Floor Statements

Madam President, I strongly support the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. She will be the most experienced jurist to be placed on the Supreme Court in a century, and she will be the first Latina Justice in our Nation's history.

With her extensive career in public service and her lifelong commitment to equal justice, Judge Sotomayor will bring a remarkable perspective to the Court. Given her extraordinary and far-ranging experience, she has already distinguished herself as one of the most able and hardworking Federal judges in the Nation, and I am confident that she will bring the same high ability and dedication to all issues before the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor has already spent 17 years as a Federal judge. She was first nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Six years later, she was nominated by President Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She received bipartisan support in the Senate each time, and it is a special privilege for me to support her for the third time.

Judge Sotomayor has a deep understanding of our legal system as a result of the experience she has had as an attorney and a judge. She has more judicial experience at both the appellate and district court level than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years. In addition, in her earlier legal career, she served as an assistant district attorney in New York City and worked as a civil litigator in private practice. Her experience in the criminal and civil systems and as a district judge and an appellate court judge give her a unique perspective that will be invaluable as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

During her years as a Federal judge, she has participated in over 3,000 decisions, including over 400 Second Circuit decisions by panels that included at least one judge appointed by a Republican President. In those cases, she has agreed with the result favored by the Republican appointee over 95 percent of the time. Some have sought to portray Judge Sotomayor as a judicial activist, but her record clearly shows that she is a mainstream jurist who does not let personal ideology dictate the outcome of the cases she is deciding.

Not only is Judge Sotomayor eminently qualified by her experience to serve on the Supreme Court, but her nomination is historic. I, like many Americans, welcome the insight and perspective that Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Court, and she will serve as a role model for millions of our people.

Judge Sotomayor's compelling life story is an impressive example of the best of our country. She was born in the Bronx and raised in New York City by hardworking parents. Through the strong support of her family and her own hard work and dedication and extraordinary achievement, she has been nominated to be the Nation's 111th Supreme Court Justice.

I commend President Obama for selecting her. With her intelligence, insight, and experience, she is an excellent choice to serve in this distinguished role, and I am sure she will do an outstanding job protecting the rule of law and the fundamental rights and liberties of all Americans. Judge Sotomayor has worked hard to achieve success, and I commend her for her life's accomplishments. I wish her well in this new role, and I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation.

On the day soon to come, when she walks up the steps of the Supreme Court and passes under those famous and inspiring words, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' inscribed in the marble over the entrance, millions of our fellow citizens and communities across the Nation will be able to say, ``Yes, the American dream is alive and well in America today.''

Mr. President, this morning, 660,000 police officers and 300,000 firefighters across the country will get up and go to work to protect our homes, our families, and our communities. They will go into burning buildings, patrol our streets, and put their lives on the line, because they believe in the importance of what they are doing.

These dedicated workers are in the trenches every day making life-or- death decisions, and their experiences give them tremendous knowledge about how to protect our country. We need to listen to their recommendations and consider their advice. Unfortunately, however, all too often, our first responders have no voice in the decisions that affect their lives and their livelihoods. Their input is disregarded because they don't have the same rights as other workers.

Workers in the private sector who want a voice on the job have the right to form and join a union. They can fight for a safer, fairer workplace. But 300,000 police and 70,000 firefighters live in States in which their State governments deny them the fundamental right to a voice on the job. Even if these workers overwhelmingly agree that they want to form and join a union, their State government says they can't have one.

That is not fair. We are asking these workers to do so much for their communities--the least we can do in return is give them a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions and decisions that affect their families and their futures. They deserve the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they want the advantages that unions bring.

That is why it is an honor to join Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd in sponsoring the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act to guarantee that our first responders will have a path they can use to decide if they want a union. If the workers don't want a union, they don't have to follow that path. But the State has to make it available and let the workers choose.

It won't be difficult for States to create this path. All they have to do is provide four basic rights: the right to form and join a union; the right to sit down at the table and talk; the right to sign a contract if both parties agree; and the right to go to a neutral third party when there are disputes.

Apart from these four rights, all the other details of the collective bargaining system are left up to the States. They have the flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide how workers can select a union. They can also decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes--through arbitration, mediation, factfinding, or some other mechanism.

This bipartisan bill has been carefully drafted to preserve a balance between the interests of State and local governments and the rights of the workers they employ. It has been the product of years of careful negotiations, including a hearing and two markups in the HELP Committee. It was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan margin, including 98 Republican votes. No it is time to get it across the finish line and give our dedicated first responders the fair treatment they deserve. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and an urgent matter of public safety.

I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to show these heroes the respect they deserve by supporting the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.

Mr. President, this morning, 660,000 police officers and 300,000 firefighters across the country will get up and go to work to protect our homes, our families, and our communities. They will go into burning buildings, patrol our streets, and put their lives on the line, because they believe in the importance of what they are doing.

These dedicated workers are in the trenches every day making life-or- death decisions, and their experiences give them tremendous knowledge about how to protect our country. We need to listen to their recommendations and consider their advice. Unfortunately, however, all too often, our first responders have no voice in the decisions that affect their lives and their livelihoods. Their input is disregarded because they don't have the same rights as other workers.

Workers in the private sector who want a voice on the job have the right to form and join a union. They can fight for a safer, fairer workplace. But 300,000 police and 70,000 firefighters live in States in which their State governments deny them the fundamental right to a voice on the job. Even if these workers overwhelmingly agree that they want to form and join a union, their State government says they can't have one.

That is not fair. We are asking these workers to do so much for their communities--the least we can do in return is give them a voice at the table in the life-and-death discussions and decisions that affect their families and their futures. They deserve the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they want the advantages that unions bring.

That is why it is an honor to join Senator Gregg and Senator Dodd in sponsoring the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act to guarantee that our first responders will have a path they can use to decide if they want a union. If the workers don't want a union, they don't have to follow that path. But the State has to make it available and let the workers choose.

It won't be difficult for States to create this path. All they have to do is provide four basic rights: the right to form and join a union; the right to sit down at the table and talk; the right to sign a contract if both parties agree; and the right to go to a neutral third party when there are disputes.

Apart from these four rights, all the other details of the collective bargaining system are left up to the States. They have the flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide how workers can select a union. They can also decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes--through arbitration, mediation, factfinding, or some other mechanism.

This bipartisan bill has been carefully drafted to preserve a balance between the interests of State and local governments and the rights of the workers they employ. It has been the product of years of careful negotiations, including a hearing and two markups in the HELP Committee. It was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress with an overwhelming bipartisan margin, including 98 Republican votes. No it is time to get it across the finish line and give our dedicated first responders the fair treatment they deserve. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and an urgent matter of public safety.

I commend Senator Gregg for his leadership on this very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to show these heroes the respect they deserve by supporting the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. Almost 40 years ago, Congress set out to guarantee a safe workplace for all Americans. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was landmark legislation that has dramatically improved the well-being of working men and women.

Since then, the annual job fatality rate has dropped from 18 deaths per 100,000 workers to less than four. Thousands of lives have been saved each year. These are not abstract numbers--they represent thousands of families who have been spared the pain and heartache of losing a loved one on the job.

We are enormously proud of the progress we have made, but we also know that too many workers continue to face needless dangers in the workplace. In 2007, almost 5,500 workers were killed on the job and 4 million other workers became ill or were injured. Fifteen workers still die on the job every day, and nearly 11,000 who are injured or become ill because of dangerous conditions.

We now have strong partners in the White House and at the Department of Labor who are committed to making our workplaces safer. But they need action by Congress as well. That is why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act, to take concrete steps to address many of the failures of the existing law.

First, this legislation expands the coverage of the current job safety laws to protect the millions of public employees and transportation workers who are not covered by these laws. In Massachusetts alone, 350,000 public sector workers lack the protections granted by the federal workplace safety law.

Our bill also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by updating OSHA's whistleblower provisions. OSHA inspectors can't be in every workplace, every day. We must rely on workers who have the courage to come forward when they know their employer is cutting corners on safety. This legislation makes good on the promise to stand by those workers and guarantee they don't have to sacrifice their jobs in order to do the right thing.

In addition, the legislation gives workers and their families and representatives a seat at the table on safety issues. It includes sensible reforms to ensure that victims and their families have a right to talk to OSHA before a citation issues, to obtain copies of important documents, to be informed about their rights, and to have their voices heard before OSHA accepts a settlement that lets an employer off the hook for endangering workers.

Finally, a critical element of this bill is the increase in penalties on employers who turn their backs on the safety of their workers. Too many employers in our country blatantly ignore the law, and too often they are not held accountable. They pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business.

Last year, my office issued a report that showed that the median penalty for a workplace fatality was only $3,675. In other words, in cases investigated by OSHA where workers were killed on the job, half of all employers were fined $3,675 or less. Workers' lives are obviously worth far more than that. We know this administration will do better, but it needs our help.

The bill makes reasonable increases in civil penalties--especially in the most serious cases. It also creates a strong criminal penalty, including the possibility of felony charges and significant prison terms. These changes will create the deterrence we need so that employers will think twice before they gamble with workers' lives to save a few dollars. We need to send a strong message that it is unacceptable to treat workers as expendable or disposable.

Earlier this year a brave young woman, Tammy Miser, testified before our Labor Committee about her brother Shawn, who was killed in an explosion at the Hayes Lemmerz manufacturing plant in Huntington, Indiana in 2003. We can't bring Shawn back and we can't ease Tammy's pain at the loss of her beloved brother. But we can stand with her as she pursues her life's work since then of speaking out for the right of every worker to come home safely at the end of the day. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the millions of hardworking Americans who deserve real protection by supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.

Mr. President, the promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to any of our fellow citizens. We have made remarkable progress in the long march towards equal opportunity and equal justice for all Americans, but this is no time for complacency. Civil rights remains the unfinished business of America. Millions of our people are still shut out of the American dream solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act brings us closer to fulfilling the promise of America for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, and I am proud to join Senators Merkley, Collins, and Snowe today in introducing this important legislation.

ENDA reflects the bedrock American principle that employees should be judged on the basis of job performance, not prejudice. It prohibits employers from making decisions about hiring, firing, promotions, or compensation based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It makes clear that there is no right to preferential treatment, and that quotas are prohibited.

While some states have taken this important step to guarantee fair treatment in the workplace, ENDA is necessary to guarantee these rights for all. It is unacceptable that in our country in 2009, it is legal anywhere to judge people on who they are, not what they can accomplish. This legislation will right this historic wrong.

ENDA has broad, bipartisan support. It reflects non-discrimination principles already in place at some our country's largest employers. In the past, this legislation has been endorsed by a broad religious coalition, civil rights leaders, and distinguished Americans from both parties.

I am proud to join my colleagues today in bringing us one step closer to our ideal of a nation free from prejudice and injustice. I look forward to doing all I can to pass this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support us.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. Almost 40 years ago, Congress set out to guarantee a safe workplace for all Americans. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was landmark legislation that has dramatically improved the well-being of working men and women.

Since then, the annual job fatality rate has dropped from 18 deaths per 100,000 workers to less than four. Thousands of lives have been saved each year. These are not abstract numbers--they represent thousands of families who have been spared the pain and heartache of losing a loved one on the job.

We are enormously proud of the progress we have made, but we also know that too many workers continue to face needless dangers in the workplace. In 2007, almost 5,500 workers were killed on the job and 4 million other workers became ill or were injured. Fifteen workers still die on the job every day, and nearly 11,000 who are injured or become ill because of dangerous conditions.

We now have strong partners in the White House and at the Department of Labor who are committed to making our workplaces safer. But they need action by Congress as well. That is why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act, to take concrete steps to address many of the failures of the existing law.

First, this legislation expands the coverage of the current job safety laws to protect the millions of public employees and transportation workers who are not covered by these laws. In Massachusetts alone, 350,000 public sector workers lack the protections granted by the federal workplace safety law.

Our bill also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by updating OSHA's whistleblower provisions. OSHA inspectors can't be in every workplace, every day. We must rely on workers who have the courage to come forward when they know their employer is cutting corners on safety. This legislation makes good on the promise to stand by those workers and guarantee they don't have to sacrifice their jobs in order to do the right thing.

In addition, the legislation gives workers and their families and representatives a seat at the table on safety issues. It includes sensible reforms to ensure that victims and their families have a right to talk to OSHA before a citation issues, to obtain copies of important documents, to be informed about their rights, and to have their voices heard before OSHA accepts a settlement that lets an employer off the hook for endangering workers.

Finally, a critical element of this bill is the increase in penalties on employers who turn their backs on the safety of their workers. Too many employers in our country blatantly ignore the law, and too often they are not held accountable. They pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business.

Last year, my office issued a report that showed that the median penalty for a workplace fatality was only $3,675. In other words, in cases investigated by OSHA where workers were killed on the job, half of all employers were fined $3,675 or less. Workers' lives are obviously worth far more than that. We know this administration will do better, but it needs our help.

The bill makes reasonable increases in civil penalties--especially in the most serious cases. It also creates a strong criminal penalty, including the possibility of felony charges and significant prison terms. These changes will create the deterrence we need so that employers will think twice before they gamble with workers' lives to save a few dollars. We need to send a strong message that it is unacceptable to treat workers as expendable or disposable.

Earlier this year a brave young woman, Tammy Miser, testified before our Labor Committee about her brother Shawn, who was killed in an explosion at the Hayes Lemmerz manufacturing plant in Huntington, Indiana in 2003. We can't bring Shawn back and we can't ease Tammy's pain at the loss of her beloved brother. But we can stand with her as she pursues her life's work since then of speaking out for the right of every worker to come home safely at the end of the day. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the millions of hardworking Americans who deserve real protection by supporting the Protecting America's Workers Act.

Mr. President, the promise of America will never be fulfilled as long as justice is denied to any of our fellow citizens. We have made remarkable progress in the long march towards equal opportunity and equal justice for all Americans, but this is no time for complacency. Civil rights remains the unfinished business of America. Millions of our people are still shut out of the American dream solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act brings us closer to fulfilling the promise of America for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender citizens, and I am proud to join Senators Merkley, Collins, and Snowe today in introducing this important legislation.

ENDA reflects the bedrock American principle that employees should be judged on the basis of job performance, not prejudice. It prohibits employers from making decisions about hiring, firing, promotions, or compensation based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It makes clear that there is no right to preferential treatment, and that quotas are prohibited.

While some states have taken this important step to guarantee fair treatment in the workplace, ENDA is necessary to guarantee these rights for all. It is unacceptable that in our country in 2009, it is legal anywhere to judge people on who they are, not what they can accomplish. This legislation will right this historic wrong.

ENDA has broad, bipartisan support. It reflects non-discrimination principles already in place at some our country's largest employers. In the past, this legislation has been endorsed by a broad religious coalition, civil rights leaders, and distinguished Americans from both parties.

I am proud to join my colleagues today in bringing us one step closer to our ideal of a nation free from prejudice and injustice. I look forward to doing all I can to pass this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support us.

Mr. President, I commend the Senate for including the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am optimistic that at long last, our 12-year effort to enact this legislation into law is finally reaching fruition.

Hate crimes are acts of domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, hate crimes are intended to strike fear into whole communities by crimes against a few. We have committed ourselves to protecting our country from terrorists who strike from abroad, and now we have committed ourselves to protecting Americans from hate-motivated crimes in our own backyards.

That is why 63 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted to include the

Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The House of Representatives already approved a very similar measure with strong bipartisan support earlier this year. The Matthew Shepard Act strengthens the ability of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It removes excessive restrictions in current Federal law that prevent effective hate crimes prosecutions. And it offers Federal assistance to State and local authorities in preventing, investigating, and prosecuting despicable crimes.

I am proud that President Obama is a strong supporter of this bipartisan legislation along with Attorney General Eric Holder. The Attorney General has been with us from the beginning of our efforts to get this done, and it is significant that swift enactment of this legislation would ensure that the measure is implemented under his impressive guidance.

The Attorney General's leadership at the Justice Department is launching a new era of civil rights enforcement. In recent months, we have worked with the Justice Department to improve the Senate-approved hate crimes bill so that it addresses hate crimes in the most effective and meaningful way, and I appreciate the time and expertise of so many at the Department on this matter, especially Mark Kappelhoff, Ron Weich, and Judy Appelbaum. In addition, I must thank the Justice Department for diligently working to provide its recent views letter which concludes that the Matthew Shepard Act would be ``wholly constitutional.''

Passage of the amendment would not have been possible without the skill and dedication of many in the Senate. I commend Majority Leader Reid for his leadership and commitment to seeing that the amendment was passed before the August recess. In addition, I commend Serena Hoy of the majority leader's staff for her constant attention to the issue.

I also especially commend Senator Levin for working so hard with me on this measure for so many years, and Rick Debobes and Kaye Meier of his staff for their tireless work on the Senate floor. I am also very grateful for the support and leadership of Senator Leahy and his excellent staff, including Ed Pagano, Bruce Cohen, Kristine Lucius, Noah Bookbinder, and Roscoe Jones.

I appreciate as well the hard work of Senator Durbin and his staffer Mike Zubrensky, as well as Senator Collins and her staff, including Rob Epplin, Amanda Wood, and Nikki McKinney. I also thank Judiciary Committee staffers Lara Flint and Danyelle Solomon, as well as Mike Jones on the Budget Committee, for their contributions as well. I also appreciate the expert and patient assistance of John Henderson and Bill Jensen in the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate.

As is the case with many challenging issues before the Senate, passage of the Matthew Shepard Act would have not been possible without the effective support of the Democratic cloakroom, especially Lula Davis.

Finally, I commend the outstanding work of so many in my own office, including Carey Parker, Christine Leonard, Ty Cobb, and Sara Kingsley-- as well as Bethany Bassett, Jorie Feldman, Joe Barresi, Colin Taylor, and Jamie Susskind, who helped us get through the final stretch. For over a decade, we have been working to see this measure become law, and we certainly wouldn't be where we are today without the contributions of so many dedicated and determined staffers along the way.

Inclusion of the Matthew Shepard Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act sends a strong signal that just as our Nation is concerned about terroristic acts abroad, it is also dedicated to eliminating homegrown terrorism against our Nation's own communities. We will be a stronger and better nation in the years ahead, once our laws recognize that bias-motivated violence has no place in the United States.

Mr. President, 2 years ago I opposed a bill considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to strip State and local police departments of their ability to enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry weapons. Today, I continue to oppose attempts to supersede or limit State gun control laws, and for this reason I oppose Senator Thune's amendment that would infringe on the ability of State and local governments to regulate concealed guns in their jurisdictions. I have said it before, and I say it again--each State should be able to make its own judgment about whether citizens can carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. There is no reason for Congress to override gun safety measures in any State.

Yet the Thune amendment would override the laws of 48 States by requiring them to recognize concealed carry permits from other States, even if the permit holder would not be allowed to possess or carry a gun under the laws of those States. Currently, only two States-- Illinois and Wisconsin--have a total prohibition against concealed carry weapons. This amendment would require the remaining 48 States to recognize a permit granted by another State that has issued a concealed weapon permit. Such a system leads to ludicrous results. For example, under the Thune amendment, a person who can't obtain a concealed carry permit in his home State could apparently circumvent his State law by finding another State in which that person would be eligible for a nonresident permit and then, using the reciprocity granted by the amendment, carry the concealed weapon back home.

State and local governments do not have a one-size-fits-all approach on gun control. Yet the Thune amendment treats them as if they were all the same. Under this amendment, a State would be prevented from limiting who can carry a concealed gun in its jurisdiction. In doing so, the amendment threatens the safety of our citizens, our communities, and our States.

States need the right to control who can carry a concealed weapon in their jurisdiction. What State officials, law enforcement, and legislators decide are the best policies for rural States may not be the best policies for urban States--and vice versa. This bill creates a race to the bottom, in which gun owners can get a permit in a State with the least restrictive licensing regulations and use that gun in every other State--except Illinois and Wisconsin, where there is a total prohibition. The amendment even entitles residents in Alaska and Vermont, the two States that allow residents to carry concealed guns without permits, to carry their guns in other States.

In 35 States, such as Massachusetts, a permit holder must have attended a safety course. Other States don't require a safety course, and residents in Alaska or Vermont are not required to have a permit at all. Yet, with the adoption of the Thune amendment, gun owners would be able to carry a concealed weapon without a safety course in all these States. This is absurd. In addition, other State licensing laws, which prohibit permits for individuals with criminal backgrounds or substance abuse problems, would be waived under the Thune amendment if the individual is issued a permit in a jurisdiction with more permissive regulations.

According to the most recent statistics, in 2006, an average of nine young people aged 19 and under were killed by a gun each day in the United States. In 2007, an average of 48 children a day were nonfatally wounded. The scourge of gun violence frequently attacks the most helpless members of our society--our children. Does the Thune amendment--authorizing more widespread use of concealed guns--improve these statistics? Does creating a system that reduces the regulations for permits for many concealed gun carriers improve these statistics? I think not.

In fact, it was found that concealed handgun license holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older. Expanding the ability of a concealed gun holder to carry his weapon in a far larger number of jurisdictions will not lower gun deaths or crime.

Our brave police forces face risks every day in the line of duty. Policing the streets, and even routine traffic stops, are perilous enough without increasing the number of guns that officers encounter. Under the Thune

amendment there is no easy way for a police officer to determine the legality of a gun being concealed by an individual with a permit from outside the State. This confusion, and the increase in the number of guns on the street, could result in violent incidents, some of which could lead to more deaths from gun violence. The Senate should be working to make the job of police officers safer. The Thune amendment does the opposite.

The amendment takes away the right of a State to determine who can carry a concealed gun within that State. As a result, the amendment will increase the number of concealed guns that will be allowed on any given street. More than 400 mayors, numerous State legislators, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association oppose this amendment because of the danger it brings to our streets, our citizens, and our law enforcement. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Thune's amendment. It is unwise policy that could lead to tragic results.

Mr. President, Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that would create two new death penalty eligible offenses for crimes under the Matthew Shepard Act. I stand firmly in opposition to any new legislation that would radically expand the use of the death penalty, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose the Sessions amendment because it adds another new death penalty to the Federal Criminal Code.

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970s, the Death Penalty Information Center has reported that 135 people have been released from death row in the United States because of innocence-- approximately one exoneration for every nine executions. Some have attempted to argue that the large number of death row exonerations demonstrates that the system is working. Yet in many cases, fatal mistakes were avoided only because of discoveries made by students or journalists, not the courts.

In the last 6 months, there have already been five exonerations in death penalty cases in four different States. Ronald Kitchen was freed from prison in Illinois after the State dismissed all charges against him on July 7. He had spent 13 years on death row and a total of 21 years in prison. Herman Lindsey was freed from Florida's death row on July 9 after the State supreme court unanimously ruled for his acquittal from a 2006 conviction. As the court said:

[T]he State failed to produce any evidence in this case

placing Lindsey at the scene of the crime at the time of the

murder. . . . Indeed, we find that the evidence here is

equally consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

There have also been three other exonerations of death row prisoners, including Nathson Fields in Illinois, Paul House in Tennessee, and Daniel Moore in Alabama.

This high number of exonerations has led many observers, both liberal and conservative, to express concern about

the fairness of the death penalty's administration. As former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has stated ``if statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' How can we continue to expand a system that likely leads to the execution of innocent defendants?

The U.S. Government should not be in the business of taking the lives of innocent Americans. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg once said that the deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest degradation of the human personality imaginable. We must not expand this flawed system by accepting Senator Sessions' broad amendment.

In 2007, New Jersey became the first State to repeal the death penalty since the modern era of capital punishment began in the 1970s. New Mexico followed in 2009. The number of States without a death penalty has now increased to 15. States have begun to recognize that flawed administration of the death penalty has dire consequences--no matter how slight or unintentional that flaw may be.

The American public has also recognized the danger created by a society that supports the death penalty. A 2008 Gallup poll found that support for the death penalty is at its lowest level in the last 30 years. American citizens are deciding that they will not tolerate this archaic form of punishment.

Furthermore, there is no denying that there is a pattern of racial bias in death sentencing. A study in California found that those who killed Whites were over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed Blacks, and over four times more likely than those who killed Latinos. In addition, a study found that in 96 percent of the States where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of- defendant discrimination, or both. Administration of the death penalty is flawed, and that flaw disproportionately affects racial minorities.

The average cost of defending a Federal murder case when the death penalty is sought is $620,000. That is about eight times the cost of a Federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. It has been shown time and time again that sentencing an individual to life in prison is far cheaper than the administration of the death penalty. For example, the California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the State's executions. While the monetary costs of seeking the death penalty are high, the possibility of executing an innocent American is the ultimate cost.

Some argue in favor of the death penalty because they believe it deters individuals from committing some of the most severe crimes. According to a survey of the former and current presidents of the Nation's top academic criminology societies, 88 percent of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. In addition, a Hart Research Poll of police chiefs in the U.S. found that the majority of the chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool. If the death penalty does not deter violent crime, we shouldn't ask our government to play executioner.

Stephen Bright is a preeminent scholar on the death penalty. In his law review article Will the Death Penalty Remain Alive in the Twenty- First Century?, he states:

If we here in the United States examine our own system,

face its flaws, and think about what kind of society we want

to have, we will ultimately conclude that, like slavery and

segregation, the death penalty is a relic of another era,

that it represents the dark side of the human spirit, and

that we are capable of more constructive approaches to the

problem of crime in our society.

All violent crime is reprehensible and deserves to be punished. However, as Stephen Bright points out, we are capable of more constructive approaches to dealing with crime than by using the death penalty. The death penalty is a relic of the past. It has been proven to lead to wrongful executions where innocent lives are lost at the hand of their government. Although most developed nations in the world have abandoned the death penalty, the United States, which purports to be a leader in the protection of human rights, continues to increase the number of death-eligible offenses that are on the statute books.

The Kennedy amendment being offered will ensure consistency with existing federal law and Supreme Court precedent by setting forth clear standards for the use of the federal death penalty only in hate crimes cases where a murder occurs. Given concerns regarding the well- documented mistakes and racial disparities associated with death penalty cases, this amendment adds appropriate safeguards in cases where the federal government seeks the ultimate--and irreversible-- penalty of death. In a hate crime prosecution involving the death penalty, the amendment will empower the trial court to determine whether the case was properly considered to be among the most aggravated of death-eligible hate crimes.

The Kennedy amendment is modeled after an existing Nebraska State law, and will establish a system of meaningful proportionality review in capital hate crime prosecutions. If the court determines that a case is not among the ``worst of the worst'' of hate crimes resulting in a homicide, it can dismiss the government's request for a death penalty at the conclusion of the guilt trial or at the conclusion of the penalty trial, before the sentencing decision is submitted to the jury. Under the Kennedy amendment, the test applied by the trial court to determine whether a case is among the ``worst of the worst'' is whether death sentences are sought and imposed more than half the time in similar Federal cases. This information will enable the court to assess the extent to which race or other inappropriate factors may have been a systemic factor in prior capital charging and sentencing decisions in hate crimes that have resulted in the victim's death. The Kennedy amendment's requirements are a significant improvement over existing Federal practice in death penalty cases.

Senator Sessions' amendment increases the number of death-eligible offenses. It expands the use of the death penalty to two new offenses-- those created by the Matthew Shepard Act. It is time to stand up against expansion of the death penalty. With this statement, I submit several letters of opposition to the Sessions amendment and other amendments proposed by Senator Sessions. I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Sessions' amendment and to support the Kennedy amendment to correct the flaws in Senator Sessions' proposal.

In addition, Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that creates a new Federal criminal offense for cases involving assaults or battery of a U.S. serviceman--or a member of the serviceman's immediate family. It creates a new Federal crime to punish individuals who knowingly destroy or injure the property of an active or retired serviceman or the property of an immediate family member, or conspires to do so. Crimes against veterans, members of the armed service are reprehensible. It is undeniable that our Nation is held together by the protection that these brave men and women provide each day. This amendment places another mandatory minimum in our Federal code. Mandatory minimums are unjust, unwise and unnecessary. Such sentences tie the court's hand to review the facts of an individual case. I hope that problems with the broad language of this amendment and the inclusion of a mandatory minimum can be worked out in conference.

Finally, I appreciate that we were able to work with Senator Sessions to make some modifications to his amendment regarding the issuance of Attorney General guidelines for hate crime offenses. For over 40 years, the Justice Department's record demonstrates objective decisionmaking when selecting hate crime cases for prosecution--regardless of the administration in charge.

DOJ guidance and professional responsibility rules already guard against any nonmeritorious prosecution. As originally drafted, Senator Sessions' amendment could have prevented ``mistake of fact'' cases-- such as an attack against a White person whom the defendant believed to be African American or cases based upon associations--in which a White woman is targeted because her spouse is African American. In addition, there was concern about whether the amendment

could also impede prosecutions where a hate crimes victim was perceived to be African American, Latino, or gay because the amendment covers a more narrow class of victims than those covered under the hate crimes bill. With the cooperation and assistance from Chairman Leahy's staff along with Senator Sessions' staff, I believe that the modified version of this amendment will address these concerns so that the amendment will not be interpreted in any way to limit the scope of victims who are protected under the Matthew Shepard Act.

Mr. President, I ask to have the letters to which I referred printed in the Record.

The letters follow.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2009.

Re: ACLU urges ``No'' vote on SA 1615--Sessions Death Penalty

Amendment to Hate Crimes Amendment in Defense

Authorization Bill (S. 1390); Sessions amendment is

unconstitutional.

Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties

Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more than a

half million members, countless activists and supporters, and

fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we write to urge you to

oppose Senate Amendment 1615, being offered by Senator Jeff

Sessions (R-AL) to the National Defense Authorization Act (S.

1390). This unconstitutional and misguided amendment seeks to

expand the reach of the federal death penalty, including to

non-homicide crimes, by adding it to a hate crimes provision

that the Senate adopted by unanimous consent on Thursday

night.

Capital punishment has been proven to be an unreliable and

expensive means of punishment and Congress should oppose any

effort to expand its scope and reach. According to the Death

Penalty Information Center, 135 innocent people have been

exonerated from death row since 1973, including five so far

in 2009 alone. Such a high error rate illustrates the

fallibility of our nation's death penalty system. Indeed,

chronic problems, including inadequate defense counsel and

racial disparities, have always plagued the death penalty

system in the United States. In a 2003 report entitled

``Death by Discrimination--The Continuing Role of Race in

Capital Cases,'' Amnesty International found that even though

blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers

of crimes, 80 percent of people executed since the death

penalty as reinstated have been executed for murders

involving white victims. More than 20 percent of black

defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white

juries. Even if one supports the death penalty in theory,

there is no justifiable reason to expand our system of

capital punishment while such discriminatory impacts continue

to exist.

A troubling record of the death penalty being imposed on

defendants who were later found to be innocent, along with a

long history of racial and geographic disparities in its use,

have spurred states to move away from its use. In 2007 and

2008, New Jersey and New Mexico, respectively, abolished the

death penalty, bringing to 15 the number of states (including

the District of Columbia) that currently have no death

penalty. In addition, in recent years, the number of death

sentences returned by juries has declined precipitously--from

around 300 a year in the 1990s to approximately 120 in the

past few years.

The ACLU is also concerned that the Sessions Amendment

would unconstitutionally expand the reach of the federal

death penalty to include certain non-homicide crimes. The

United States Supreme Court has already held that the death

sentence is an unconstitutional penalty for kidnapping (see

Eberheart v. Georgia); sexual abuse (see Coker v. Georgia and

Kennedy v. Louisiana); and attempted murder (see Enmund v.

Florida and Tison v. Arizona), all crimes included in the

scope of the Session amendment. To now expand the reach of

the federal death penalty to these non-homicide crimes would

be clearly unconstitutional, under recent Supreme Court

precedent.

The ACLU has a long history of supporting civil rights

legislation, including legislation responding to criminal

civil rights violations. While we did not support the

underlying hate crimes provision in the defense authorization

bill because of First Amendment weaknesses, an expansion of

the federal death penalty stands in stark contrast to

furthering the cause of civil rights in the United States.

The ACLU urges you to oppose the Sessions Amendment (S.A.

1615) to the defense authorization bill and to vote ``NO''

when it comes to the floor. The ACLU will score this vote.

Please do not hesitate to contact Chris Anders at (202) 675-

2308 if you have any questions regarding this amendment or

the underlying hate crimes provision.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Macleod-Ball,

Interim Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Christopher E. Anders,

Senior Legislative Counsel.

Jennifer Bellamy,

Legislative Counsel.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in supporting the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

We need to pass this bill without further delay. The House passed a hate crimes bill with a vote of 249 to 175 in April. President Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports swift enactment of hate crimes legislation. The Department of Justice has expressed a need to strengthen our Federal hate crimes law. And, over 300 law enforcement, religious, civil rights, and community organizations have stated their

support for this act. We need to make certain that every American is protected from hate crimes. No one should be a victim of violence because of who they are.

In fact, hate crimes are domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, they seek to bring fear to whole communities through violence on a few. We have committed ourselves to protecting our country from terrorists that strike from abroad, so we must make the same commitment to protecting Americans from homegrown terrorism.

Only weeks ago, a small distance from this Capitol, James von Brunn, a formerly convicted criminal and a known anti-Semite, entered the DC Holocaust Memorial Museum and began firing a rifle. During the attack, von Brunn shot and killed security guard Stephen Johns. As tragic as this incident was, the heroism of Stephen Johns, and the heroism of other members of the museum's security team, prevented von Brunn from conducting a violent massacre of innocent men, women, and children. Von Brunn planned a hate crime, an act of domestic terrorism. Our society recognizes that such a crime cannot be tolerated. Attacks like these send shockwaves through American communities and must be prosecuted as terrorizing crimes.

The original hate crime statute, enacted in 1968, criminalized violent acts based on a victim's race, color, religion, or national origin. Over the past 40 years, we have learned from experience that hate crime perpetrators often target communities unprotected by the original statute. This amendment strengthens that statute to protect victims targeted with violence because of their gender, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or their disability.

In Boston on August 24, 2008, Jonathan Howard and three friends were viciously attacked by four men while walking home from a Boston nightclub. The assault began when a Honda pulled up beside the victims. The four men in the vehicle began yelling obscenities and homophobic slurs at the group. The perpetrators told Howard to die and repeatedly kicked his head into the pavement. After the event, Howard stated that ``the type of assault that we encountered was completely random, unprovoked, and unforgivable.'' This type of attack was just as much a hate crime as the attack by James von Brunn, and it needs to be recognized as a Federal hate crime.

The victims did nothing to provoke their attack. They did not deserve to be the subjects of violence. No member of the LGBT community should be terrified to walk down the street for fear of hateful violence. Hate crimes perpetrators must not be allowed to place our communities in fear.

On May 11, the Boston Globe reported that the historic election of President Barack Obama spurred a wave of hate crime violence. The article cites a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center that shows the number of White extremist groups in the United States has increased by nearly 50 percent since 2000, and that White extremist activity has sharply increased over the past several months.

Last November 5, following the election of President Barack Obama, four men rampaged across Staten Island, assaulting African Americans in response to President Obama's victory. The attackers beat a 17-year-old boy with a pipe. They physically assaulted another man to the ground, verbally harassed individuals suspected of voting for President Obama, and slammed into a man with a car because they mistakenly believed he was African American. None of these victims were known to their attackers. None of these victims could have prevented the attacks. The victims were terrorized because their attackers wanted to send a violent message of hate to the African American community.

Last July 12, in Shenandoah, PA, Luis Ramirez, a 25-year-old Mexican and father of two, was beaten by several drunken students from the local high school. Authorities said the teenagers yelled ethnic slurs as they punched and kicked Mr. Ramirez, causing him to lose consciousness and begin to foam at the mouth. As a result of the attack, Mr. Ramirez died 2 days later. During the attack, one of the assailants reportedly yelled, ``tell your . . . Mexican friends to get . . . out of Shenandoah . . . .'' According to Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, ``Luis Ramirez was targeted, beaten, and killed because he was Mexican.'' Yet after a jury trial in State court, the killers were acquitted of the most serious charges and convicted of simple assault-- yes, simple assault.

As the result of this case, the Justice Department is currently investigating civil rights violations with one hand tied behind their back. Because the incident occurred while the victim was walking by a park, and because walking by a park may not be considered a ``federally protected activity,'' the Justice Department is not able to fully investigate and prosecute this crime. This legislation closes the flagrant loophole that prevents prosecution of a hate crime when a victim is not engaged in a federally protected activity. It provides that hate crime perpetrators may be prosecuted, regardless of where their victim was or what they were doing when he or she was attacked.

In addition, this bill authorizes the Justice Department to make grants to State, local, and tribal authorities to combat, investigate, and prosecute hate crimes more effectively. During these times of economic crisis, State and local authorities are cash-strapped to deal with costly hate crime incidents. Investigations tend to be expensive. They require considerable law enforcement effort and extensive use of grand juries. To ease the extraordinary costs and complexity of such cases, the bill authorizes $5 million in Justice Department grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials who have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

The legislation also authorizes the Justice Department to make grants for State, local, and tribal programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes. With hate crimes against Latinos on the rise, and hate crimes against LGBT individuals on the rise, and hate group activity on the rise, we must ensure that our State and local law enforcement authorities have all the tools and resources they need to combat, investigate, and prosecute hate crimes.

I am proud to take this opportunity to recognize the work of the Boston Police Department as the only major police department to incorporate hate crimes training into its mandatory training program. Unfortunately, many police departments around the country do not have the resources necessary to provide such training. This bill specifically authorizes the Justice Department to allocate funds for training so that other police departments may follow the example set by the Boston PD.

Violent attacks based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability deserve to be criminalized by Federal law. Our Nation must show that it will not permit these communities to be terrorized--one victim at a time.

For the past 10 years, the Senate and the House of Representatives have each passed this legislation on multiple occasions--only to face political setbacks that have prevented the measure from being enacted. Now, we must finish the job and send this legislation to the President for his signature. By doing so, Congress will be reflecting the will of the American people. We will be sending a strong message that hate crime violence will not be tolerated--and that every citizen deserves Federal protection against such crimes.

Religious leaders across the country support the amendment. As my colleagues know, the Golden Rule is recognized as one of the deepest principles in virtually every religious tradition. It is the simple principle that we ought to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated. In the book of Matthew, chapter 7, Jesus says, ``So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.'' This amendment embodies the Golden Rule by extending protection to individuals in communities that are vulnerable to violence fueled by hatred.

Religious leader, Pastor Joel C. Hunter, has said, ``I would think that

the followers of Jesus would be first in line to protect any group from hate crimes . . . This bill protects both the rights of conservative religious people to voice passionately their interpretations of their scriptures and protects their fellow citizens from physical attack.''

Many religious groups have expressed their support for the bill, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Interfaith Alliance, the Presbyterian Church, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the United Methodist Church, and the Congress of National Black Churches.

Over 10 years have passed since the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was first introduced in the Senate. Over 10 years have passed since Matthew Shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence, and left to die because he was gay. I commend Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard, for her years of inspiring advocacy that have brought us to this moment. Now is the time for the Senate to vote and show that we will not allow domestic terrorism to tear apart the fabric of our Nation and take the lives of innocent Americans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to follow their hearts and minds and vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. President, it is a privilege today to be introducing two bills to improve our schools and bring them into the 21st century. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, S. 1410, or TIME Act, seeks to expand our 19th century school calendar to provide more time for learning across the curriculum. The Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged Act, S. 1411, or Keeping PACE Act, will encourage greater involvement of parents in their children's education, and engage community partners in supporting the comprehensive learning needs of students in school.

These bills take different approaches, but both address critical challenges for our Nation's schools. By providing the time and resources for students to succeed, we can ensure that all students are equipped with the tools needed to be successful in the 21st century economy.

As a result of the current 6 hours a day, 180 days a year schedule, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations. This gap hinders the ability of our students to compete with their peers around the globe who derive a significant advantage by having more time to learn what they need to know. About 1,000 U.S. schools are already tackling this problem on their own, and now it's time for the Federal Government to step up and help more students obtain the time in school they need.

The TIME Act authorizes $350 million next year, increasing to up to $500 million in 2014, to support schools in expanding learning time by 300 hours a year and redesigning their school day to meet the needs of students and teachers. The act promotes partnerships between schools and community-based organizations in expanding and redesigning the school schedule to give students a broader learning experience and encourage innovation. The goal of the act is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and redesign the entire school schedule for the benefit of students' learning experiences.

Studies document the difference an extra hour of school each day, a few more weeks of school each year, or additional time after or before school for tutoring can make to all students. According to these studies, the students for whom this time is most important for are the students we need to be focusing on--our neediest students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their better-off classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. A 2007 study found that \2/3\ of the reading achievement gap between 9th graders of low and high socioeconomic standing in Baltimore public schools can be traced to what they learned, or failed to learn, during their summers.

These students also are less likely to have parents with the time to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these needy students catch up by shortening their summer recesses, providing more time for educators to support student learning, and giving schools the opportunity to provide these students with additional nutritious meals.

In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead, by providing greater time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, in service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, and in internships, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant.

For additional time to be used most effectively, it must also work for teachers. The act encourages the use of this time for greater teacher planning and collaboration across grades and subjects, so that teachers can work together to help their students. Today's elementary school teachers spend less than 10 percent of their time planning lessons and preparing for classes--compared to over 40 percent for their Asian counterparts. Just as it does for students, time matters for teachers, by helping them to help their students more effectively.

To assess the difference these programs will make, the TIME Act calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the programs it supports. We're still in the learning stages of expanded learning time. It is intuitive that time matters, but we're still learning what practices work best--for teachers, for students, and for schools. This evaluation will ensure that we will learn as much as possible about what works, and that the Department of Education will be able to do a better job of sharing best practices nationwide in supporting these initiatives.

Expanded learning is an idea whose time has come, thanks in large part to the leadership of Massachusetts. As John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, the education of the people is ``necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.'' Ever since, Massachusetts has been ahead of the curve in education reform. In recent years, the Commonwealth has developed a significant expanded learning time initiative that enables schools to offer 300 additional hours of instruction during the school year, allocated as each school chooses. The initiative began with 10 schools in 2006. Twenty-six schools are now participating, and more than 40 are now planning to participate.

At the Edwards Middle School in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, additional time has made a difference. The percentage of students scoring ``proficient'' on math tests rose almost thirteen points during its first year with expanded school hours, and the school is also offering a wide array of extracurricular activities, including Latin American Dance, Musical Theater, and valuable apprenticeship opportunities.

We know that many schools and districts around the country are seeking better ways to strengthen the support they offer parents and to deepen their connection with their communities. The No Child Left Behind Law includes requirements to develop parent-involvement policies and programs, release school report cards, and engage parents and community representatives to construct plans to improve struggling schools. The Keeping PACE Act builds on these activities to support schools in making parents and the community full partners in the education of their children.

Parents are their children's first teachers, and they have immense influence over their children's attitudes, focus, priorities and goals. Well-informed parents are more likely to be involved, to ask questions, to suggest constructive changes and to make a difference in their child's education. They deserve to know what their children are learning and being tested on, what their children's grades and assessment scores mean, and how assessment data can be used to improve learning. Informed and engaged parents can help turn around struggling schools.

Educators have long recognized this fact, based on their own experience and abundant research. Unfortunately, a series of reports by Appleseed make clear schools and districts continue to face too many challenges that undermine the effort to achieve parental involvement. Parents may feel intimidated by language or cultural barriers, or have difficulty understanding their role as an advocate for their children. Parents too often find that the information provided by schools and districts is not released in a timely manner, is not clear and student- specific, and uses technical terms that are unfamiliar. Poor communication also often obscures the school-choice and supplemental- services options for parents under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Heather Weiss, the director of the Harvard Family Research Project, emphasizes that with the conclusive evidence now available, the time has come for action. As she states, ``The question we must ask is, in addition to quality schools, what non-school learning resources should we invest in and scale up to improve educational outcomes, narrow achievement gaps, and equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the complex and global 21st century?''

To encourage greater parent involvement, this bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to enable States to award grants to local education agencies to assist schools in hiring and maintaining Parent and Community Outreach Coordinators. These coordinators will build vital partnerships among families, schools, and the community. They'll work with school principals, teachers, and staff to encourage parents to become more involved in their child's education and give them the tools necessary to become successful advocates for their children. Instead of giving teachers, counselors, and principals more to do, every school should have a resource they can turn to for help with identifying student needs and using community resources to help all students succeed.

Educational research also shows that students flourish in environments in which learning is a community value and in which schools have the ability to address a broad range of student needs. Many school districts have established full-service community schools that directly involve parents, families, and the entire community in education. These schools use integrated services to students to help meet multiple local needs in areas such as education, health, social services, and recreation. President Obama has recognized the power of these schools, by often citing the extraordinary success of the Harlem Children's Zone and using it as a model for his Promise Neighborhoods proposal.

Responding to this research and to success stories from around the nation, the Keeping PACE Act will help school districts do more to increase community involvement in schools, provide a wide range of support and services to children, and make schools the center of their neighborhood. The Keeping PACE Act supports incentives for local education agencies to coordinate with mayors, community-based organizations, for-profit entities, and other local partners to re- design and modernize their current school plans and facilities to link students more effectively with existing resources.

Improved coordination among parents, schools, and their communities can create networks that enable and empower students to take advantage of many more opportunities to learn, and by doing so, we will uncover innovations to help all schools.

As with the TIME Act, establishing this network will benefit not only students who need the greatest help with their learning, or who are at risk of dropping out, but also those who need more challenging schoolwork to keep them engaged and making progress.

Yet again, Massachusetts is leading the way. A current Massachusetts pilot initiative has placed 32 full-time family and community outreach coordinators in Boston public schools. These coordinators are responsible for supporting families, teachers, and the community in a common effort to help students academically and socially, and their efforts have been successful.

For example, the Family and Community Outreach Coordinator at the Condon School in Boston has offered workshops for parents on middle school transition and math curriculum and coordinated parent participation on an

anti-bullying initiative at the school, called the School Climate Committee. The Coordinator has helped teachers and parents make connections for parent-teacher conferences, bringing in over 200 parents to participate in a fall open house, in which some of the teachers have reported contact with over 80 percent of their students' families. The Coordinator has also inspired donations to the school through the generosity of local businesses.

Now is the time for the nation as a whole to make a greater effort on expanded learning and parent and community involvement. These two bills constitute a strong commitment to meet the comprehensive learning needs of children and families, guarantee a role for parents and families in local schools, and provide real hope to students most at-risk of dropping out. Addressing these challenges is essential to the future and prosperity of our nation as a whole.

We know the dimensions of the problem we face. Today, 65 percent of 12th graders do not read on grade level, and 1.2 million students who enter the ninth grade fail to receive a high school diploma four years later. We can no longer afford to pay this high price, either in terms of lost human potential or national productivity. These bills will help millions of young people reach their potential, and help make our education system the best in the world once again.

The Keeping PACE Act is supported by 40 organizations representing education communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their joint letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege today to be introducing two bills to improve our schools and bring them into the 21st century. The Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act, S. 1410, or TIME Act, seeks to expand our 19th century school calendar to provide more time for learning across the curriculum. The Keeping Parents and Communities Engaged Act, S. 1411, or Keeping PACE Act, will encourage greater involvement of parents in their children's education, and engage community partners in supporting the comprehensive learning needs of students in school.

These bills take different approaches, but both address critical challenges for our Nation's schools. By providing the time and resources for students to succeed, we can ensure that all students are equipped with the tools needed to be successful in the 21st century economy.

As a result of the current 6 hours a day, 180 days a year schedule, American students spend about 30 percent less time in school than students in other leading nations. This gap hinders the ability of our students to compete with their peers around the globe who derive a significant advantage by having more time to learn what they need to know. About 1,000 U.S. schools are already tackling this problem on their own, and now it's time for the Federal Government to step up and help more students obtain the time in school they need.

The TIME Act authorizes $350 million next year, increasing to up to $500 million in 2014, to support schools in expanding learning time by 300 hours a year and redesigning their school day to meet the needs of students and teachers. The act promotes partnerships between schools and community-based organizations in expanding and redesigning the school schedule to give students a broader learning experience and encourage innovation. The goal of the act is not merely to encourage schools to add more time at the end of the day, but to take a close look at how they use their time and redesign the entire school schedule for the benefit of students' learning experiences.

Studies document the difference an extra hour of school each day, a few more weeks of school each year, or additional time after or before school for tutoring can make to all students. According to these studies, the students for whom this time is most important for are the students we need to be focusing on--our neediest students. Students in disadvantaged families show a drop-off in learning over long summer recesses compared to their better-off classmates, and they fall farther behind each year. A 2007 study found that \2/3\ of the reading achievement gap between 9th graders of low and high socioeconomic standing in Baltimore public schools can be traced to what they learned, or failed to learn, during their summers.

These students also are less likely to have parents with the time to help them with their school work. Expanded learning time can help these needy students catch up by shortening their summer recesses, providing more time for educators to support student learning, and giving schools the opportunity to provide these students with additional nutritious meals.

In addition to those at risk of falling behind, more time for learning helps students who are on grade level get ahead, by providing greater time for enrichment and a broader curriculum. Additional time also enables more students to participate in experiential and interactive learning, in service learning opportunities in their schools and communities, and in internships, all of which help keep students engaged in school and make school more relevant.

For additional time to be used most effectively, it must also work for teachers. The act encourages the use of this time for greater teacher planning and collaboration across grades and subjects, so that teachers can work together to help their students. Today's elementary school teachers spend less than 10 percent of their time planning lessons and preparing for classes--compared to over 40 percent for their Asian counterparts. Just as it does for students, time matters for teachers, by helping them to help their students more effectively.

To assess the difference these programs will make, the TIME Act calls for a comprehensive evaluation of the programs it supports. We're still in the learning stages of expanded learning time. It is intuitive that time matters, but we're still learning what practices work best--for teachers, for students, and for schools. This evaluation will ensure that we will learn as much as possible about what works, and that the Department of Education will be able to do a better job of sharing best practices nationwide in supporting these initiatives.

Expanded learning is an idea whose time has come, thanks in large part to the leadership of Massachusetts. As John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution in 1780, the education of the people is ``necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.'' Ever since, Massachusetts has been ahead of the curve in education reform. In recent years, the Commonwealth has developed a significant expanded learning time initiative that enables schools to offer 300 additional hours of instruction during the school year, allocated as each school chooses. The initiative began with 10 schools in 2006. Twenty-six schools are now participating, and more than 40 are now planning to participate.

At the Edwards Middle School in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, additional time has made a difference. The percentage of students scoring ``proficient'' on math tests rose almost thirteen points during its first year with expanded school hours, and the school is also offering a wide array of extracurricular activities, including Latin American Dance, Musical Theater, and valuable apprenticeship opportunities.

We know that many schools and districts around the country are seeking better ways to strengthen the support they offer parents and to deepen their connection with their communities. The No Child Left Behind Law includes requirements to develop parent-involvement policies and programs, release school report cards, and engage parents and community representatives to construct plans to improve struggling schools. The Keeping PACE Act builds on these activities to support schools in making parents and the community full partners in the education of their children.

Parents are their children's first teachers, and they have immense influence over their children's attitudes, focus, priorities and goals. Well-informed parents are more likely to be involved, to ask questions, to suggest constructive changes and to make a difference in their child's education. They deserve to know what their children are learning and being tested on, what their children's grades and assessment scores mean, and how assessment data can be used to improve learning. Informed and engaged parents can help turn around struggling schools.

Educators have long recognized this fact, based on their own experience and abundant research. Unfortunately, a series of reports by Appleseed make clear schools and districts continue to face too many challenges that undermine the effort to achieve parental involvement. Parents may feel intimidated by language or cultural barriers, or have difficulty understanding their role as an advocate for their children. Parents too often find that the information provided by schools and districts is not released in a timely manner, is not clear and student- specific, and uses technical terms that are unfamiliar. Poor communication also often obscures the school-choice and supplemental- services options for parents under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Heather Weiss, the director of the Harvard Family Research Project, emphasizes that with the conclusive evidence now available, the time has come for action. As she states, ``The question we must ask is, in addition to quality schools, what non-school learning resources should we invest in and scale up to improve educational outcomes, narrow achievement gaps, and equip our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the complex and global 21st century?''

To encourage greater parent involvement, this bill amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to enable States to award grants to local education agencies to assist schools in hiring and maintaining Parent and Community Outreach Coordinators. These coordinators will build vital partnerships among families, schools, and the community. They'll work with school principals, teachers, and staff to encourage parents to become more involved in their child's education and give them the tools necessary to become successful advocates for their children. Instead of giving teachers, counselors, and principals more to do, every school should have a resource they can turn to for help with identifying student needs and using community resources to help all students succeed.

Educational research also shows that students flourish in environments in which learning is a community value and in which schools have the ability to address a broad range of student needs. Many school districts have established full-service community schools that directly involve parents, families, and the entire community in education. These schools use integrated services to students to help meet multiple local needs in areas such as education, health, social services, and recreation. President Obama has recognized the power of these schools, by often citing the extraordinary success of the Harlem Children's Zone and using it as a model for his Promise Neighborhoods proposal.

Responding to this research and to success stories from around the nation, the Keeping PACE Act will help school districts do more to increase community involvement in schools, provide a wide range of support and services to children, and make schools the center of their neighborhood. The Keeping PACE Act supports incentives for local education agencies to coordinate with mayors, community-based organizations, for-profit entities, and other local partners to re- design and modernize their current school plans and facilities to link students more effectively with existing resources.

Improved coordination among parents, schools, and their communities can create networks that enable and empower students to take advantage of many more opportunities to learn, and by doing so, we will uncover innovations to help all schools.

As with the TIME Act, establishing this network will benefit not only students who need the greatest help with their learning, or who are at risk of dropping out, but also those who need more challenging schoolwork to keep them engaged and making progress.

Yet again, Massachusetts is leading the way. A current Massachusetts pilot initiative has placed 32 full-time family and community outreach coordinators in Boston public schools. These coordinators are responsible for supporting families, teachers, and the community in a common effort to help students academically and socially, and their efforts have been successful.

For example, the Family and Community Outreach Coordinator at the Condon School in Boston has offered workshops for parents on middle school transition and math curriculum and coordinated parent participation on an

anti-bullying initiative at the school, called the School Climate Committee. The Coordinator has helped teachers and parents make connections for parent-teacher conferences, bringing in over 200 parents to participate in a fall open house, in which some of the teachers have reported contact with over 80 percent of their students' families. The Coordinator has also inspired donations to the school through the generosity of local businesses.

Now is the time for the nation as a whole to make a greater effort on expanded learning and parent and community involvement. These two bills constitute a strong commitment to meet the comprehensive learning needs of children and families, guarantee a role for parents and families in local schools, and provide real hope to students most at-risk of dropping out. Addressing these challenges is essential to the future and prosperity of our nation as a whole.

We know the dimensions of the problem we face. Today, 65 percent of 12th graders do not read on grade level, and 1.2 million students who enter the ninth grade fail to receive a high school diploma four years later. We can no longer afford to pay this high price, either in terms of lost human potential or national productivity. These bills will help millions of young people reach their potential, and help make our education system the best in the world once again.

The Keeping PACE Act is supported by 40 organizations representing education communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their joint letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I commend the members of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission for its excellent report and recommendations. Sadly, rape and sexual abuse have often been regarded as inevitable facts of life in prisons across the country. Until now, the Federal Government had never conducted a reliable study of the issue--even though more than 2 million men and women are now behind bars nationwide. The shocking reality is that 1 in 10 of those 2 million will be victims of rape.

At greatest risk are the 100,000 juvenile inmates, the 200,000 men and women held in immigration detention centers, and the many inmates suffering from mental illness. Juvenile facilities in particular are regularly the site of shocking physical and mental abuse, and juveniles incarcerated in adult facilities are five times more likely to report being victims of sexual assault than those in juvenile facilities.

The recommendations contained in this new report identify the steps and standards needed to achieve safer conditions in our prison system. The members of the Commission deserve our gratitude for their skill and dedication in examining all aspects of this complex and serious problem, and so do all those who contributed their knowledge and expertise to the Commission's work. Their leadership is a major step toward resolving this festering crisis.

I look forward to the important work ahead by the Congress, the Attorney General, and the many dedicated professionals, advocates, and experts to implement the Commission's recommendations.

Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote to approve legislation that should have been enacted years ago-- authority for the FDA to regulate tobacco products, the most lethal of all consumer products.

It has been a long and arduous path with many political obstacles. Fortunately, the legislative journey is nearing a successful conclusion. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a nearly identical bill earlier this spring. In May, the Senate HELP Committee approved the FDA Tobacco bill with the support of a strong bipartisan majority. On Monday, 61 Senators voted to invoke cloture on the committee-passed bill. President Obama is anxiously waiting to sign it into law. Passage of the legislation is much more than a victory for those of us who have long championed this cause. It is a life saving act for the millions of children who will be spared a lifetime of addiction and premature death.

The need to regulate tobacco products can no longer be ignored. Used as intended by the companies that manufacture and market them, cigarettes will kill one out of every three smokers. Yet the Federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health is currently powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco use. Public health experts overwhelmingly believe that passage of H.R. 1256 is the most important action Congress can take to protect children from this deadly addiction. Without this strong congressional action, smoking will continue at its current rate, and more than 6 million of today's children will ultimately die from tobacco-induced disease.

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Nationally, cigarettes kill well over 400,000 people each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, and suicide combined.

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and eighty-six other national public health organizations speak with one voice on this issue. They are all supporting H.R. 1256 because they know it will give FDA the tools it needs to reduce youth smoking and help addicted smokers quit.

A landmark report by the Institute of Medicine, released 2 years ago, strongly urged Congress to ``confer upon the FDA broad regulatory authority over the manufacture, distribution, marketing and use of tobacco products.''

Opponents of this legislation argue that FDA should not be regulating such a dangerous product. I could not disagree more. It is precisely because tobacco products are so deadly that we must empower America's premier public health protector--the FDA--to combat tobacco use. For decades the Federal Government has stayed on the sidelines and done next to nothing to deal with this enormous health problem. The tobacco industry has been allowed to mislead consumers, to make false health claims, to conceal the lethal contents of their products, to make their products even more addictive, and worst of all--to deliberately addict generations of children. The alternative to FDA regulation is more of the same. Allowing this abusive conduct by the tobacco industry to go unchecked would be terribly wrong.

Under this legislation, FDA will for the first time have the needed power and resources to take on this challenge. The cost will be funded entirely by a new user fee paid by the tobacco companies in proportion to their market share. Not a single dollar will be diverted from FDA's existing responsibilities.

Giving FDA authority over tobacco products will not make the tragic toll of tobacco use disappear overnight. More than 40 million people are hooked on this highly addictive product and many of them have been unable to quit despite repeated attempts. However, FDA action can play a major role in breaking the gruesome cycle that seduces millions of teenagers into a lifetime of addiction and premature death.

What can FDA regulation accomplish?

It can reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children. It can help prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors. It can stop the tobacco industry from continuing to mislead the public about the dangers of smoking. It can help smokers overcome their addiction. It can make tobacco products less toxic and less addictive for those who continue to use them. And it can prohibit unsubstantiated health claims about supposedly ``reduced risk'' products, and encourage the development of genuinely less harmful alternative products.

Regulating the conduct of the tobacco companies is as necessary today as it has been in years past. The facts presented in the Federal Government's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry conclusively demonstrate that the misconduct is substantial and ongoing. The decision of the Court states: ``The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity . . . Defendants continue to engage in conduct that is materially indistinguishable from their previous actions, activity that continues to this day.'' Only strong FDA regulation can force the necessary change in their corporate behavior.

We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

The tobacco industry currently spends over thirteen billion dollars each year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. Four thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and 1,000 of them become daily smokers. The industry knows that nearly 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood.

Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products.

If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the authority to stop tobacco advertising that glamorizes smoking to kids. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.''

FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that many of those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes.

The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multiyear rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the force of

law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. Once they are in place, FDA will have the authority to modify these rules as changing circumstances warrant.

The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be larger and more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. Each cigarette pack will carry a graphic depiction of the consequences of smoking. The FDA is given the authority to change the warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong.

The nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive.

An analysis by the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that cigarette manufacturers are still manipulating nicotine levels. Between 1998 and 2005, they significantly increased the nicotine yield from major brand-name cigarettes. The average increase in nicotine yield over the period was 11 percent.

The tobacco industry has a long dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.

Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave 40 million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous and addictive ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it is scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded.

Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. Some are already on the market making unsubstantiated claims. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Only by preventing bogus claims will there be a real financial incentive for companies to develop new technologies that can lead to genuinely and verifiably safer products.

This legislation will vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. It is long overdue.

Voting for this legislation today is the right thing to do for America's children. They are depending on us. By passing this legislation, we can help them live longer, healthier lives. I know that the Senate will not let them down.

Mr. President, in this turbulent economy, working families are facing enormous challenges. Too many families are living paycheck to paycheck, just one layoff or health crisis away from disaster. Now more than ever, workers are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs and their families. When a sickness or health problem arises, these challenges can easily become insurmountable.

Unfortunately, almost half of all private sector workers--including 79 percent of low-wage workers--have no paid sick days they can use to care for themselves or a sick family member. For these workers, taking a day off to care for their own health or a sick child means losing a much-needed paycheck, or even putting their jobs in danger. In a recent survey, 1 in 6 workers reported that they or a family member have been fired, punished or threatened with termination for taking time off because of their own illness or to care for a sick relative.

Workers can't afford to take that kind of risk now. Losing even one paycheck can mean falling behind on bills, foregoing needed medicines, or skipping meals. As a result, many employees continue to go to work when they are ill, and send their children to school or day care sick, because it's the only way to make ends meet.

The lack of paid sick day is not just a crisis for individual families--it is a public health crisis as well. The current flu outbreak provides a compelling illustration. To prevent the spread of the virus, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, and numerous state and local public health officials urged people to stay home from work or school if they flu-like symptoms. Strong scientific evidence proves that this is one of the best ways to prevent the spread of disease and protect the public health.

But without paid sick days, following this sound advice is often impossible--millions of employees want to do the right thing and stay home, but our current laws just do not protect them. The Family and Medical Leave Act enables workers to take time off for serious health conditions, but only about half of today's workers are covered by the act, and millions more can not take advantage of it because this leave is unpaid.

Hardworking Americans should not have to make these impossible choices. That's why Senator Dodd, Representative Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will enable workers to take up to 56 hours, or about 7 days, of paid sick leave each year. Employees can use this time to stay home and get well when they are ill, to care for a sick family member, to obtain preventive or diagnostic treatment, or to seek help if they are victims of domestic violence.

This important legislation will provide needed security for working families struggling to balance the jobs they need and the families they love. It will improve public health and reduce health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures.

In addition, the legislation will benefit businesses by decreasing employee turnover, and improving productivity. ``Presenteeism''--sick workers coming to work and infecting their colleagues instead of staying at home--costs our economy $180 billion annually in lost productivity. For employers, the cost averages $255 per employee per year, and exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits. The lack of paid sick days also leads to higher employee turnover, especially for low-wage workers. When the benefits of the Healthy Families Act are weighed against its costs, providing paid sick days will actually save American businesses up to $9 billion a year by eliminating these productivity losses and reducing turnover.

Above all, enabling workers to earn paid sick time to care for themselves and their families is a matter of fundamental fairness. Every worker has had to miss days of work because of illness. Every child gets sick and needs a parent at home to take care of them. And all hardworking Americans deserve the chance to take care of their families without putting their jobs or their health on the line.

It is long past time for our laws to deal with these difficult choices that working men and women face every day. As President Obama has said, ``Nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child.'' I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting the Healthy Families Act.