the role of a judge. She is well qualified to serve on this circuit.

She has the strong endorsement of the two Senators from her home State, and I urge my colleagues to vote for her confirmation. We are very proud of her record on the Fourth Circuit.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this past Friday, July 25, marked the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation with the signature of President Nixon that established LSC with bipartisan support. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes almost all of its annual Federal appropriations to 134 local legal aid programs, serving communities in every State.

In Maryland, according to the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, MLSC, services to clients in fiscal year 2013 increased 5 percent from the prior year, with MLSC grantees opening nearly 168,000 new cases, a record high, and benefiting almost 252,000 individuals and families. Family cases, about one-third of all cases, involved domestic violence, child custody, child support, and other matters and benefited nearly 80,000 people. Foreclosures, evictions, and other housing cases, also almost one-third of cases, benefited approximately 94,000 individuals and families. Debt collection, bankruptcy, and other consumer cases, which are one-fifth of all cases, directly benefited 23,000 individuals and families. The private bar handled almost 8,000 cases through MLSC- funded organizations. Pro bono attorneys gave nearly 69,000 hours, representing almost $19 million in donated legal services.

And finally, helping to leverage pro bono, the judicare project referred about 1,000 judicare cases to nearly 500 reduced-fee attorneys that provided 22,000 hours of services, including at least 2,000 pro bono hours, which benefited 2,700 individuals and families.

Let me just give a few examples of the excellent work done by MLSC grantees over the last year as a result of the grants given by LSC. ``Shirley'' was thrilled to move into her new house in Baltimore County after nearly 3 years in a nursing facility with help from the Maryland Disability Law Center, MDLC. Shirley had a special voucher for non elderly persons with disabilities who are transitioning from nursing homes to the community, but ran into obstacles finding the right place and location to meet her needs. MDLC's Sun shine Folk, a group of advocates with disabilities who were formerly institutionalized, and MDLC's housing lawyers helped Shirley get an extension of her voucher and a professional housing transition team, ensuring that her rights to reasonable accommodations were protected.

Several years ago, Kenneth Brown's mother learned that her landlord was in foreclosure and that Fannie Mae wanted to evict her from her long-time Baltimore home. But through the Brown family's persistence, Public Justice Center's, PJC legal advocacy, and the support of community organizing partners, Kenneth and his brother Berveyn were able to buy the home this year. Together, PJC and the Browns challenged multiple eviction attempts in court and demanded needed repairs. PJC community organizing partners also secured a meeting with Fannie Mae executives. The Browns avoided eviction and ultimately bought the house from Fannie Mae.

After visiting Baltimore Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services years ago for getting help obtaining her legal permanent residence green card, ``Jeannette'' returned to apply for naturalization with the help of a volunteer attorney during one of ILS's regular naturalization clinics, and was sworn in as a U.S. citizen.

I remain concerned about the access to justice gap that still exists today. We must do better than turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance because of the lack of LSC program resources. I support full funding of LSC's budget request for fiscal year 2015. I strongly support lifting unnecessary, burdensome, and counterproductive congressional restrictions, such as restrictions on filing class action lawsuits and recovering attorneys' fees. Congress should also remove restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by LSC grantees.

I commend the LSC, MLSC, and the many LSC-funded attorneys and private sector lawyers who have donated pro bono hours and who strive to live up to the commitment of our legal system to provide equal justice under law. Last week I attended a Federal judicial investiture ceremony in Maryland, and the judge swore to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Congress needs to live up to the same commitment that we require our Federal judges to make before sitting on the bench and deciding cases. Let us make sure that millions of Americans who need access to legal assistance are provided that critical help in cases that will have a profound impact on their lives, their family, and their community.

Mr. President, shortly we will have the opportunity to vote on a cloture motion on Pamela Harris for confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland. I urge my colleagues not only to support the cloture motion but to support her confirmation as a judge in the Fourth Circuit.

Senator Mikulski and I have a process--and I thank the senior Senator from Maryland for that process--we use in screening recommendations to the President for judgeships. I am very proud of that process. It is very open. We think we have recruited the very best in the legal profession to serve as our judges, and I am proud to be part of it with Senator Mikulski.

Of all of the candidates I have interviewed for the appellate court, Pamela Harris has stood out as one of the most qualified individuals we have in the legal community to sit on our appellate court. She is exceptional in her qualifications, well qualified. She is an excellent Supreme Court litigator, has clerked at the Federal appellate court, supervised policy initiatives at the Department of Justice, and she has dedicated her career and professional life to improving the administration of justice as a public servant.

A little bit of background about her--particularly her family. Her grandmother was a Polish Jewish immigrant to the United States who valued education and worked hard to overcome personal adversity. Her mom put herself through law school, with young children, after a divorce, and died from cancer a few years later. Ms. Harris relied in part on Pell grants to attend college at Yale. Her story represents the American dream and the American experience and the opportunity in this country coming from an immigrant family.

After graduating from public high school in Montgomery County, Walt Whitman High School, Ms. Harris received a B.A. summa cum laude from Yale College in 1985 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. After her graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and later clerked with Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States between 1992 and 1993.

She became associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Beginning in 2007, while she was still in private practice, Ms. Harris codirected Harvard Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Clinic and was a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

In 2009 Ms. Harris was named the executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, serving until 2010. Ms. Harris joined the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, where she served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General until returning to Georgetown in 2012.

Ms. Harris is currently a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a senior advisor to the Supreme Court Institute.

It is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given her the highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' for this appointment. She has appeared as counsel or cocounsel in approximately 100 cases before the Federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Her practice has been pretty evenly divided between criminal cases and civil cases.

When it comes to Supreme Court litigation, I must tell you I don't think Ms. Harris has an equal as far as her qualifications. Her clinic at Georgetown which she supervises prepares litigants for the Supreme Court. In other words, she provides experience for those who are going to be before the Supreme Court as to how to properly litigate those cases, and she takes them on a first-come, first-served basis. It is not ideological at all. It is to make sure the highest quality presentations are made in the highest Court of our land so we get the best decisions made by the highest Court of our land, the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the type of person we need on our court of appeals.

As I said, I don't know of a person whom I have interviewed who is more qualified to be an appellate court judge than Ms. Harris. She understands the different role of an advocate or someone writing an opinion or commentary column and a judge. I want to emphasize this. She is a person who brings--we all bring our views and our passion to life, but she understands what the judiciary is all about.

As is the practice of the Judiciary Committee--and I serve on the Judiciary Committee and I am proud of my service--I thank Senator Leahy for his credible leadership. As you know, after the committee there are questions for the record that are submitted by the Senators. That is certainly true in Ms. Harris's case, and I have those answers here. I would like my colleagues to read these answers because I can imagine the people in the White House going through all the legal cites that Ms. Harris gave in each of the answers to the questions our colleagues requested. It is one of the most thorough answers I have ever seen and thoroughly vetted by the Supreme Court decisions. I mention that because it is exactly why I believe what she has told us is what she will do. She understands the role of a judge in our system.

Quoting from her answer:

I fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely

different from the role of an advocate. If confirmed as a

judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent

impartially to the facts of a particular case.

Pam Harris went on to state:

It is inappropriate for any judge or Justice to base his or

her decision on their own personal views or on public opinion

. . . If confirmed as a circuit judge, I would faithfully

follow the methodological precedence of the Supreme Court and

the Fourth Circuit, applying the interpretive approaches and

only the interpretive approaches used by those courts.

Don't take my word for it. Don't take her qualifications for it. Look at the record. Look at the letters that have been sent in support of Ms. Harris to the Judiciary Committee. There are numerous letters.

I will quote from one that was signed by more than 80 of her professional peers, and I will tell you it includes individuals who were appointed by Republican Presidents to key positions, including Gregory Garre, the former Solicitor General for George W. Bush, but it includes many in that category, and I am reading from that letter. This letter is part of the record. It was made part of the record in the Judiciary Committee.

I would ask unanimous consent it and another letter be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I have the honor to chair the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which is well known for its commitment to human rights. It is also our participating arm in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE.

Starting when I first joined the Helsinki Commission almost 20 years ago, I worked on the issues of antisemitism and trying to deal with combating antisemitism. This is overt actions against Jews and Jewish institutions, which were on the rise. We tried to do something about it. In the early 2000s, working with Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Hastings and Congressman Smith and others, we made a commitment in the Helsinki Commission to bring up the increasing episodes of antisemitism and what we needed to do about it.

We saw increased episodes of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions. We saw that world events were used to try to justify antisemitic activities. As a result of the work of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, the OSCE determined that it was important enough to do a special conference on antisemitism. In 2004, we had the Berlin conference on antisemitism under the leadership of the United States and Germany.

I was proud to be a member of the U.S. delegation to the Berlin conference. Good work was done in that conference. We developed best practices, from dealing with Holocaust education, to police training to deal with identifying hate crimes. We had the first uniform collection of hate crimes statistics in the OSCE region, the responsibility of leaders to speak up against antisemitic activities. We provided technical assistance to countries to deal with antisemitism and to share their best practices. We also recommended a special representative to the chair in office, to put a spotlight on antisemitism and ways to combat it.

Today Rabbi Andrew Baker is that special representative to the chair in office. The chair in office this year is the Swiss chair in office.

Tomorrow, I will chair a Helsinki Commission hearing that deals with antisemitism, racism, and discrimination in the OSCE region. There are now three special representatives, one to combat antisemitism, one to deal with discrimination against Muslims, and one to deal with racism, xenophobia, and other forms of religious intolerance. They are all related. We find that hate crimes are hate crimes; that if a community is susceptible to antisemitic activities, it is also susceptible to anti-Muslim activities or activities against a person because of their race.

There is reason to be concerned. There is reason to be concerned about the rise of antisemitism today. This is 10 years after the Berlin conference. Last year the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency surveyed all of the EU countries. The results were alarming. Forty to forty-eight percent of the Jewish respondents felt it was not safe for them to remain in their country. We are talking about in Hungary, France, and Belgium. In those three countries, ranging between 40 and 48 percent, they were considering emigrating to Israel because they did not feel safe in their own country.

These fears are not without justification. The Anti-Defamation League surveyed over 100 countries and documented persistent antisemitic prejudice. In the EU elections extremist parties espousing antisemitic activities made remarkable progress. In Hungary and Greece extremist parliamentary parties associated with street militias were successful in elections.

In Hungary the extremist party Jobbik is the second most significant party and had erected a monument to a wartime leader and a self- declared antisemite. We also found laws passed in Europe that make it more difficult for Jews to practice their religion because of restrictions on being able to make kosher foods and making it difficult to wear head coverings.

We have seen, unfortunately, violent acts. In Kansas, in the United States, three people were murdered outside of a JCC. In May, in Brussels, three people were murdered at a Jewish museum. I mention this because even as we visit Europe today, we see signs of antisemitism. It is troubling to all of us.

This is the 10th anniversary of the Berlin conference coming up this year. We will be reconvening the OSCE states in order to evaluate the progress we have made over the last 10 years and additional progress that needs to be made. The Helsinki hearing tomorrow will give us an opportunity to concentrate on how the United States can continue to be a leader on this very important issue.

I wanted to share those comments with my colleagues.

I yield the floor.