Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Vitter will seek recognition to offer some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Vitter has offered his amendments, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts on the hearings held last week in the House of Representatives called ``The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response.'' Congressional hearings are supposed to serve as an important role of oversight, investigation, or education, among other purposes. However, this particular hearing--billed as the first of a series--served only to fan flames of fear and division. My first concern is the title of the hearing--targeting one community. That is wrong. Each of us has a responsibility to speak out when communities are unfairly targeted. In 1975, the United States joined all the countries of Europe and established the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, now known as the OSCE. The Congress created the U.S. Helsinki Commission to monitor U.S. participation and compliance with these commitments. The OSCE contains commitments in three areas or baskets: security, economics, and human rights. Best known for its human rights advancements, the OSCE has been aggressive in advancing these commitments in each of the OSCE states. The OSCE stands for religious freedom and protection of minority rights. I am the Senate chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. In that capacity, I have raised human rights issues in other countries, such as in France when, in the name of national security, the Parliament banned burqas and wearing of all religious articles or when the Swiss restricted the building of mosques or minarets. These policies were restrictive not only to the religious practice of Muslims but also Christians, Jews, and others who would seek to wear religious symbols and practice their religion as they saw fit. I have also raised human rights issues in the United States when we were out of compliance with our Helsinki commitments. In that spirit, I find it necessary to speak out against the congressional hearing chaired by Congressman Peter King. Rather than constructively using the power of Congress to explore how we as a nation can use all of the tools at our disposal to prevent future terrorist attacks and defeat those individuals and groups who want to do us harm, this spectacle crossed the line and chipped away at the religious freedoms and civil liberties we hold so dearly. Radicalization may be the appropriate subject of a congressional hearing but not when it is limited to one religion. When that is done, it sends the wrong message to the public and casts a religion with unfounded suspicions. Congressman King's hearing is part of a disturbing trend to demonize Muslims taking place in our country and abroad. Instead, we need to engage the Muslim community in the United States. A cookie-cutter approach to profile what a terrorist looks like will not work. As FBI Director Mueller recently testified to the Senate: . . . during the past year, the threat from radicalization has evolved. A number of disruptions occurred involving extremists from a diverse set of backgrounds, geographic locations, life experiences, and motivating factors that propelled them along their separate radicalization pathways. Let us remember that a number of terrorist attacks have been prevented or disrupted due to informants from the Muslim community who contacted law enforcement officials. I commend Attorney General Holder and FBI Director Mueller for increasing their outreach to the Arab-American community. As Attorney General Holder said: Let us not forget it was a Muslim-American who first alerted the New York police to a smoking car in Times Square. And his vigilance likely helped to save lives. He did his part to avert tragedy, just as millions of other Arab- Americans are doing their parts and proudly fulfilling the responsibility of citizenship. We need to encourage this type of cooperation between our government and law enforcement agencies in the Muslim community. As the threat from al-Qaida changes and evolves over time, the piece of the puzzle is even more important to get right. FBI Director Mueller testified before the House recently that: At every opportunity I have, I reaffirm the fact that 99.9 percent of Muslim-Americans, Sikh-Americans, and Arab- Americans are every bit as patriotic as anyone else in this room, and that many of the anti-terrorism cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community and the United States. As leaders in Congress, we must live up to our Nation's highest ideals and protect civil liberties, even in wartime when they are most challenged. The 9/11 Commission summed up this well when they wrote: The terrorists have used our open society against us. In wartime, government calls for greater powers, and then the need for those powers recedes after the war ends. This struggle will go on. Therefore, while protecting our homeland, Americans must be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right. I agree with Attorney General Holder's recent speech to the Arab- American Anti-Discrimination Committee, where he stated: In this Nation, our many faiths, origins, and appearances must bind us together, not break us apart. In this Nation, the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude. And in this Nation, security and liberty are--at their best--partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all. Actions, such as the hearing held last week, that pit us against one another based on our religious beliefs, weaken our country and its freedoms and ultimately do nothing to make our country any safer. Hearings such as the one held last week only serve as a distraction from our real goals and provide fuel for those who are looking for excuses to find fault or blame in our way of life. Let's not go the way of other countries but instead hold dear the protections in our Constitution that safeguard the individual's right to freely practice their religion and forbid a religious test to hold public office in the United States. Our country's strength lies in its diversity and our ability to have strongly held beliefs and differences of opinion, while being able to speak freely and not fear the government will imprison us for criticizing the government or holding a religious belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans. On September 11, 2001, our country was attacked by terrorists in a way we thought impossible. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children of all races, religions, and backgrounds were murdered. As the 10-year anniversary of these attacks draws closer, we continue to hold these innocent victims in our thoughts and prayers, and we will continue to fight terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. After that attack, I went back to my congressional district in Maryland at that time and made three visits as a Congressman. First I visited a synagogue and prayed with the community. Then I visited a mosque and prayed with the community. Then I went to a church and prayed with the community. My message was clear on that day: We all needed to join together as a nation to condemn the terrorist attacks and to take all necessary measures to eliminate safe havens for terrorists and bring them to justice. We all stood together on that day regardless of our background or personal beliefs. But my other message was equally important: We cannot allow the events of September 11 to demonize a particular community, religion, or creed. Such actions of McCarthyism harken back to darker days in our history. National security concerns were used inappropriately and led to 120,000 Japanese-Americans being stripped of their property and rights and placed in internment camps in 1942, though not a single act of espionage was ever established. The United States should not carry out a crusade against any particular religion as a response to 9/11 or other terrorist attacks. The United States will not tolerate hate crimes against any group, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, and we should not allow our institutions, including Congress, to be used to foment intolerance and injustice. Let's come together as a nation and move forward in a more constructive and hopeful manner. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 12 years ago this very day, the Senate passed a joint resolution that honored Harriet Tubman, with Harriet Tubman Day, on March 10. That resolution was sponsored by Senator Carper and then-Senator Biden. In the House of Representatives, I served and I cosponsored a similar resolution. Harriet Tubman was a remarkable woman. She was born in Dorchester County, MD, in 1822. She was a slave for greater than 25 years of her life. At age 25, she married John Tubman. She escaped slavery in 1849. She returned to the eastern shore of Maryland, not once but 19 times that we know of within a 10-year period, in order to rescue slaves and to set them free. She rescued slaves in Dorchester County and Caroline County in Maryland and throughout the entire Northeast. She was known as the modern day ``Moses'' for the Underground Railroad. In the Civil War, she joined Union forces as a spy, as a scout, and as a nurse, operating in Virginia, Florida, and South Carolina. After the Civil War was over, she settled in Auburn, NY, and was very actively involved in the women's suffrage movement, and she established one of the first African-American homes for the aged. She died in 1913. Harriet Tubman embodies the American spirit. She was a strong-willed person who fought for the rights and freedom of those who were oppressed in the barbaric institution of slavery. Her personal freedom was not enough for her because she recognized there was injustice in this country, and she wanted to be involved. As the joint resolution that passed the Senate 12 years ago said: . . . Harriet Tubman--whose courageous and dedicated pursuit of the promise of American ideals and common principles of humanity continues to serve and inspire all people who cherish freedom. . . . A major part of learning and understanding the significance of history is being able to experience the places where that history occurred. From Fort McHenry in Baltimore, MD, to the Lincoln Memorial here in the Nation's capital, we have preserved our history for future generations. Millions of visitors and schoolchildren visit these iconic places in American history. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and the Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park is legislation I have filed so we can preserve the history of Harriet Tubman with these historic places for future generations. I am joined in this effort by Senator Mikulski, Senator Schumer, and Senator Gillibrand. The natural landscape on the eastern shore that existed during Harriet Tubman's day exists today. Her homestead, where her father was born, Ben Ross, exists today. Stewart's Canal, where her father worked, exists today. The Brodess Farm, where Harriet Tubman worked as a slave, exists today. Right adjacent to it, and including part of that property, is the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. So we have the landscape in which the Underground Railroad was operating to free slaves in the 19th century. It exists today on the eastern shore of Maryland. In Auburn, NY, the home in which Harriet Tubman lived still exists, the home for the aged that she started still remains. The Thompson Memorial AME Zion Episcopal Church is still there, and the Fort Hill Cemetery, where she is buried. They are all intact, and all are available for preservation. The legislation we have filed will preserve these places in American history under our National Park System for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to honor a great American, and to preserve our heritage for future generations.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This bill promotes long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds that breed in North America in the summer and spend our winters in tropical climates south of our border. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships to countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects. This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect pests each year. These vulnerable bird populations face many environmental factors such as pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that threaten their habitat and, ultimately, their survival. As good indicators of a healthy ecosystem, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, at least 29 species of migratory birds are experiencing significant population declines. For example, populations of the Cerulean Warbler and Olive-Sided Flycatcher have declined as much as 70 percent since surveys began in the 1960s. The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of my home state of Maryland, has been experiencing a decline in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Destruction of their domestic breeding habitat and tropical winter habitat, coupled with the toxic pesticides ingested by insects which are then eaten by the Oriole, has significantly contributed to this decline. It is essential that we invest in conservation efforts in our country as well as others along the migratory route of the wide range of migratory birds. This legislation accomplishes this goal. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, between 2002 and 2010, this program has successfully supported 333 projects, coordinated by groups in 48 U.S. State/territories and 36 countries. Additionally, it is a great value for taxpayers as it leverages over $4.00 for each Federal dollar spent. Since 2002, the U.S. has invested more than $25 million in 262 projects and leveraged an additional $112 million in partner funds to support these projects. It also helps to generate $2.7 billion annually for the U.S. economy through wildlife watching activities. This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This bill promotes long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds that breed in North America in the summer and spend our winters in tropical climates south of our border. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships to countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects. This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect pests each year. These vulnerable bird populations face many environmental factors such as pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that threaten their habitat and, ultimately, their survival. As good indicators of a healthy ecosystem, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, at least 29 species of migratory birds are experiencing significant population declines. For example, populations of the Cerulean Warbler and Olive-Sided Flycatcher have declined as much as 70 percent since surveys began in the 1960s. The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of my home state of Maryland, has been experiencing a decline in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the State of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Destruction of their domestic breeding habitat and tropical winter habitat, coupled with the toxic pesticides ingested by insects which are then eaten by the Oriole, has significantly contributed to this decline. It is essential that we invest in conservation efforts in our country as well as others along the migratory route of the wide range of migratory birds. This legislation accomplishes this goal. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, between 2002 and 2010, this program has successfully supported 333 projects, coordinated by groups in 48 U.S. State/territories and 36 countries. Additionally, it is a great value for taxpayers as it leverages over $4.00 for each Federal dollar spent. Since 2002, the U.S. has invested more than $25 million in 262 projects and leveraged an additional $112 million in partner funds to support these projects. It also helps to generate $2.7 billion annually for the U.S. economy through wildlife watching activities. This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful Federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about asthma and the impact of health disparities. I have pointed out on the floor before that race and ethnic health disparities exist in America. I have talked on the floor before about sickle cell disease. Well, the same thing is true with the chronic inflammatory diseases of the body's airways that impede breathing, such as asthma. As I pointed out before, the Affordable Care Act includes a provision I helped write that establishes the Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH. The purpose for including this information about asthma in the Record is to point out that we still have challenges that need to be met. I look forward to working with my colleagues on that issue. Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the body's airways that impairs breathing and affects more than 20 million Americans. People with this condition have overly reactive airways that constrict in response to allergens, temperature changes, physical exercise, and stress. During asthma attacks, the airways spasm and prevent oxygen from getting to the lungs. This leads to chest tightness, shortage of breath, wheezing and mucus production. Severe attacks can require intubation and even result in death. Of the 20 million Americans affected by asthma, about 7 million are children. In fact, about 10 percent of all American children have asthma. Genetics play a significant role in the development of asthma in children and adults, but asthma is also influenced by environmental factors and racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic factors. Asthma is consistently found to be more prevalent among certain minority groups, particularly among Blacks, Native Americans, and Puerto Ricans. To be more precise, research indicates that asthma is 30 percent more prevalent in Blacks than in Whites; American Indians and Alaska Natives are 20 percent more likely to have asthma than Whites; Asian/Pacific Islander children are three times more likely to have asthma than White children; and Puerto Rican Americans have twice the asthma rate as the Latino American population overall. In addition to occurring more often, asthma is also more severe in minority populations, and this leads to higher mortality rates for Black Americans. Asthma accounts for more than 4,000 deaths in the United States each year. Blacks are 2.5 times more likely to die from asthma-related causes than Whites. Among children, this ratio is even more staggering--Black children are 7 times more likely to die from asthma-related causes than White children. Interestingly, although Latino Americans and American Indian/Alaskan Natives are more likely than Whites to have asthma, they have a 50 percent lower mortality rate. As I noted earlier, the gap in asthma outcomes is also influenced by several socioeconomic factors. Health disparities can be attributed to differences in education level, independent of race or ethnicity. Research shows that children whose mothers have not completed high school are twice as likely to develop asthma as children whose mothers have a high school diploma, and this difference remains significant even when controlling for race and ethnicity. Economic status also influences the incidence of asthma. Studies have shown that unemployment is correlated with increased incidence, and that people with incomes below the Federal poverty level are 30 percent more likely to develop asthma as those who are above the Federal poverty level. One reason is that income level is correlated with quality of housing, and substandard housing is strongly associated with poor asthma outcomes. Substandard housing exposes residents to environmental triggers for asthma such as dust mites, roaches, mold, and rodents. A study in the journal Pediatrics showed that eliminating these indoor pollutants could prevent 39 percent of asthma cases in children. Other studies have shown that substandard housing accounts for up to a 50-percent increase in asthma cases. In addition to indoor triggers, outdoor pollutants are also contributing factors. Researchers have shown that among people living within 50 yards of major car traffic, people living near a road traveled by 30,000 vehicles per day are three times more likely to develop asthma that those who live near a road traveled by 10,000 vehicles per day. To put these figures into perspective, the average segment of I-495, our Capital Beltway, carries about 200,000 cars per day. The built environment comprising roads, factories, and other human- made surroundings is a substantial risk factor for asthma. Many people are stuck in unhealthy living conditions because they can't afford to move elsewhere, particularly in the case of public housing projects, which are often situated in the most polluted locations. Initiatives such as the Healthy Homes Program run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are encouraging, but greater effort must be devoted to raising the quality of the home environment for people living in poverty. Whether due to one or more of these factors, the impact of disparities in asthma is profound because asthma is such a crippling condition. Untreated or inappropriately treated, asthma makes it difficult to concentrate at school and work, limits physical activity, and often results in absenteeism. It also reaches beyond the patient to family members, as parents are often required to miss work to care for sick children. The Nation's 20 million asthma patients account for more than 100 million days each year in lost productivity due to absence from school and work, according to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Yearly, asthma patients account for more than 11 million office visits and 500,000 hospitalizations. That is an annual cost of more than $6 billion in direct and indirect medical expenditures. Much of this expense could be avoided with proper asthma management. Patients who are diagnosed at an early age and whose conditions are well managed by a primary care physician and an asthma specialist can avoid many of the complications associated with the condition. The ability to secure medications, such as an albuterol inhaler to alleviate attacks and steroids to suppress inflammation, can allow patients to play sports and live normal lives. But patients who lack access to specialists or can't afford needed medicines will frequently miss school, must forgo physical activity, and are often hospitalized. So the effect of access to affordable, comprehensive care is apparent. Even so, coverage is not enough. Asthma disparities have multiple interrelated causes, as I have outlined. We often view health disparities through the narrow lenses of genetic differences and differences in medical care. But upstream determinants such as social inequalities and neighborhood conditions can have a significant impact on health outcomes as well. Even though we know this, national policies have not effectively addressed the problem of health disparities pertaining to asthma. National asthma guidelines that are supported by the National Institutes of Health recommend preventive services and asthma care by a specialist. These guidelines have been found to save money and improve quality of life. But data still show that patients covered by Medicaid are offered less preventive care and fewer referrals to asthma specialists compared to patients in the private insurance market. This matters when it comes to outcomes because specialists are more likely to prescribe controller medications than primary care providers, regardless of the patient's racial or ethnic background. Decreased access to specialists has been associated with higher rates of hospitalization, emergency room use, and mortality. The bottom line is that Medicaid patients have been receiving lower quality treatment for asthma, despite the guidelines put forth by NIH and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. I am encouraged that there are significant efforts taking place to close the gaps at the local level. In Maryland, the University of Maryland Medical Center has developed an innovative approach to bringing specialized care to children who otherwise would not have access to it. Their BreathMobile program, led by Dr. Mary Beth Bollinger, is an asthma clinic on wheels. It is staffed by a pediatric allergist, a pediatric nurse practitioner, a registered nurse, and a driver who regularly travels to over two dozen schools in Baltimore City. The BreathMobile has provided ongoing care to more than 800 students. At Johns Hopkins University, the Harriet Lane Clinic provides a comprehensive medical home for asthma patients. Over 90 percent of Harriet Lane's caseload are Medicaid patients, and they are provided with pulmonary specialists, social workers, and case managers who help them secure healthy housing, and seek help from other programs for which they may be eligible. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have additional tools to address the problem of health disparities at a national level. I helped write into that law the new Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH as well as the Offices of Minority Health at CMS and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These offices are charged with evaluating, coordinating, and advocating for efforts to eliminate disparities, and they can do much to close the gaps with respect to asthma. The new Institute will be instrumental in overseeing the coordination of asthma research at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and ensuring that the focus of biomedical research sufficiently addresses health disparities. We must encourage participation in clinical trials, particularly for underrepresented populations, so that we can speed the discovery of the most effective treatments. Provisions to encourage physicians to practice in underserved areas can improve access to care. The Office at AHRQ can help translate these findings into practice, and the Office at CMS can be instrumental in ensuring that eligible CHIP and Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in these programs and that they can receive the best possible care. With the Affordable Care Act, we have the momentum and the tools needed to make a difference in asthma health disparities. I look forward to returning to the floor soon to explore the issue of health disparities further by focusing on another condition that disproportionately affects minorities. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today we are faced with two alternative versions of a fiscal year 2011 funding bill. The version that came over from the other body contains an endless list of problems. It slashes fundamental programs that are important to the health and well-being of every America, unleashes attacks on our bedrock environmental laws that protect clear and safe water as well as healthy air, and undermine our efforts to reassert America's leading role in education, research and innovation. Casting a vote against this bill will be easy. The alternative bill offered by the Senate Appropriations Committee is dramatically better. It is a good faith effort at tackling the deficit while maintaining critical investments in America's future. This bill, however, is not without its problems. The Senate version of the fiscal year 2011 spending bill restores a substantial portion of the cuts to the nation's water infrastructure contained in H.R. 1. I applaud the committee's effort to protect this critical investment, but it doesn't go far enough. As a nation, we see 650 water main breaks per day. That is the rate of one every 2 minutes and results in the loss of $2.6 billion in water annually. The story on wastewater systems is equally dismal, resulting in sewage overflows and broken pipes on a daily basis. Our drinking water and wastewater infrastructure has been given a grade of D- from the American Society of Civil Engineers. These system failures aren't just expensive, they are also dangerous. Raw sewage flows into our rivers and streams, forcing local health authorities to warn local residents to avoid contact with rivers, beaches and lakes. Drinking water systems are forced to issue boil- water advisories to compensate for broken systems. We must do better. The investments in water infrastructure in the Senate bill are a step in the right direction, but we should be doing more. There are other examples as well. The cuts to the conservation programs in the Senate version are disproportionately large. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program at USDA, for example, is eliminated entirely. We need to make hard choices about our funding priorities. But we shouldn't be doing so without also having a frank discussion about tax loopholes that cost us billions of dollars annually. And finally, the Senate bill is a dramatic improvement over H.R. 1 in terms of environmental policy. The other body approved legislative riders that would stop EPA from being able to protect the air Americans breathe every day and it would stop dead in its tracks the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. The Senate bill, to its credit, eliminates these terrible policy directives. The Senate bill, however, does include a provision that would legislatively de-list the gray wolf from the endangered species list. I continue to oppose legislative efforts to delist endangered species. We have a regulatory process that is based on scientific data, and we should use it. All that is needed is for the States in the Northern Rockies to submit appropriate management plans to the Department of Interior so that the law can work the way Congress intended. I have no problem today in voting against the draconian cuts and terrible public policy riders in H.R. 1. My support for the Senate alternative, which is dramatically better, is tempered by my concerns. My vote for the Senate substitute is a reluctant aye. As we move forward to enact a fiscal 2011 spending bill, I hope we will be able to address the issue I have outlined here to make sure that the American people are getting the kinds of investments and savings that they deserve.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for International Women's Day. Since the beginning of last century, determined and courageous women have fought hard and made important strides towards ensuring that women are guaranteed equality and basic human rights. Too often in the past, women were seen as victims that needed to be protected or saved. But today, on the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, women should be viewed as they really are: farmers, entrepreneurs, businesswomen, teachers, policewomen, caretakers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, mothers, wives, astronauts and presidents. While we should reflect on incredible progress that women have made in pushing for greater rights and equal opportunities, we must be vigilant about the facts on the status of women around the world. We know women are still being discriminated against; still being abused; and still being treated unjustly. We know about the trafficking of young women and girls; the lack of maternal health care; the lack of access to an education or basic economic opportunities. These are the facts. What we also know is that empowering women around the world to participate in the political, social and economic life of their communities and their families is one of the most important tools that we have to alleviate poverty. Decades of research and experience prove that when women are able to be fully engaged in society and hold decision making power, they are more likely to invest their income in food, clean water, education, and health care for their children. This creates a positive cycle of change that lifts entire families, communities and nations out of poverty. Simply put, when women succeed, we all do. Right now, over a billion people worldwide live on a dollar a day or less let's be conscious of the fact that women are most likely to be among them. This is a problem that affects all of humanity--when women are poor, entire communities suffer because they are not free to earn an income, feed their families, or protect themselves and their children from violence. And their efforts are critical to rebuilding fragile countries like Afghanistan and Haiti. Until women around the world have improved access to economic, political and social opportunities, the great challenges we face today will go unresolved. Many people do not realize is that violence against women and girls is a major source of poverty. Violence and poverty go hand and hand. Violence prevents women and girls from getting an education, going to work, and earning the income they need to lift their families out of poverty. We know that one in three women will be the victim of physical or sexual abuse in her lifetime. But we also know that women have the potential to lift families and communities out of poverty. And this undeniable connection means that we cannot ignore or sacrifice women's rights for political expediency. If meaningful reforms for women are rolled back or not implemented at all, particularly in places like Afghanistan, real and sustainable development will fail. Although conditions for women in Afghanistan have improved since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, they still face serious challenges in many aspects of life. And we cannot accept the status quo that women face in many of these countries as the ``cost of doing business.'' The U.S. government must continue to press the fundamental values of the rights of women--to vote, to attend school, to own land, to live their lives without violence, to make their own choices--if we expect to see a sustainable peace in Afghanistan. Even in countries not in a state of conflict, women's equality and access can make the difference between life and death for her family. Janet Wamalwa owns a 1-acre farm plot in rural Kenya that used to lay bare and was difficult to cultivate. Like many areas of sub-Saharan Africa, her land was plagued by soil erosion and low productivity. And for a subsistence farmer like 32-year-old Janet, when her crops don't grow, her family doesn't eat. And when the mother of five could not make ends meet, the first cost-savings remedy was to pull the children from their studies. To save money, Janet said that they lived on one meal a day during the dry season. But no more. Today, Janet's crops are thriving and her family is eating better because of several sustainable farming techniques she implemented with the help of an international NGO and Kenya's Ministry of Agriculture. Janet's approach is just one example of how small-scale farmers in Africa-- most of whom are women--can use a diversity of simple practices to stave off hunger, earn an income and, ultimately, improve their lives, and the lives of those around them. And for Janet, the benefits have been life-changing. Now, she said her children's overall nutrition is better. Meanwhile, the extra income Janet earns from selling products in local markets means she can pay her children's school fees. If we ignore the reality and the influence of empowering women, the results will undoubtedly be negative. When development programs fail to consider gender differences, women are the ones that are left behind. The World Bank states that, at the macroeconomic level, there is evidence that removing gender disparities spurs growth. According to one estimate, growth rates in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East would have been 30-45 percent higher had these regions closed the gender gaps as East Asia did during the school years of 1960 and 1992. In Kenya, if women farmers were given the same level of agricultural inputs and education as men, they could increase their yields by more than 20 percent. Therefore, if we open women's access to the means of agricultural production such as: farming land, fertilizers, farm labor, credit and technical skills--the end results are crucial to guaranteeing food security and enhancing the nutritional status of children. When we invest in women and they have the opportunity to augment their own incomes, their families and communities thrive. As we in Congress and in the administration move forward with the vital process of revamping and modernizing our foreign assistance, we have an opportunity to make women's empowerment a central focus of U.S. foreign policy. We must all remember the lesson that an investment in the empowerment of women is an investment in the future. As chairman of the International Development and Foreign Assistance Subcommittee at Foreign Relations, I vow to make that the case. Investing in women is the best way to secure stronger communities and economies around the world. Today, let us reaffirm the commitment to end gender-based discrimination in all forms, to end violence against women and girls worldwide, as we encourage the people of the United States to observe March 8 as International Women's Day.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business; is that correct?

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me thank, first, Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue in bringing us together to point out what harm the House-passed budget bill would do to our environment. I start off by saying, when you look at the Republican budget plan in the House, it not only devastates important investments in our environment, it does not bring us to a balanced budget because all the savings they get in these Draconian cuts to our discretionary domestic spending are offset by extending the tax cuts. We lose all the savings through their tax policy. But today I want to talk about a nonmoney issue, at least a rider that was put on the House budget. Let me read what it says. The bill says that ``none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to . . . implement'' the Bay restoration plan now under way. I am talking about the Chesapeake Bay program, a matter I have talked about on this floor many times. What does that mean? That means none of the funds in the budget can be used in the six States that are in the watershed, including Maryland and the District of Columbia, to implement their plan. Each of these States is relying and getting Federal funds under the State revolving fund to deal with wastewater treatment plants. Those funds would be denied. None of the money could be used for the State water programs. None of the funds could be used for watershed groups to restore local streams. We have school groups and civic associations participating with us to clean up the Bay. Those programs would come to an end. It is estimated this one rider alone will cost the Bay restoration effort in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia more than $300 million. What does that mean? It means job loss in our areas, by far. We are talking about jobs here. It also puts our citizens at risk as far as their health is concerned. More and more health-related illnesses are coming as a result of the poor quality of water in our communities. Let me mention one other issue; that is, the House-passed budget--the Republican budget--will slash the EPA budget by 33 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level. That is a one-third reduction in the EPA's budget. It threatens Clean Water Act protections for lakes, streams, and rivers across our country by cutting $2 billion from the EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund. I mention that because in my State and around the Nation we are seeing more and more disasters occurring as a result of water main breaks. We saw what happened in Prince George's County, MD. That was within the last year. We saw what happened in downtown Baltimore when a water main broke and turned our downtown into unpavable streets. We saw what happened in Montgomery County, MD, where River Road became a river and people had to be rescued from their cars. This, once again, is about jobs. It creates jobs. But it also provides us with safe drinking water in our communities. For all these reasons, Madam President, it is important that we do not allow the House-passed budget to become law. I thank my colleagues for participating in this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the budget deficit and what we need to do in order to bring our budget into balance to have a credible plan to deal with our future growth in this Nation. I start off by saying the budget deficit is an extremely serious issue for this Nation. We do not have a sustainable budget. You cannot sustain a budget that creates debt at 10 percent of our gross domestic product and a gross debt that equals 100 percent of our GDP. We need to bring down our deficit in order to have the type of economic growth that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy a better economic circumstance than this generation. First, before we talk about where we need to go, we have to understand how we got here. I am not going to harp on this, but I wish to make sure the people of Maryland and the Nation know how we got to these large deficits so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. During President Clinton's administration, we balanced the budget. I might say, we did that--the Democrats did it--without a single vote from the Republicans. We were on course to retire all of our debt, and that was just 10 years ago. Then, under President Bush, we cut taxes twice without paying for it. We went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and did not pay for it. To date, the war in Iraq has cost $770 billion. That is money we had to borrow in order to fight that war in Iraq. We had chosen, under the previous administration, that it was more important to cut taxes than it was to balance the budget, and that was a mistake. President Obama inherited a huge deficit and an economy that was hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month. Well, it is time now to move forward. We have turned our economy around. It is growing, but we need to do it in a way that does not jeopardize our economic recovery. But it is absolutely essential we start to move our budget back into balance and we take aggressive steps to do it. Today, in the Budget Committee, we heard from Erskine Bowles and Senator Simpson from the debt commission, and I think we were all impressed. If we are going to get a credible plan--which is critically important for our Nation--to balance the budget, we need to follow the example of the debt commission. It does not mean we have to agree to everything the debt commission did. But the debt commission recognized we could not balance the Federal budget by cutting discretionary domestic spending alone; that we need a game plan which brings all the major components of the budget together: discretionary domestic spending, military spending; we need to deal with entitlements, and we need to deal with revenues. We are only going to get this done if Democrats and Republicans work together for a credible plan. That is what we need to do in order to bring back our economy. The only specific proposal we have had come over from the House of Representatives to date--H.R. 1, their budget--I believe does not follow the example of the debt commission. I believe it is extremely harmful to the process of trying to work out a plan where we have a credible effort to balance the budget with shared sacrifice because the House-passed budget, the Republican budget in the House, gets all its savings from 12 percent of the Federal budget, from discretionary domestic spending, and it jeopardizes our recovery. Mark Zandi, the economist from Moody's, said we would lose 700,000 jobs if the House- passed Republican budget were enacted into law. Let me give you some examples as to how it would affect the people of Maryland if the House budget became law. First, let me talk a little bit about some of the budget cuts themselves. About 10 days ago, I was at the Greater Baden Health Center in Prince George's County, MD. They are expanding that health center to include prenatal care. The reason, quite frankly, is that the infant mortality rate in Maryland is way too high. We rank 29th in the Nation. That is unacceptable. In the African-American community, the infant mortality rate is 260 percent of that of the White community. The problem is, we have too many low birthweight babies. Some die and become part of the infant mortality statistics. Others survive and have complications throughout their lives. It is in our interest, from every perspective, to bring down that infant mortality rate and to provide prenatal care for women so we have healthier babies. I hope we would all agree to that. We are doing something about that in Maryland, using moneys that were a part of the Affordable Care Act. The Republican budget would eliminate that funding. That community would not be able to expand with prenatal care to do something about the health of our citizens. Mr. President, 2,900 community health workers would lose their jobs in Maryland--2,900 community health workers would lose their jobs in Maryland--if the House-passed budget, H.R. 1, became law. I have taken the floor on several occasions, and a little earlier today, to talk about the Chesapeake Bay and the Federal partnership. We have had a Federal partnership in cleaning up the bay. It is the largest estuary in North America. It is a body of global significance, and it is in danger because too many pollutants are entering the bay as a result of population growth, development, and farming practices. Well, we have a game plan to do something about it. But the budget that passed the House would cut the Chesapeake Bay program dramatically--$25 million--making it extremely difficult for us to move forward on our remedial efforts. Making it even worse, there is an environmental rider that was put on H.R. 1 that says none of the funds made available under this act may be used to implement the bay restoration plan now underway. What does that mean? It means each one of the States that are in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay--the States of Maryland; Virginia, the Presiding Officer's State; Delaware; New York; Pennsylvania; West Virginia; and the District of Columbia--they all rely on improving their wastewater treatment facility plants in order to reduce the pollutants going into the bay under the State revolving fund. Well, if that rider became law, the States could not participate in that program. They would not be able to implement one of the major features of their plan in order to reduce the pollutants going into the bay to make it a cleaner body of water. I could talk about the watershed grants that go to schools and civic associations--eliminated under the Republican budget--or I could talk about how the State gets money to operate its water funds--eliminated under the House-passed budget. The Environmental Protection Agency sees their budget reduced by over 30 percent. Plus, there are additional environmental riders that make it very difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment. In Maryland, we would lose $150 million toward the Federal Government's commitment to the Washington Metro system. This affects the entire area, including Virginia and the District. This is the Nation's Metro system that allows the Federal workforce to get to work. We entered into a 10-year commitment with the local jurisdictions, including Maryland, Virginia, and the District, that the Federal Government would be a partner--$150 million a year--toward those costs. The House budget eliminates those transit funds. The Republican House budget would cut Head Start by $1.1 billion. Mr. President, 157,000 children would be affected, 2,300 in the State of Maryland--2,300. These are children who are getting a better start in life because of this program, and the budget passed in the House, H.R. 1, would eliminate those services for so many of our children. Pell grants, to allow families to be able to afford a college education, are reduced by $5.7 billion. It affects 9.4 million students. What does it mean for the people of Maryland? It means those who have Pell grants today could see their grants go down by as much as $650. I can tell you, there are many families in Maryland who cannot afford that extra $650. Without a college education today, it is difficult to be able to be as competitive as you need to be in order to take advantage of our economic opportunities. The WIC Program that helps women and infants and children is cut by 10 percent under the House-passed budget. NIH funding is down $1 billion. Research--and not just at NIH, located in Maryland, but also at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland Medical Center--would be disrupted if the Republican-passed budget, H.R. 1, were to become law. Our challenge, as President Obama said in the State of the Union Address, is that we have to outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild our competitors so that America will be able to compete in the 21st century globally. That is our challenge. H.R. 1, the Republican budget, doesn't allow us to do that. There is a better way of doing it, and, as the President said, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way. How do we do that? We need a credible plan to balance the Federal budget--a credible plan that will bring in more deficit reduction than H.R. 1, the Republican budget, because you need to allow America to grow, yet move toward a balanced budget. The only way is to include all sectors, not just discretionary domestic spending. You need to include military spending, you need to deal with entitlements, and you need to deal with revenues. President Obama's budget starts us down that path by freezing discretionary domestic spending over 5 years. We have already gone further than that in the continuing resolution we have passed. We are going to go back to 2010 numbers or even below that. We have already put on the table dramatic reductions in the growth rate of discretionary domestic spending, but we need to include defense. Iraq and Afghanistan need to come to an end; those savings will be dramatic. America cannot continue to have a growth economy where we spend so much more than any other nation on our national defense. We have to protect the people in this Nation, but we cannot take on the burdens of the world. There have to be adequate burdens among our allies, which will bring savings to the U.S. taxpayer. In entitlement spending, we need to bring down costs. We took a major step forward in doing this in the Affordable Care Act. One of the areas in which I agree with some of our Republican friends who are criticizing the CBO is that their numbers are off. We are going to get more savings, not less, than what the CBO estimated. I am convinced that when you deal with people in preventive health care and use better information technology, when you manage people's diseases, when you deal with readmissions so people understand what they need to do to stay healthy, when you put all that together, when you expand our community health centers, as I said earlier about what happened at the Greater Baden center on prenatal care, when you do all that, it will bring down the rate of health care costs. America spends more than any other nation, any way you want to calculate it, on health care. We don't have the health care results to demonstrate that type of commitment. We can bring down the cost of health care, and when we do that, by implementing the Affordable Care Act and making sure we get those savings, we will bring down the Medicare costs and we will bring down the Medicaid costs, which will save taxpayers even more under our entitlement spending. We can get those savings. By the way, we are going to save middle-income families in this country by also reducing their costs for health care. That is what we need to do to make our economy stronger. We can do something about entitlement spending, and there are other areas we need to look at. The farm subsidy programs need to be reviewed, and the debt commission made recommendations in that regard that I think are worthy of our review. Then there is revenue. Yes, I think we need to take a look at revenues. Our current income tax structure cannot be justified, as has been pointed out frequently. We hemorrhage as much revenue in our Tax Code as we raise. If you eliminated all the special provisions, you could cut the tax rates in half. Since we had tax reform in 1986, we have added so many new loopholes and provisions and special interest provisions in the Tax Code. In 1986, we attempted to lower the rates and make sure everybody paid their fair share. Well, it is now 2011, and we are out of balance, and we need to look at tax reform. I urge, in looking at tax reform, that we should look at consumption- based taxes. I know the criticisms of that, but I will start by saying that if we had consumption-based taxes to deal with some of our income tax revenues, we would be more competitive internationally. If you are an export company and you are choosing whether to locate in America or in another country, you pay income taxes here that cannot be taken off the price of your product when you put it in the international marketplace. If you locate in another country that uses consumption taxes at a higher level than we do--we don't use it at all--but a higher level than our income taxes, that country will allow those exporters to take the tax off when they put their products into the international marketplace. That is acceptable under the World Trade Organization, putting American producers at a disadvantage. We need to save more as a nation. We have heard over and over the point made that America, during the height of our economic progress, had one of the lowest savings ratios in the world. We need to save more as a nation. Our Tax Code should encourage savings much more than it does today. I want to make it clear that I am totally committed that in tax reform we should make our Tax Code more progressive. I don't believe it is progressive enough. Progressive means that it is based, at least in part, on the ability to pay. Wealthier people will pay a higher percentage of the tax than lower income people. Today, under our income tax system, many people do not have to pay income tax now. We can design a consumption tax, so they won't have to pay a consumption tax and there is no new tax burden. There are proposals out there that can take more people off the tax rolls. By the way, this is a zero-sum game on revenue. Let's decide how much we need and then raise it in a cost-efficient way that will allow America to grow. That is the type of reform I hope we will be able to get. If we do, it will mean not only bringing our budget into balance by a credible plan that deals with discretionary domestic spending and military and entitlement and revenues but does it in a way that allows America to grow by investing in our future--in education, in energy, in our transportation infrastructure and transit and all those areas that we need--so that we can meet the challenges of the future but do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. How do we get this done? We get it done by coming together and listening to each other. I don't think anybody here has a monopoly on what is right. For the sake of our Nation, let's listen to each other and try to get this done in a way where we have a credible plan. It has to be a credible plan. These are not Democratic or Republican or Independent problems; these are American issues. We have to put our Nation first. I hope we will step back a little and listen to the debate and use the debt commission as a model of civility. Again, I am sure we will have different views on it, but at the end of the day, I hope we can achieve at least the deficit reduction of the commission. I think we can. The people of Maryland and the country want us to do this. Working together, I think we can accomplish those goals. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we have all watched in awe during the past weeks as the unquenchable desire for liberty and human dignity has inspired the people of the Middle East to lift themselves from oppression and move their country toward a new dawn. Sadly, we now also watch in horror the brutality of Colonel Qadhafi, who murders his own people as he clings to power. I join President Obama in calling for Colonel Qadhafi to leave Libya immediately and support our efforts, in concert with the international community, to help the Libyan people. What happens next? No one knows. I certainly do not have the answer. I pray that peace and stability comes quickly to Libya and hope the people of Egypt and Tunisia make a swift and concrete progress in establishing democratic institutions and the rule of law. While each country in the region must find its own path in this journey, I would suggest the international community currently has a process in place that can serve as a way forward for the countries in the Middle East and North Africa in establishing a more democratic process, that guarantees free elections and free speech. I am referring to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. The OSCE traces its origins to the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975, and for more than 35 years has helped bridge the chasm between Eastern and Western Europe and Central Asia, by ensuring both military security for member countries and the inalienable human rights of its citizens. There are three baskets in OSCE. One basket deals with human rights because it is critically important that the countries respect the rights of their citizens. Another basket deals with security because you cannot have human rights unless you have a secured country that protects the security of its people. The third basket deals with economics and environment because you cannot have a secure country and you cannot have human rights unless there is economic opportunity for your citizens and you respect the environment in which we live. The three baskets are brought together. In the United States, the Congress passed the U.S. Helsinki Commission that monitors and encourages compliance by the member states in the OSCE. I am privileged to serve as the Senate chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and I represent our Commission on most, on these issues. Today Egypt and Tunisia, along with Algeria, Israel, Jordan, and Morocco, are active Mediterranean partners within the OSCE and have made a commitment to work toward the principles of the organization. In 1975, the Helsinki Final Act recognized that security in Europe is closely linked with security in the Mediterranean and created this special partnership between the signatory states and the countries in the Mediterranean as a way to improve relations and work toward peace in the region. Libya was an original partner in this endeavor but, regrettably--and, in my view, to its detriment--ultimately, turned its back on the organization. More recently, the U.S. Helsinki Commission has made the Mediterranean partnership a priority on our agenda. Parliamentary assembly meetings have taken place in which all of the member states were present, including our partners, and we have had sidebar events to encourage the strengthening of the relationship between our Mediterranean partners for more cooperation to deal with human rights issues, to deal with free and fair elections, to deal with their economic and environmental needs, including trade among the Mediterranean partners and, yes, to deal with security issues to make sure the countries and the people who live there are safe. A Helsinki-like process for the Middle East could provide a pathway for establishing human rights, peace, and stability in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries in the Middle East. As a member of the Helsinki Commission since 1993, I have discussed the possibility of a Helsinki- like process for the region with Middle Eastern leaders, a process that could result in a more open, democratic society with a free press and fair elections. The Helsinki process, now embodied in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, bases relations between countries on the core principles of security, cooperation, and respect for human rights. These principles are implemented by procedures that establish equality among all the member states through a consensus- based decisionmaking process, open dialog, regular review of commitments, and engagement with civil society. We have seen the Helsinki process work before in a region that has gone through generations without personal freedom or human rights. Countries that had been repressed under the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union are now global leaders in democracy, human rights, and freedom. One need only look as far as the thriving Baltic countries to see what the Middle East could aspire to. Lithuania now chairs both the OSCE and the Community of Democracies. Estonia has just joined the Unified European common currency, and Latvia has shown a commitment to shared values as a strong new member of the NATO alliance. Enshrined among the Helskini Accord's 10 guiding principles is a commitment to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including free speech and peaceful assembly. The Helsinki process is committed to the full participation of civil society. These aspects of the Helsinki process--political dialog and public participation--are critical in the Middle East, and we have watched these principles in action today in Egypt and Tunisia. The principles contained in the Helsinki Accords have proven their worth over three decades. These principles take on increasing importance as the people of the Middle East demand accountability from their leaders. Whether the countries of the region choose to create their own conference for security and cooperation or, as some have suggested, the current OSCE Mediterranean partners and their neighbors seek full membership in the OSCE, I believe such an endeavor could offer a path for governments in the region to establish human rights, establish a free press, and institute fair elections. Finally, as the citizens of both Tunisia and Egypt demand more freedom, I urge both countries to permit domestic and international observers to participate in any electoral process. The OSCE and its parliamentary assembly have extensive experience in assessing and monitoring elections and could serve as an impartial observer as both countries work to meet the demands of openness and freedom of their citizens. The election monitoring which takes place within the OSCE states is a common occurrence. During our midterm elections, there were OSCE observers in the United States. So they are present in most of the OSCE states because we find this a helpful way to make sure we are doing everything we can to have an open and fair election system. Free and fair elections are critical, but they must be built upon the strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law. I believe the principles contained in the Helsinki Accords have a proven track record and could help guide this process. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today at the close of Black History Month to introduce this concurrent resolution that supports the continued recognition of persons of African descent throughout the year both here and abroad. This resolution commemorates the United Nations designation of 2011 as the International Year for People of African Descent such that we can continue to honor and recognize the contributions of African-Americans and others to our societies beyond Black History Month. On December 10, 2010, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon launched the International Year for People of African Descent to ``promote greater awareness of and respect for the diverse heritage and culture of people of African descent.'' We should view this year not only as an opportunity to celebrate the diversity of our societies, but also to honor the vast contributions persons of African descent make every day to the economic, social and political fabric of our communities--be they in Africa, Latin America, Europe, or right here at home in the United States. It is also necessary that we recognize the global impact of the slave trade. As Secretary Hillary Clinton noted in her recognition of this year, ``[this is a time] to remember our hemisphere's shameful history of slavery and to reaffirm our commitment to eradicate racism and reduce inequality wherever it lingers.'' All too often, persons of African descent in this country and abroad face discrimination and disadvantage. We must not only do more at home, but also partner with others around the globe to address these problems. In the Senate, I have led efforts to strengthen the civil rights of African-Americans and others from hate crimes prevention to voting rights. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have worked to support the ideals enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms . . . for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.'' This has included supporting efforts to raise awareness of the specific situation of the estimated seven to nine million persons of African descent in Europe following increased incidents of hate crimes, racial profiling, and other forms of discrimination amidst economic crisis, national security, and immigration concerns. As we mark the International Year for People of African Descent, I ask that you join me in my work promoting equality, opportunity, understanding, and respect at home and around the world.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a man of extraordinary strength, moral character, and courage, to end National Black History Month on a high note. Every year, National Black History Month is given a theme; this year's focus rests on the American Civil War, the most divisive and destructive conflict ever witnessed in our great Nation. While many think of the Civil War as a conflict between Whites fought over the condition of African Americans, Blacks fought on both sides of the conflict as well. After Emancipation, the Union Armies fielded dozens of corps of the U.S. Colored Troops, making up approximately 10 percent of the total fighting force fielded by the North, at roughly 180,000 troops. One of those men was named Christian Abraham Fleetwood. His picture rests beside me today. In many aspects before the war, Fleetwood was already a rare man. Christian A. Fleetwood was born in Baltimore to two free persons of color, Charles and Anna Marie Fleetwood, on July 21, 1840. He was lucky enough to be educated by a wealthy sugar merchant, free of charge, and continued his education with the Maryland Colonization Society, before graduating from the Ashmun Institute, which would later become Lincoln University. Broadening his education, he travelled to Sierra Leone and Liberia, before returning to the United States to join the Union Army to fight for the freedom of the enslaved. Because of his education, Fleetwood was promoted to sergeant upon enlisting, and sergeant major just a few days later. As part of the 4th Regiment United States Colored Infantry, he would see action in the Virginia and North Carolina campaigns in the 10th, 18th and 25th Army Corps, and would distinguish himself valorously at Chaffin's Farm, on the outskirts of Richmond, VA, on September 29, 1864. At the age of 24, SGM Christian Fleetwood stood a mere 5 feet, 4.5 inches tall. Nonetheless, while marching on Confederate fortifications he witnessed Alfred B. Hilton, a fellow soldier, fall wounded while carrying the American flag and the Regimental Standard, which Hilton himself had retrieved from a wounded comrade. Rushing forward under withering fire, Fleetwood and another soldier named Charles Veale caught both banners before they brushed the ground. Now bearing the American flag, Fleetwood carried the attack forward, but retreated once it became clear that the unit did not have sufficient strength to penetrate the defenses. Returning through enemy fire to the reserve line, Fleetwood used his standard to rally a determined group of men and renewed the attack on the battlements. In a fight where the 4th and 6th Regiments of U.S. Colored Troops sustained casualties reaching 50 percent, Fleetwood refused to give up. For these actions and their contribution to victory at Chaffin's Farm, Fleetwood, along with Veale and Hilton, were awarded the Medal of Honor. Fleetwood's official Medal of Honor citation reads simply: ``Seized the colors, after 2 color bearers had been shot down, and bore them nobly through the fight.'' Every officer in Fleetwood's regiment, all white men, submitted a petition to the War Department to have him commissioned an officer, a sure sign of the respect felt by all who witnessed his gallantry. The medal is now part of the collection of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, and appears in the exhibit entitled ``The Price of Freedom.'' The medal's inclusion in the Smithsonian exhibit is also unique. Fleetwood's daughter Edith Fleetwood donated his medal to the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum in 1948. The Smithsonian accepted the medal, making Christian Fleetwood the first African- American veteran to be so honored. The Civil War did not call an end to Christian Fleetwood's service, though he was discharged honorably on May 4, 1866. Fleetwood would go on to organize a battalion of the D.C. National Guardsmen, and, in the 1880s, formed Washington, DC's Colored High School Cadet Corps, which counted among its graduates Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., the Nation's first African-American general, and Wesley A. Brown, the first African- American graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. Christian Fleetwood embodied everything Americans revere. His actions in the 4th Regiment from Baltimore, MD, earned him the military's highest honor. He was selfless, brave, a fierce fighter for the abolition of slavery, and chose to dedicate his free life to service of his country and his community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the President Street Station Study Act. President Street Station, located in my hometown of Baltimore, played a crucial role in the Civil War, the Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore's railroad industry, and is a historically significant landmark to the Lincoln presidency. The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore, PW&B, Railroad in 1849 and remains the oldest surviving big city railroad terminal in the United States. This historical structure is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the Howe Truss. The arch-rib design became the blueprint for railroad bridges and roofs well into the 20th century and was replicated for every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years. The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror the expansion of the railroad industry throughout the country in the latter half of the 19th century. This station played an essential role in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation and helped the city become the international port hub it remains to this day. In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting Washington DC and with the northeast states. Hundreds of passengers traveling north passed through this station and, by the start of the Civil War, Baltimore had become our nation's major southern railroad hub. Not surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the Civil War and the Underground Railroad. Perhaps its most famous passenger was Abraham Lincoln, who traveled through the station at least four times, including secretly on his way to his first inauguration. In 1861, President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains. While it is unclear if this plot existed and posed a serious threat, Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in the dead of night to complete his trip to Washington. Just a few months later, President Street Station served as a backdrop for what many historians claim was the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 occurred when Lincoln called for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort Sumter in Charleston. On April 19, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania volunteers were met and attacked by a mob of secessionist and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody confrontation left four dead and thirty-six wounded. As the war continued, the Station remained a critical link for the Union. Troops and supplies from the north were regularly shuttled through the station to support Union soldiers. It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the Underground Railroad and that many escaped slaves from Maryland's Eastern Shore plantations were destined for Baltimore and the President Street Station to travel North to freedom. A few weeks ago, I introduced a bill, The Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, S. 247, to honor Maryland's own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad's most famous ``conductor.'' While she personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude also inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom. President Street Station was indeed a station on this secret network. Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, including Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry Box Brown, traveled through the station, risking their lives for a better and freer life. Others' journeys for a better life also passed through President Street Station. From its beginning and into the 20th century, Baltimore was both a destination and departure point for immigrants. New arrivals from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west. For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as having an important place in history: In 1992, it was listed on the National Register of Historic places and the city of Baltimore has dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as the Baltimore Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about the role Maryland and Baltimore played in the Civil War and the early history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by dedicated volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of President Street Station, have struggled to keep the station's doors open and keeping the station's character true to its historical roots. The area around President Street Station has changed dramatically over the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its history. It has been many years since trains passed through the President Street Station and it is clear that the best use for this building today is to preserve the building and use it tell Station's American story. President Street Station is one of America's historical treasures. As we celebrate President's Day this weekend, we honor some of our country's greatest leaders and remember our own rich and innovative history. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National Park Service. President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of the railroad, and a vital player in the Underground Railroad, Lincoln's Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the President Street Station Study Act. President Street Station, located in my hometown of Baltimore, played a crucial role in the Civil War, the Underground Railroad, the growth of Baltimore's railroad industry, and is a historically significant landmark to the Lincoln presidency. The station was constructed for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore, PW&B, Railroad in 1849 and remains the oldest surviving big city railroad terminal in the United States. This historical structure is a unique architectural gem, arguably the first example and last survivor of the early barrel-vault train shed arches, also known as the Howe Truss. The arch-rib design became the blueprint for railroad bridges and roofs well into the 20th century and was replicated for every similarly designed train shed and roof for the next 20 years. The growth of President Street Station and the PW&B railroad mirror the expansion of the railroad industry throughout the country in the latter half of the 19th century. This station played an essential role in making Baltimore the first railroad and sea-rail link in the nation and helped the city become the international port hub it remains to this day. In its heyday, President Street Station was the key link connecting Washington DC and with the northeast states. Hundreds of passengers traveling north passed through this station and, by the start of the Civil War, Baltimore had become our nation's major southern railroad hub. Not surprisingly, the station played a critical role in both the Civil War and the Underground Railroad. Perhaps its most famous passenger was Abraham Lincoln, who traveled through the station at least four times, including secretly on his way to his first inauguration. In 1861, President-elect Lincoln was warned by a PW&B private detective of a possible assassination plot in Baltimore as he transferred trains. While it is unclear if this plot existed and posed a serious threat, Lincoln nevertheless was secretly smuggled aboard a train in the dead of night to complete his trip to Washington. Just a few months later, President Street Station served as a backdrop for what many historians claim was the first bloodshed of the Civil War. The Baltimore Riot of 1861 occurred when Lincoln called for Union volunteers to quell the rebellion at Fort Sumter in Charleston. On April 19, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania volunteers were met and attacked by a mob of secessionist and Confederate sympathizers. The bloody confrontation left four dead and thirty-six wounded. As the war continued, the Station remained a critical link for the Union. Troops and supplies from the north were regularly shuttled through the station to support Union soldiers. It is well known that Maryland was a common starting point along the Underground Railroad and that many escaped slaves from Maryland's Eastern Shore plantations were destined for Baltimore and the President Street Station to travel North to freedom. A few weeks ago, I introduced a bill, The Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, S. 247, to honor Maryland's own Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad's most famous ``conductor.'' While she personally led dozens of people to freedom, her courage and fortitude also inspired others to find their own strength to seek freedom. President Street Station was indeed a station on this secret network. Prior to emancipation in 1863, several renowned escapees, including Frederick Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Henry Box Brown, traveled through the station, risking their lives for a better and freer life. Others' journeys for a better life also passed through President Street Station. From its beginning and into the 20th century, Baltimore was both a destination and departure point for immigrants. New arrivals from Ireland, Russia, and Europe arriving on the eastern seaboard traveled by way of the PW&B railroads to the west. For decades, President Street Station has long been recognized as having an important place in history: In 1992, it was listed on the National Register of Historic places and the city of Baltimore has dedicated it a local historical landmark. For many years it served as the Baltimore Civil War Museum, educating generations of people about the role Maryland and Baltimore played in the Civil War and the early history of the city. In recent years, the museum, run by dedicated volunteers from the Maryland Historical Society and Friends of President Street Station, have struggled to keep the station's doors open and keeping the station's character true to its historical roots. The area around President Street Station has changed dramatically over the decades, but the Station has worked to preserve its history. It has been many years since trains passed through the President Street Station and it is clear that the best use for this building today is to preserve the building and use it tell Station's American story. President Street Station is one of America's historical treasures. As we celebrate President's Day this weekend, we honor some of our country's greatest leaders and remember our own rich and innovative history. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of President Street Station to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Station as a unit of the National Park Service. President Street Station, a contributor to the growth of the railroad, and a vital player in the Underground Railroad, Lincoln's Presidency and Civil War, is part of this history. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving this station the recognition it deserves and support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, I honor the career and contributions of David M. Pittenger, who is retiring after 30 years with the National Aquarium, 15 years as executive director. Dave joined the National Aquarium as director of education in 1979 and implemented award-winning conservation education programs in Baltimore City public schools 2 years before the aquarium officially opened its doors in 1981. Now, each year, 70,000 Maryland schoolchildren, on average, visit the National Aquarium for free as part of their curriculum and Aquarium educators give curriculum training to more than 1,000 teachers. Through programs that are onsite, in schools and hands-on in the field, the National Aquarium engages children of all ages in raising young terrapins and releasing them into the Bay, taking water and soil samples, growing plants, and going on nature hikes. Children paddle canoes and kayaks, wade in creeks, count birds in wetlands, snorkel in Florida coral reefs, and patrol sea turtle nesting areas in Georgia. For some children, these programs offer their first encounter with an environment outside their neighborhood. During Dave Pittenger's tenure as director, the National Aquarium has expanded its footprint in Baltimore's Inner Harbor to three buildings, adding an engaging dolphin amphitheater and the award-winning Australia exhibit. The aquarium has also moved beyond its Inner Harbor location, acquiring 12.5 acres of once-contaminated waterfront land in South Baltimore and remediating this ``brownfield'' to make way for a publicly accessible waterfront park. Dave has fostered Baltimore's alliance with the National Aquarium in Washington, DC, creating a venue that now showcases 70 exhibits featuring America's Aquatic Treasures, highlighting the animals and habitats of freshwater ecosystems in the United States and other conservation hot spots through the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. Under Dave's leadership, however, the National Aquarium has taken on a role greater than its exhibits. He is committed to using the National Aquarium as a stage to educate parents and their children about the importance of aquatic conservation. Dave's priorities of conservation and education are firmly rooted in the conviction that zoos and aquariums have both the capacity and the responsibility to increase public awareness of environmental issues and to implement conservation action programs. Dave has provided the leadership to make the National Aquarium a true conservation organization with programs around the Chesapeake Bay and the world that restore habitats, rebuild tidal wetlands, strengthen eroding shorelines, reestablish islands, rehabilitate endangered sea turtles, and research lionfish and coral reefs. When the BP oilspill occurred, for instance, scientists from the National Aquarium were available to provide expertise to government and conservation officials trying to ameliorate the damage to the ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, work they continue today. In 2010, building on the aquarium's strong legacy of service to the environment, the National Aquarium Conservation Center was established to research aquatic species and environments and provide advocacy and programs that tackle pressing conservation issues that affect the aquatic environment. Under Dave's leadership, the National Aquarium has been an economic engine for the city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, welcoming some 1.5 million visitors annually. The National Aquarium is a world- class entertainment attraction and Maryland's No. 1 tourist attraction. The aquarium generates millions in tax dollars and tourism revenue while employing more than 450 staff and engaging local businesses to support its operations. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dave Pittenger for his steadfast contributions to our aquatic environment in Maryland and throughout the Nation and the world. The foundation he has laid will produce benefits for all of us as we continue to work to educate and advocate for clean water and a clean environment for all the inhabitants of this Earth.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the launch of the first Radiologic-Pathology Correlation Course presented by the American Institute for Radiologic Pathology, AIRP, at its new Silver Spring, MD, venue. The American College of Radiology created the AIRP to allow radiology resident training to move forward uninterrupted by the Defense Department's closure of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, AFIP, as part of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission plan. The launch of the AIRP provides an excellent example of the private sector stepping up to help ameliorate the impact that BRAC changes can have on a community. I am especially pleased that AIRP chose to locate in the newly revitalized historic American Film Institute Silver Theatre and Cultural Center, approximately 2 miles from the former AFIP site. The AFI Silver Theatre is a state-of-the-art education and cultural center anchored by the restoration of noted architect John Eberson's historic 1938 Silver Theatre. Once slated for the wrecker's ball, AFI was saved through the efforts of the local community and reopened in 2003. Its revitalization represents a unique public-private partnership between Montgomery County, MD, and the American Film Institute. The launch of the AIRP at the AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center demonstrates the role the theatre is playing as a major anchor of a redevelopment effort in Montgomery County. Approximately 2,000 physicians annually from around the world are expected to convene in Silver Spring for 4 weeks at a time to participate in AIRP. With courses developed and presented by world-renowned faculty from the most prestigious radiology programs in the country, AIRP will further contribute to Montgomery County's reputation as a leader in medical research and education. I applaud the launch of the AIRP, and I look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship between AIRP and the Montgomery County community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the Internet has had a profound impact on the daily lives of millions of Americans by enhancing communications, commerce, education and socialization between and among persons regardless of their location. Internationally, we have seen the transformative power of the Internet in places like Egypt. A free and open Internet gives strength and a voice to people worldwide and should be protected from censorship and other forms of suppression. But the Internet and those who engage in communications and commerce across cyberspace must be safe--protected from predators like criminals, terrorists and spies who wish to exploit or compromise information and systems connected to the Internet. Our Nation is vulnerable to such attacks, but working together, in partnership with the private sector, we can find a balance that keeps information flowing freely while keeping us all safe from harm. I have been focusing on cybersecurity issues for quite some time. More than a year ago, as the former chairman of the Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I chaired a Subcommittee hearing titled ``Cybersecurity: Preventing Terrorist Attacks and Protecting Privacy in Cyberspace.'' The hearing included witnesses from key federal agencies responsible for cybersecurity, as well as representatives of the private sector. We reviewed governmental and private sector efforts to prevent a terrorist cyber attack that could cripple large sectors of our government, economy, and essential services. The cybersecurity expertise that I have developed has convinced me that the Government and the private sector can and should work together to protect the American people in cyberspace. As a result, I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity and Internet Safety Standards Act, CISSA. This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Whitehouse, will require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct an analysis to determine the costs and benefits of requiring internet service providers and others to develop and enforce minimum voluntary or mandatory cybersecurity and Internet safety standards. Under this bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security will be required to report to Congress within one year with specific recommendations. Cybersecurity must be a top priority. This bill will help secure our nation's digital future by keeping the American people and our cyber infrastructure safe without hampering the freedoms inherently found in an open and accessible Internet. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss this concurrent resolution that honors the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, on the occasion of its 102nd anniversary. I thank Senators Grassley, Leahy, and others for joining me in submitting this bipartisan resolution and would like to note that this resolution is particularly timely not only because the NAACP just celebrated its 102nd anniversary, but also because we are celebrating Black History Month. The NAACP was created amidst great adversity. In 1905, a group of African American civil rights activists came together to discuss prominent issues that they and many others faced in our Nation. Among those discussed issues was disenfranchisement. Despite passage of the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1870, African Americans throughout the country were denied their right to one of the fundamental methods of civic engagement: the right to vote. In many circumstances Jim Crow State laws. These discussions were held on the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls because hotels across America remained segregated. On February 12, 1909, the centennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth, distinguished leaders in the struggle for civil and political liberty, which included W.E.B. DuBois, Ida Wells- Barnett, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villard, and William English Walling, created the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. It is now the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States. Its national headquarters is located in my home city of Baltimore, MD, and its mission is one that I hold dear; that is, to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of the rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. Over the years, the NAACP has advanced its mission of racial equality and has achieved concrete goals to that effect by nonviolent means through sheer moral force and legal persuasion. The NAACP initially focused on ending the use of lynching, bringing equality into the job market, and ensuring voting rights for all. Many of the significant legal victories came under the leadership of Charles Houston and his protege and fellow Marylander, Thurgood Marshall. Houston is remembered for stating, ``[A] lawyer is either a social engineer or a parasite on society.'' The duo of Houston and Marshall successfully argued Murray v. Maryland, 1936, which resulted in the desegregation of the University of Maryland's Law School and in 1938 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada the Supreme Court ordered the admission of a Black student to the Law School at the University of Missouri. When Thurgood Marshall served as the NAACP's special counsel, the organization continued to fight for equality in cases such as Smith v. Allwright, 1944, where Marshall challenged ``White primaries,'' which prevented African Americans from voting in several Southern States. In Morgan v. Virginia, 1946, the Supreme Court struck down a State law that enforced segregation on buses and trains that were interstate carriers. In Shelley v Kraemer, 1948, the NAACP won a battle to end the enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants, which denied access for African Americans to homes in what was considered White neighborhoods. In 1950, the NAACP provided the legal resources to contest both Texas and Oklahoma laws allowing segregated graduate schools in Sweatt v. Painter, 1950, and McLaurin v. Oklahoma, 1950. Marshall and the team of lawyers argued and won unanimous decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court, stating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment required those States to admit African-American students to their respective graduate and professional schools. These court rulings supported and led to the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, which ended racial segregation in our public schools. Marshall went on to become the Nation's first African-American Solicitor General, and then the Nation's first African-American Supreme Court Justice. Additionally, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to win passage of important legislation that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans. This legislation includes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act. More recently, the NAACP played an integral role in ensuring passage of important contemporary civil rights bills that I was proud to cosponsor, including the Civil Rights Act of 2008, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and the landmark Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the gross racial disparity inherent in our sentencing laws for crack cocaine. One of America's greatest strengths is its rich diversity. From Rosa Parks and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Marylanders Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and Thurgood Marshall, strong African-American men and women have become role models for our Nation and others around the world who struggle for freedom. During the month of February, we all should take a moment to reflect upon the achievements and sacrifices of the African-American community-- achievements that might not have been possible without the hard work and tireless effort of the NAACP. It also is a time to rededicate ourselves to the ideals enshrined in the U.S. Constitution--the ideals of equality, freedom and justice--and making sure they are protected for future generations. Because in the words of the late Senator Ted Kennedy: ``Civil rights is the unfinished business of the Nation.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as co-chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I wanted to bring to the Senate's attention that next week, February 23, will mark a tragic anniversary. Two years ago on that date, assassins gathered outside the home of Robert Csorba. They threw a Molotov cocktail into the house. Although some family members escaped the blaze, five-year-old Robert Csorba and his father did not: as they tried to flee the flames, their attackers riddled them with bullets. The murderers were prepared: if the bomb did not finish them off, their guns would. They were prepared to kill men, women, and children. The Csorbas were just two of the victims in a wave of racially motivated attacks against Roma that has roiled Hungary. According to the European Roma Rights Center, between January 2008 and July 2010 there were at least two dozen cases where Molotov cocktails, hand grenades or sniper fire were used. The victims included nine fatalities, including two children, and others who were seriously injured. Among them was the 13-year-old daughter of Maria Balogh. Ms. Balogh was murdered when snipers shot into her home in the middle of the night on August 3, 2009, killing her and leaving her daughter an orphan. Her daughter was also grievously wounded: she was shot in the face, blinded in one eye, and maimed for life. It is no wonder that these attacks led one Romani activist to declare that Roma would need to arm themselves or flee, and another asserted that if these attacks continued, Hungary would be headed toward civil war. There are some positive developments. The fatal attacks have stopped. Hungary's new government has reached out to the victims to provide support for rebuilding homes that were damaged or destroyed in arson attacks. Hungary's new Minister for Social Inclusion, Zolton Balog, has demonstrated a rare and welcome compassion for his Romani fellow citizens. But the wounded and the dead still wait for justice in Hungary. Although four men have been arrested on suspicion of carrying out the serial killings of Roma that occurred in 2008 and 2009, there have been no trials and no convictions. The Czech Republic has also seen a dramatic rise in anti-Roma rhetoric and violent actions in the past few years. Last October, I joined Helsinki Commission cochairman, Alcee Hastings in welcoming the lengthy sentences handed down in the Czech Republic to four neo-Nazis who firebombed a Romani home in 2009, an act which left an infant, widely known simply as ``Baby Natalka,'' with second and third degree burns over 80 percent of her body and a lifetime of painful rehabilitation ahead of her. When that judgment was handed down against the four men who firebombed Baby Natalka, I was heartened. I also said I was watching another Czech case--one that is largely unknown. On November 8, 2008, a roving mob attacked several Roma in the town of Havirov. One teenager was so savagely beaten, he was effectively left for dead. For a prolonged period of time afterwards, he was in a coma, and when he regained consciousness, he was unable to talk. Although he has learned to speak again, he has suffered permanent brain damage. He is paralyzed, was forced to end his studies, and may never be able to work. A decision in the case is expected to be announced in the Ostrava regional court at 8:30 a.m. on February 24. Behind the high profile murder cases of Roma that make their way into the news, there is an even larger number of cases involving Roma who have been attacked, but not fatally; they do not die but are maimed, disabled, and traumatized for life by the racially motivated violence they have encountered. Their stories are often never told, but each of them stands as a living monument to everyone in their families and everyone in their communities, testifying to the government's failure to protect them. Each of them deserves justice, including Jaroslav Horvath, the teenager attacked in Havirov.