Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I was pleased to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, again last week during his visit to Washington. Together with the congressional leadership, we heard his impassioned call for support for the reopening of the Theological School of Halki, an institution that has come to symbolize many of the difficulties faced by the Patriarch, the remnant of the Greek community in Turkey and other religious and ethnic minorities in that country. I had the pleasure to meet Bartholomew I during an official visit to modern-day Istanbul in 1998. He impressed me as a man of good will, anchored in his deep personal faith, seeking to promote understanding, justice and respect for the human rights and dignity of each individual, the very qualities that prompted the Congress a year earlier to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. Indeed, his leadership extends well beyond the borders of Turkey to the Orthodox community around the world. The Ecumenical Patriarch repeatedly returned to the issue of the Halki Seminary in various meetings during his U.S. visit, including at this oval office meeting with President Obama. Earlier this year, several of my colleagues from the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I chair, joined me in a letter to the President underscoring our longstanding concern over the continued closure of this unique institution. Founded in 1844, the Theological School of Halki, located outside modern-day Istanbul, served as the principal seminary for the Ecumenical Patriarchate until its forcible closure by the Turkish authorities in 1971. Counted among alumni of this preeminent educational institution are numerous prominent Orthodox scholars, theologians, priests, and bishops as well as patriarchs, including Bartholomew I. Many of these scholars and theologians have served as faculty at other institutions serving Orthodox communities around the world. While over the years there have been occasional indications by the Turkish authorities of pending action to reopen the seminary, to date all have failed to materialize. In a potentially promising development, Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with the Ecumenical Patriarch in August. In an address to a wider gathering of minority religious leaders that day, Erdogan concluded by stating, ``We should not be of those who gather, talk and disperse. A result should come out of this.'' I urge Prime Minister Erdogan to follow through on the sentiment of those remarks by actions that will facilitate the reopening of the Halki Seminary without condition or further delay. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly mindful of the fact that the continued closure of the Theological School of Halki stands in clear violation of Turkey's obligations under the 1989 OSCE Vienna Concluding Document, which affirmed the right of religious communities to provide ``training of religious personnel in appropriate institutions.'' At a time when Turkey is seeking to chart a new course, the resolution of this longstanding issue would not only be a demonstration of Ankara's good will, but, as President Obama mentioned in his address to the Turkish Grand National Assembly in April, will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. I remain hopeful and encourage Prime Minister Erdogan to act decisively and without condition on this matter before his upcoming visit to Washington in early December. To underscore the importance attached to the reopening of the Theological School of Halki and our solidarity with the Ecumenical Patriarch, I am pleased to introduce a resolution on this issue together with Mr. Brownback, Mr. Reid, * * *

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Let me point out that much of the insurance reform takes effect immediately. The preexisting conditions are dealt with immediately. The larger pools for those who can't find health coverage, that is done and implemented immediately.

Mr. CARDIN. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to pay special tribute to Senator Robert C. Byrd. Today, Senator Byrd becomes the longest-serving Member in the illustrious history of the U.S. Congress. What an amazing accomplishment! He already holds the distinction as the longest-serving Senator, and is the only Senator in U.S. history elected to nine full terms. Considering that Senator Byrd won his first election, to the West Virginia House of Delegates, in 1946, it may be that he is the longest- serving elected official in history--period. When Robert Byrd was elected to the Senate in 1958 after serving in the House for 6 years, he was part of a large, distinguished class that included such future giants as Hugh Scott, Gene McCarthy, Edmund Muskie, and Philip Hart (D-MI). He has surpassed them all. According to the Senate Historical Office, Robert Byrd was the 1,579th person to become a U.S. Senator. Since he was elected to the Senate, another 334 individuals have become U.S. Senators. All in all, Robert Byrd has served with over 400 other Senators. And I am certain that all of them have held their colleague, as I do, in the highest esteem. Senator Byrd's modest beginnings in the hard-scrabble coal fields of Appalachia are well known. Suffice it to say that his life is the quintessential American success story. I think every young American should learn about Senator Byrd's life as an example of what hard work and persistence and devotion can accomplish in this country. Senator Byrd married his high-school sweetheart, Erma Ora James, shortly after they both graduated from Mark Twain High School in 1937. He was too poor to afford college right away and wouldn't receive his degree from Marshall University until 60 years later when he was 77. In between, he did something no other Member of Congress has ever done: he enrolled in law school at American University and in 10 years of part- time study while serving as a Member of Congress, he completed his law degree. Senator Byrd was married to his beloved Erma for nearly 69 years, and has been blessed with two daughters, six grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren. During his Senate tenure, Robert Byrd has been elected to more leadership positions than any other Senator in history. He has cast 18,585 rollcall votes. Only 28 other Senators in the history of the Republic have cast more than 10,000 votes; Strom Thurmond is the only other Senator to cast more than 16,000 votes. Senator Byrd's attendance record over the past five decades just under 98 percent is as impressive as the sheer number of votes cast he has cast. Senator Byrd's legislative accomplishments, from economic development and transportation to education and health care, are legendary. It is no surprise that he has won 100 percent of the vote of West Virginians in a previous election, 1976, or carried all 55 of West Virginia's counties. In the meantime, he has written five books, including the definitive history of the U.S. Senate. Perhaps the highest tribute to Senator Byrd can be found in his biographical section of the ``Almanac of American Politics,'' which states: ``Robert Byrd may come closest to the kind of senator the Founding Fathers had in mind than any other.'' His fealty to the U.S. Senate and to the Constitution has served as an inspiration, a lesson, and a guiding light to all of us who have been privileged to follow him in this chamber. Robert E. Lee said, ``Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.'' Senator Robert C. Byrd has done his duty in all things-- to himself, to his family, to his State, to his Nation, and to God. I am honored to join his and my colleagues here in the Senate, West Virginians, and all Americans in paying tribute to this great Senator and this great man.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2748, as Modified

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this Congress has taken a giant step forward in our effort to reform the Nation's health care system. Saturday evening, the House of Representatives passed its bill, which is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to provide affordable health coverage to 96 percent of Americans while reducing our deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years. On behalf of the 760,000 uninsured Marylanders and the countless more who are underinsured or facing huge premium increases next year, I am encouraged by my colleagues' success, and I look forward to debating this most important issue here in the Senate in the weeks ahead. Today, I rise to discuss an issue that has received scant attention on the floor of the Senate, and that is health disparities. It is an issue directly affecting 1 out of every 3 Americans: the 45 million Latinos, 37 million African Americans, 13 million Asians, 2.3 million Native Americans and Alaskan Natives, and 400,000 Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in our Nation. While they represent one-third of our Nation's population, they are fully one-half of the uninsured. So when we enact legislation that expands access to millions of uninsured Americans, it will make a difference in minority communities, in overall minority health, and in the health of our Nation. But it is not enough to just get people health insurance coverage. Research tells us that even after accounting for those who lack health insurance, minority racial and ethnic groups face inequities in access and treatment, and they have adverse health care outcomes at higher rates than Caucasians. That is right, even when insurance status, income, age, and severity of conditions are comparable, racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower quality health care, so coverage is not enough. Despite many attempts over the years by health policymakers, providers, researchers, and others, wide disparities still persist in many facets of health care. When it comes to equitable care for minorities, low income, geographic, cultural and language barriers, and racial bias have been found to be common obstacles. These inequities carry a high cost in terms of life expectancy, quality of life, and efficiency. And they cost our Nation billions of dollars each year. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland found that between 2003 and 2006, racial and ethnic disparities cost the Nation more than $229 billion in excess direct medical costs. Adding in indirect costs reveals a staggering $1.24 trillion from lost wages and premature and preventable deaths and disabilities. By elevating the focus on health disparities, we can bring down these costs and improve the quality of care across the board. So health disparities should matter to us all, in terms of improved value for our health care dollars, both public and private. If we are to improve the health care status of America, we must focus on these inequities and make a concerted effort to eliminate them. There is no better place to commit ourselves to that effort than in the health reform legislation that we are about to consider. There is no better time to begin than right now. Examples of grim health disparities are found in all racial and ethnic minority groups and across a broad range of diseases and conditions. The overall life expectancy for African Americans is 5.3 years less than Whites, but as the Kaiser Family Foundation has reported, health disparities begin even before birth. The use of prenatal care varies widely by race, with 88 percent of White mothers receiving care in the first trimester of a pregnancy, but only 76 percent of Black mothers and 77 percent of Latino mothers. This disparity is evident at birth, when Black women experience preterm births at a rate 50 percent higher than White women--18.5 percent compared to 11.7 percent, and the rates of low-birth weight babies are also higher among Black babies--14 percent, compared to the 8.3 percent national average. In August of 1967, 8 months before his assassination, Martin Luther King addressed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Tenth Anniversary Convention in a speech entitled, ``Where Do We Go from Here?'' He said that to answer that question: We must first honestly recognize where we are now. When the Constitution was written, a strange formula to determine taxes and representation declared that the Negro was sixty percent of a person. Today another curious formula seems to declare that he is fifty percent of a person. ``Of the good things in life, the Negro has approximately half those of whites. Of the bad things in life, he has twice those of whites. He goes on to discuss housing, income, and employment rates, before saying, ``the rate of infant mortality among Negroes is double that of whites.'' Today, in 2009, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the overall rate of infant mortality in the United States is 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, a white infant mortality rate is at 5.7 deaths, but African Americans have an infant mortality rate more than twice that of Whites at 13.6 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. So 46 years after Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, and 41 years after his death, we have not made progress in closing the gap in infant mortality. There is no other way to put it: this is a crisis, it has been a crisis for decades, we have known it, and we have failed in our response. Health disparities continue through life, and the data cut across diagnoses and conditions. These are just a few of the statistics: African-American children have a 60 percent higher rate of asthma than White children and visited the emergency room for asthma related services 4.5 times more often than White children in 2004. The incidence of diabetes is nearly twice as high in African Americans as in Whites. Complications from diabetes and death from the disease are also higher in African Americans, and the rate of hospital admissions for uncontrolled diabetes for African Americans and Latinos is nearly 5 and 3 times, respectively, the rate for Whites and Asians. High blood pressure accounts for 18 percent of the Nation's overall death rate, but 41 percent of deaths in African-American women and 50 percent of deaths in African-American men are attributed to hypertension. Regarding early detection of colon cancer, African Americans, Asians, Native Americans and Latinos over age 50 all have lower rates than Whites when it comes to receiving any form of colon cancer screening. This disparity increased between 1999 and 2006. Incidence of, and death rates from, kidney cancer in Native Americans and Alaska Natives are higher than in any other racial or ethnic group. Native Americans and Alaska Natives die from heart disease much earlier than the overall population--36 percent are under age 65 compared with only 17 percent for the U.S., according to the American Heart Association's data. Perhaps the greatest disparities are in the rates of HIV and AIDS. African Americans experience an AIDS case rate nearly 10 times that of Whites: 60.1 per 100,000 adults and adolescents, compared to 6. per 100,000 for Whites. Latinos and Native Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders have an AID case rate nearly 3 times that of Whites, at 20.4 per 100,000. Disparities also affect oral health care, which--as I have discussed on the floor before--is an integral part of overall health care--and without which, patients cannot have good overall health. Regardless of age, minorities are less likely than Whites to have visited a dentist in the past year. The percentage of people who had untreated dental disease is substantially higher for African Americans and Latinos than for Whites, and the prevalence of periodontal disease is 2.5 times greater for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives than for Whites. We know that periodontal disease leads to heart disease, brain infections, and other serious illnesses. Last year, the American Journal of Public Health published research showing the vast disparities in mortality rates. Using data for the decade between 1991 and 2000 from the National Center for Health Statistics, the researchers, including Dr. David Satcher, the 16th Surgeon General of the United States, found that the mortality rate for African-American infants and adults aged 25 to 54 years was more than double that of Whites. Had the mortality rates of the two races been comparable during that decade, the researchers calculate that 886,202 deaths could have been averted. Let me repeat that--the lives of nearly 900,000 African Americans could have been lengthened and the quality of life improved for many more if we had been able to close the gaps in health disparities. This chart illustrates the higher death rate observed among African Americans across Maryland and the United States, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, for the years 1999 to 2003. The striped bar shows that in the U.S., African Americans had a 31.5 percent higher death rate from all causes of disease than Whites. Maryland has a comparable discrepancy at 30.8 percent, shown by the red bar. The number of excess deaths varies by county, with the lowest discrepancy in death rates in Charles County--4.1%--and the highest discrepancy in Talbot County--64.5%. We cannot afford to wait. We need action at every level: local, State, and Federal, but the leadership must come from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. HHS will need a strengthened institutional capacity to achieve these goals. Codifying the Office of Minority Health and elevating it to report directly to the Secretary will empower the agency to continue its important work--protecting and improving the health of racial and ethnic minority populations, advising the Secretary of HHS on the needs of minority communities, coordinating and supporting research and demonstration programs, and supporting the community organizations that enhance outreach and education efforts. These offices will be able to promote activities related to disease prevention, wellness, access to care, and research related to racial and ethnic minorities with the goal of reducing and eliminating disparities. The offices will be authorized to administer grant programs and also help train health professionals to care for diverse populations. The bill passed by the House on Saturday includes a provision to codify the Office of Minority Health. I will be working to expand that provision in the Senate bill so that it reflects concerns echoed by many health advocates and provider groups across the nation who know that we must marshal the resources necessary to eliminate disparities. The bill reported by the HELP Committee contains many important provisions, including section 221, which would codify and increase the authority of the Office of Women's Health across several agencies in HHS. I believe strongly that the Office of Minority Health should receive the same prioritization that the Office of Women's Health is set to receive, particularly in light of the vast amount of data documenting racial and ethnic disparities. This is really an issue of equality in the efforts to achieve health equity. As we champion efforts to achieve equity in women's health, let us also do the same for minority health. I will also be working to ensure the codification of the Office of Minority Health at HHS and the network of minority health offices throughout the Department's various agencies. I will close with another quote from Dr. King, who said that ``of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhuman.'' As with other forms of inequality in America, it is within our power to change it, and I ask my colleagues to join me in the quest to do so without further delay.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I would like to address the concerns stated by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, about Judge Davis's record when it comes to criminal cases. His concerns seem primarily rooted in six criminal case reversals that appear in Judge Davis's record. As a Federal judge over the past 14 years, Judge Davis has presided over approximately 5,300 cases. Of that number, Judge Davis has presided over approximately 4,300 cases that went to verdict or judgment based on a trial or decision he made. My colleagues are focusing on just a handful of cases to argue that Judge Davis should not be elevated to the Fourth Circuit. While the number of reversals on criminal evidentiary matters appearing in Judge Davis's record that my colleague has mentioned is small, Judge Davis has directly addressed Senators' questions related to each of these reversals, expressing his commitment to applying the law to the facts impartially and fairly, while respecting the role of the appellate courts in our judicial system and their decisions in all cases. Following his confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee in April, which I chaired, our committee reported him out favorably with a strong bipartisan vote of 16 to 3. This overwhelming, bipartisan approval indicates that Judge Davis is well-qualified to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. Out of the 5,300 cases over which Judge Davis has presided, these six cases are hardly cause for the concern my colleagues have expressed. Later I want to also mention some criminal cases in which Judge Davis's stiff criminal sentences were upheld by the Fourth Circuit, along with convictions obtained after jury trials. However, to make the record clear, I will review in detail Judge Davis's responses to some of the half a dozen cases noted by my colleagues. In US v. Bradley, Judge Davis accepted several plea agreements with the defendants, who ultimately pleaded guilty but later, on appeal, argued that their pleas were not voluntary because the court impermissibly participated in pleas negotiations. The Fourth Circuit did ``not suggest that [Judge Davis] improperly intended to coerce involuntary guilty pleas,'' but found plain error and remanded the case for assignment to a different district judge. Upon questioning by the committee, Judge Davis said that he became involved with--but did not interfere with the plea process--at the invitation and encouragement of defense counsel. He ultimately concluded that he shouldn't have gotten involved with the process at all. He said he believed, with the benefit of hindsight, that his involvement in facilitating the guilty pleas in this case was inappropriate and that the Fourth Circuit was correct to say so. In US v. Custis, Judge Davis granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence discovered in a residential search on the grounds that the warrant was defective and insufficient. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that probable cause supported the warrant. While Judge Davis told the committee he does believe he read the affidavit in a common sense manner, he fully accepts the appellate court's ruling in this case. In US v. Kimbrough, Judge Davis said he accepts the appellate court's ruling rejecting his legal conclusion that the police permitted the defendant's mother to question him under circumstances which the police couldn't have done so without first administering customary warnings. He agrees that warnings are required only when official interrogation takes place, but not when private interrogation takes place. In US v. McNeill, Judge Davis granted a motion to suppress the defendant's confession on the grounds of an unlawful arrest. Judge Davis explained to the committee that the principal issue before him was whether, for a warrantless misdemeanor arrest, the fourth amendment required that the misdemeanor be committed in the officer's presence. He concluded that the answer was ``yes'' in this case, and that no misdemeanor had been committed in the officer's presence as of the moment of arrest. While Judge Davis explained that the Fourth Circuit's holding presented an argument and precedent that had not been presented to him, he fully accepted the appellate court's ultimate ruling in this case. In US v. Dickey-Bey, Judge Davis also suppressed evidence arising out of the interception of cocaine by police for lack of probable cause to arrest the defendant. He has told us that he fully accepts the appellate court's rejection of his legal conclusion that the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress was insufficient, and remains committed to adhering to the fourth amendment requirement to make commonsense assessments of objective facts, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. I found Judge Davis's responses to the Judiciary Committee's questions about these six criminal cases to be candid, honest, and forthright. Judging by the overwhelming bipartisan support for his approval in the Judiciary Committee, so did many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle. Judge Davis has told us that in every case that has ever come before him, and there have been over 5,300 of them, he has done his best to determine the facts and to apply the law to the facts impartially and fairly. Indeed, among the 5,300 cases that Judge Davis has presided over, he has a clear record of using a moderate and fair approach to criminal cases. He has presided over numerous important criminal trials that have resulted in convictions affirmed by the Fourth Circuit, and he has also granted motions to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the rights of the accused. So let's look at his record more broadly to get a clearer picture of his many years on the bench. For example, in US v. Ulrich, Judge Davis handed down convictions for four defendants for mail fraud in connection with a real estate flipping scheme, a ruling that was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit in June 2007. In 2001, in US v. Montgomery, the Fourth Circuit affirmed his convictions related to a 10-week, multidefendant trial in a narcotics conspiracy prosecution. In 1998, the Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction handed down in a murder prosecution in US v. Gray. As a Fourth Circuit Judge, Judge Davis has expressed that he will follow the precedents of the Supreme Court and the circuit, and will continue to apply the law to the facts of each case impartially and fairly. His record as a district judge clearly bears out this commitment. I thank my colleagues for supporting this nomination.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me first compliment my colleague, Senator Mikulski, for her leadership in bringing forward the nomination of Judge Davis to the circuit court of appeals. I join her in her comments about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the importance that meant not just for Europe. The Berlin Wall represented not only a divided city, a divided country, but a divided continent. And the fall of that wall that we commemorate of 20 years ago has significance well beyond that one city. I was privileged to be in Berlin as the wall came down and will never forget those moments. It is also nice to see my colleague on the Senate floor without the need of any aid. She has been a fighter all of her life. She has been a fighter during this episode. She never missed a beat as far as representing the people of Maryland. But I particularly want to point out to my colleagues how proud I am of Senator Mikulski for the manner in which she has handled judicial appointments in our State. She is interested, as I am, in getting the very best on our Federal courts, and in the process that was set up for us to make recommendations to the President and make recommendations to our colleagues on the confirmation of judges from those who apply from Maryland. This represents an open process, a process that encourages our very interest to apply and become Federal judges, and one that is solely aimed at getting the very best talent onto our Federal courts. That is certainly true with Judge Davis. It is certainly true with that nomination. Judge Davis had a hearing before the Judiciary Committee in April. In June, our committee reported him out favorably with a strong bipartisan vote of 16 to 3. I am not going to go through all of the points that Senator Mikulski raised as far as his background. But I do want to underscore a few points I think are very important in the filling of this particular judicial position. Judge Davis has strong roots in Maryland. This is a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit. He was born in and raised in Baltimore. He is still a resident of Baltimore. Judge Davis has an exceptional record of legal experience in our State, including working as an assistant U.S. attorney, as a State district court judge, as a State circuit court judge, and now as a U.S. district judge. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania and graduated cum laude with his J.D. degree from the University of Maryland School of Law where he still teaches classes as an adjunct faculty member. He served as a district judge for the U.S. District of Maryland since his Senate confirmation in 1995. You see Judge Davis has deep roots in Maryland and deep roots in the judicial branch of government. He has a longstanding record that he has demonstrated in protecting civil rights and liberties. I agree with my colleague, Senator Mikulski, that one of the principal standards we want to see in judges on our courts is an understanding of our Constitution and the protection it provides our citizens. That is particularly important on our circuit court of appeals. To give you one example of Judge Davis's record in protecting the rights of our people, this was a landmark decision on civil rights, Reid v. Glendening, where Judge Davis ruled that the Baltimore City Courthouses were not wheelchair accessible, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He then ordered the city and State to create a plan to make the buildings accessible. I think that is pretty gutsy when we realize that some of the support our judiciary needs comes from local government. Yet Judge Davis did what was required under our Constitution. He has been praised by lawyers in Maryland as a smart, evenhanded, fair, and open-minded judge. He has served as a judge for 22 years. He has handled somewhere around 5,300 cases. Judge Davis received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Standing Committee on the Federal judiciary. If confirmed, Judge Davis would be the third African-American judge to serve in the Fourth Circuit, which has one of the highest percentages of minority populations of any circuit in the country. As my colleague pointed out, the Fourth Circuit has one of the highest vacancy rates of any court, any circuit in our Nation. Five out of the fifteen seats are vacant, which constitutes one-third of the appellate court. Indeed, Judge Davis is a replacement for Judge Francis Murnaghan, who died in August of 2000. Judge Murnaghan also had a lifelong record as a Maryland resident who served on the Federal bench for 20 years and was one of the most respected lawyers and judges in our State. Judge Davis served as a law clerk for Judge Murnaghan on the Fourth Circuit from 1979 to 1980. So I think this is a very appropriate appointment. I am proud to join the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, in recommending to our colleagues the confirmation of Judge Davis. We believe he will continue the great tradition, the great record he has established as a Federal judge, as a State judge, and he will continue that when confirmed by this body to serve on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We are proud to recommend his confirmation to our colleagues. With that, I see that the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, is on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to an outstanding community leader, the Reverend John (Jack) Sharp of Baltimore, MD. Reverend Sharp served as pastor of the Govans Presbyterian Church for 27 years. He has distinguished himself by reaching far beyond his parish to the entire Baltimore community as a visionary and activist determined to move people and social programs from inaction to accomplishment. Reverend Sharp's mission had always been to aid the poor and the most vulnerable citizens. His boldness of purpose and tenacity, coupled with a winning and commanding personality, enabled him to unite diverse people to work for a common good. Few community activists can match his accomplishments. During his career, he encouraged neighborhoods to accept and embrace housing for the mentally ill and the homeless. In 1991, he founded the Govans Ecumenical Development Corporation, GEDCO, and he has become one of Baltimore's most dynamic and expansive nonprofit developers of senior housing and supportive services for those with special needs. GEDCO projects and facilities are numerous, providing housing and services for the mentally ill and the homeless--including men and women with HIV/AIDS--a large community pantry, financial assistance, and job development and mentoring. Jack Sharp is most proud of the development of his grand vision, Stadium Place, a state-of-the-art senior residential campus on the grounds of the old Memorial Stadium. The campus is home to four independent living buildings for retirees, an intergenerational and interfaith community ``Y'' and playground, and shovel-ready plans for an innovative Green House long-term care residential facility. Reverend Sharp accomplished all of this while serving as a pastor; president of the Board of Community Housing Associates of the Baltimore Mental Health Systems, Inc; president of the Glen Meadows Retirement community; and treasurer of the Baltimore Interfaith Hospitality Network. In 2008, he was honored with the Governor's Leadership in Aging Award and the National Football League--Ravens--Community Quarterback Award for Community Service. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and applauding Jack Sharp for all that he has accomplished to improve the lives of citizens in Baltimore. He made their challenges his challenge and he has made Baltimore City a better place in which to live.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Senate amendment to H.R. 3288 and to thank my colleagues on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for their fine work on this bill. I congratulate the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, and the ranking member, Mr. Shelby, for crafting legislation that positively impacts the course of technology- based innovation, U.S. competitiveness, and scientific advances while protecting Americans from terrorism and violent crime. In my home State of Maryland, we are fortunate to have many Maryland facilities that have crucial roles in the development and advancement of science and technology. The Senate amendment provides $878.8 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST operates a 234-acre headquarter facility in Gaithersburg, MD, where more than 2,500 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel are employed. NIST assists industry in developing technology to improve product quality, helps modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapid commercialization of products based on scientific discoveries. Maryland is also fortunate to be home to several National Oceanic and Atmospheric, or NOAA, facilities. The Senate amendment provides $4.77 billion for NOAA. NOAA provides scientific, technical, and management expertise to promote safe and efficient marine and air navigation; assess the health of coastal and marine resources; monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and global environments--including weather forecasting--and protect and manage the Nation's coastal resources. NOAA's significance is strongly felt in Maryland which, with the Chesapeake Bay, boasts 4,000 miles of coastal land. The bill funds several environmental projects important to Maryland including the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System and NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration, and the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center to name a few. As we are all acutely aware, the decennial Census will soon be upon us. This legislation provides $7.32 billion for the Census Bureau. The challenges of the 2010 Census will be unlike any previously experienced. Hot button issues such as immigration and healthcare have cultivated mistrust of the government and will impede public cooperation on the Census. Responses to economic conditions such as families whose home have been foreclosed living in recreational vehicles or multiple families ``doubling up'' into single family homes present even more challenges. However, these challenges simply underscore the importance of the Census and the necessity of making sure every person counts. The Census count will determine federal financial formula allocations. Not in the past seven decades has the Census been so significant, economically speaking. And for those who question whether their voices are heard on Capitol Hill; the Census ensures that they do through the process of reapportionment. It is imperative that the 2010 Census count be accurate. I thank the appropriators for their attention to this important matter on behalf of the nearly 4,300 employees of the U.S. Census Bureau Headquarters in Suitland, MD. The committee has provided $27.39 billion for the Department of Justice. This will fund important grant programs like the Byrne justice assistance grants for local law enforcement, and Community Oriented Policing Service or COPS grants, and other crime abatement activities. The bill combats crime in Maryland by providing funding for programs such as the Annapolis Capital City Safe Streets Program and the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services Violence Prevention Initiative. This bill supports our law enforcement officers who protect and serve Americans each day by giving them the resources needed to combat and deter violent crimes. In Maryland, this includes the State Police First Responder Radio Interoperability Project. The State of Maryland has committed to developing a Radio interoperability Project that will link State and local law enforcement agencies for coordinated, comprehensive protective services. I commend Senator Mikulski for boosting funding for the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, in this bill, and for removing the restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by LSC grant recipients. Lifting this restriction in the law is important, because it allows LSC grantees to use their own funds to pursue class action lawsuits and attorneys fees. These are critical tools for lawyers to have in their arsenal as they fight to protect their low-income clients against egregious miscarriages of justice, and help the most vulnerable individuals in our society secure equal justice under the law. I chaired a hearing in May 2008 in the Judiciary Committee on ``Closing the Justice Gap.'' This bill is consistent with many of our witnesses' recommendations at the hearing, and also with the underlying reauthorization legislation--the Civil Access to Justice Act--filed by Senators Kennedy, Harkin, and me in March 2009. I am also pleased that the House has introduced legislation to reauthorize LSC, and look forward to working with the Obama administration and my colleagues in Congress to enact both the LSC appropriations and reauthorization legislation in this Congress. In closing, again let me say how much I appreciate the work of Senator Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and their staffs along with the rest of the subcommittee. In addition to providing for critical law enforcement needs, they have crafted a bill that spurs American interests in science and technology forward; making way for American innovation in the global economy. I find that quite impressive and I support this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I was proud to cast my vote today in the Environment and Public Works Committee for S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. At this critical juncture in our Nation's history, we face an economic crisis, an energy security crisis, and a global climate crisis. The good news is that the solutions to these problems are intertwined with one another. This bill will help us meet these challenges and emerge stronger than we are today. We have an urgent responsibility to move forward and I want to thank the chairman of our committee, Senator Barbara Boxer, for her leadership and courage in taking action on this bill today. If we do not act on this bill which invests in clean, domestic energy, we will be stuck with an energy policy that is undermining our national security and our economy. If we do not act on this bill which invests in the industries of tomorrow, we will continue to lose clean energy jobs, jobs that stem from American inventions and ideas, to countries overseas. If we do not act on this bill which provides significant investment in clean fuels and public transit, we will lose an opportunity to change the way we move people and goods around this country. Right now, the transportation sector represents 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of our oil use. If we could double the number of transit riders in the United States, we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by more than 40 percent, nearly the amount of we import from Saudi Arabia each year. If we do not act on this bill, we face irreversible, catastrophic climate change. Our children and grandchildren--my two grandchildren-- face a world where there is not enough clean water, food, or fuel, a world that is less diverse, less beautiful, less secure. I am glad that the majority members of the Environment and Public Works Committee convened today in order to act. And we needed to act on this bill today because this is a global problem and we want all countries to act. In just a few weeks, the international community will meet in Copenhagen to work on an international agreement to do just that. I am hopeful that Copenhagen will produce an agreement on the architecture of a final climate regime in which countries make a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I hope we have an agreement that spells out the mechanism for reaching and enforcing those targets as well as outlining the financing for the developing world. In my role as chairman of the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I speak often to our colleagues in Europe and around the world. And what other countries want to know before they take additional steps--or take first steps--on climate change is: Where is the United States? They are impressed with the action the Obama administration has taken. They are happy to see that the House has acted. But for the countries of the world to commit to reduce greenhouse gasses in Copenhagen in just a few weeks, they want to see that both Houses of Congress are serious. They want to know that the Senate is making progress toward producing comprehensive climate legislation. The vote today in the Environment and Public Works Committee demonstrates that progress. But this bill is good for this country and good for Maryland even if we don't get an international agreement. Marylanders understand the opportunities this bill promises. With this bill, we can invest in clean energy jobs: like those at Algenol in Baltimore where they are national leaders in making fuel from algae; like those at Volvo-Mack Truck in Hagerstown where they are making hybrid trucks; like those at Chesapeake Geosystems, a Maryland company that is an east coast leader in geothermal heating; and like those at DAP that makes spackling that is used in weatherizing homes and businesses. With this bill, we can invest in the transportation improvements Marylanders so desperately need. Transit ridership in Maryland increased by 15 percent in 2008. But recent train and bus accidents in the DC Metro area demonstrate that we need new investment in transit. Our transit systems will not be a safe and reliable solution to our pollution and energy security problems without it. Marylanders also know the costs of inaction. The people of Smith Island are watching their island disappear under rising sea levels. The crabs, fish, and other aquatic life Maryland's watermen rely on are disappearing along with their way of life. And it is only going to get worse. Maryland's sea levels are projected to rise 3.5 feet. That means thousands of Marylanders are going to lose their homes and farms. This bill provides critical assistance to States, especially coastal States such as Maryland, to help address these challenges and protect our treasured resources such as the Chesapeake Bay. The vote that we took today in the Environment and Public Works Committee is just the beginning of putting America back in control of its energy future. And we must remember that even after Copenhagen, any deals we reach, any papers we sign, are still but the foundation. The work must continue with earnest followthrough, dedication to truly changing the way we work and live and move around this Earth. That is work for each of us, and we took one important step forward today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I would like to draw attention to a dangerous situation that has implications for the national security of the U.S. and our allies, a situation involving dire humanitarian circumstances, with over 150,000 displaced persons since 2004. I am speaking about the situation in Yemen. Senator Lugar and I are introducing a resolution supporting peace, security, and the innocent civilians affected by conflict in Yemen. This resolution calls on the President and international community to use all appropriate measures to prevent Yemen from becoming a failed state. The gravity of the challenges Yemen faces should not be ignored. To document a few of these challenges: Yemen is home to a substantial number of al-Qaeda militants, a rebellion in the northern part of the country, unrest in southern regions, and piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Yemen has limited and rapidly depleting natural resources including oil, which accounts for over 75 percent of government revenue, and water. Yemen is underdeveloped, ranking 140th out of 182 countries in the United Nations Development Program's 2009 Human Development Index. Thousands of Yemenis are currently displaced as a result of the ongoing conflict between the Government of Yemen and al-Houthi rebel forces. Regions of Yemen have a large degree of lawlessness; religious minorities--particularly the Jewish population--have emigrated due to safety concerns; and human rights violations persist. The U.S., the international community, and the people of Yemen must do all that we can to prevent Yemen from becoming a failed state. Disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaeda and violent extremism requires a global strategy that includes preventing Yemen from serving as a base for terrorist operations conducted elsewhere. Americans and our allies are all too familiar with the dangers of terrorists operating unimpeded. The March 18 and September 17, 2008, attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a and the October 12, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole remind us of this threat specifically in Yemen. Aside from Yemen's impact on the national security of America and our allies, we cannot ignore the tremendous hardships many in Yemen currently endure. Yemenis deserve to have basic security, basic human rights, and their basic needs met. We need to stand with those who want to live in peace and achieve improved living conditions. I am especially concerned with the plight of those displaced by conflict in Yemen, and I applaud efforts taken by the Obama administration and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to assist these displaced persons. I urge the Government of Yemen and rebel forces to halt hostilities, allow medical and humanitarian aid to reach civilians displaced by conflict, and create an environment that will enable a return to normal life for internally displaced persons in Yemen. I would like to thank the senior Senator from Indiana, who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for cosponsoring this resolution on this important issue.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Not only will we be able to help them with the doughnut hole on prescription drugs, we will be able to provide them better health care services with lower copayments and deductibility, and we are providing a stronger system. Look, I think we all have a common interest. If you are a family that currently has health insurance, if you are a small business owner who is covering your employees, if you are covered under the Medicare system today, you all have an interest in making sure we pass the health insurance reform that is being debated now in the Congress. For those who have insurance, it will make your coverage more affordable in the future. It will eliminate this hidden tax, and it will enact significant health insurance reforms to protect you against the arbitrary practices of private insurance companies. If you are a small business owner, it will give you more competition, more reliable premiums without being increased radically on a yearly basis. It will provide competition so that you can get the same benefits a large company can get with larger pools. If you are in the Medicare system, it takes some of the cost out of Medicare that you are currently subsidizing for people who are uninsured. It firms up our health care system, which is good for Medicare in the future as far as keeping it safe and sound, and it allows us to expand benefits, such as the prescription drug benefit, and get rid of that doughnut hole. So we are all in this together. But the only option that we cannot afford to have is the status quo. The letters we have read on the Senate floor from people who are literally being forced out of their current coverage, who are being discriminated against by insurance companies because of preexisting conditions that don't even exist, they are depending upon us to act. I see the assistant majority leader is here, and I mention that because Senator Durbin has been one of the real leaders in taking on some of the tough interests in our country--taking on the tobacco companies and dealing with tobacco and children, taking on prescription drugs to make sure we have affordable drugs in America. So I thank him for his leadership because I know he has been one of the real leaders on this issue in the Senate. I know all of us will do everything we can to help middle-income families. We have worked hard to strengthen Medicare over the years, fought the efforts by those who wanted to privatize Medicare, who wanted to weaken Medicare, and we are committed to making sure that these programs are strengthened, are continued, and that is why we are so passionate about the need for us to take up health insurance reform, for us to make sure we protect middle-income families.

Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. CARDIN. A little earlier, I read into the record several letters I received from Marylanders. That was a sampling. I received a lot more. But it just points out--a letter from a Marylander who was denied full coverage, not only for himself but his two children, for preexisting conditions that didn't even exist, frankly--they didn't exist--but the insurance company was in a position where they could write a policy the way they wanted to write it, and this person in Maryland had no choice. There was no other insurance company that person could get. There was no competition there. We need to do something about that. We need to make it clear. I agree with the Senator, if it takes 10 pages or 100 pages or 1,000 pages, we have to make it clear that insurance companies cannot do those types of practices against people in this Nation. They cannot underwrite based upon preexisting conditions. It seems as though insurance companies want to write insurance policies where no one can make claims. We buy insurance to protect us. Insurance needs to be there. That is one of the reasons we eliminate caps. Insurance should be there to give you the coverage when you need it. If that family needs that medicine to keep that child alive, that is why you have insurance. Insurance should cover that. If it takes 1,000 pages, let's make sure we get it right to protect the people in this Nation.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, Senator Kaufman from Delaware, and Senator Durbin from Illinois, for their comments and for their passion on this issue. This is an issue we have to get right for middle-income families in America. They are the ones hurting. They are the ones who cannot afford this current system. They are the ones falling further and further behind every year. These are the ones--subject to the discriminatory practices of private insurance companies--we have a responsibility to protect. These are the ones paying the hidden tax for people who do not have health insurance, many of whom can afford health insurance but choose not to get it. It is our responsibility to act on behalf of middle-income families in America to make sure we have the health care system that is affordable and is available to every person in this country. What we are doing is to bring down the cost of health care, to make sure we have affordable care for every person, every American, and do it in a fiscally responsible way. I urge my colleagues to make sure we take advantage of this opportunity. Let's make sure we get health care reform done, and done as soon as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time--and will share it with the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman--to talk a little bit about health care reform, health insurance reform, and the need for us to act. Quite frankly, on behalf of middle-income families of America, the very worst option we could do is allow the status quo to continue. During this time, I am going to be quoting from some letters I received from Maryland families who are hurting today. These are families, some of whom have health insurance but they cannot afford it or they are not certain they are going to have adequate coverage to deal with the needs of their families. They are looking to us to help them deal with the problem of health insurance today. The first problem, quite frankly, is the fact that it is too expensive. Health insurance in America is too expensive for so many families. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, I use the numbers 6, 12, 23 frequently: $6,000 is what it cost a family in Maryland 10 years ago for a family health insurance policy. Maybe their employer paid part of it. Maybe they paid part of it. Then, it was $6,000 for adequate coverage. Today, that number is $12,000 a family. Many families in Maryland have a hard time affording $12,000 of their compensation going to pay for their health insurance. By 2016, it is going to be $23,000 for a family, if we don't do anything about health insurance reform. Today, of that money families are spending, $1,100 represents what insured families are paying for people who don't have health insurance. I am frequently asked: What about these 46 million or 47 million Americans who have no health insurance, shouldn't they take care of themselves? I say: Yes, we should have personal responsibility, but today those who have insurance are paying extra costs for those who don't have insurance. One of the most important points of health insurance reform is to make sure everybody pays their fair load to reduce the cost of those who currently have health insurance. (Mr. TESTER assumed the chair.)

Mr. CARDIN. Yes.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, shortly, we are going to be voting on the unemployment compensation bill. I have already taken to the floor to urge my colleagues to pass the underlying bill, which provides 14 weeks of additional benefits to those who will exhaust their unemployment compensation. This is an insurance program. The funds are there, assessed through the compensation system of our country in order that we have money available for those who have lost their jobs during a recession, and that is exactly what has happened. These are extraordinary times. I know the Presiding Officer will agree with me that we have been to our States, and we know there are people who are unable to find jobs. This past week, I was at the employment office in Baltimore and saw people coming into that office in large numbers and asking for jobs. I talked to individuals, saw the faces of people who want to work but who can't find jobs. So it is critically important for the system to work, and that means we need to provide the safety net of unemployment compensation during these times, and we need to extend it to all States. The bill before us will provide those additional 14 weeks in every State. In my own State of Maryland, we have many counties that have unemployment rates far in excess of the 8\1/2\ percent, which was the trigger number used in the House bill. So it is appropriate we pass this bill for the people who will benefit by it, and it is also appropriate we pass it to help our economy. We know the dollars that are provided through unemployment compensation work their way back into our economy, very quickly helping our economy. I wish to talk also about the leader's amendment that will extend to first-time home buyers a tax credit that would expire at the end of this month. I had introduced legislation, along with Senator Isakson, to extend the credit for an additional 6 months, and I am pleased that provision is included in the leader's amendment that also expands the credit for an additional 6 months. According to the IRS, 1.4 million people used the credit as of September 2009. As many as 40 percent of all home buyers this year will qualify for the credit. It has clearly worked according to its intended purpose; that is, to get potential home buyers off the sidelines and into the market and buying a home. It is estimated that the credit is directly responsible for 200,000 to 400,000 purchases this year. According to the National Association of Realtors, those additional sales have pumped approximately $22 billion into the economy. It is getting our economy back on line. The credit has succeeded in reducing the glut of homes for sale, but it needs to be extended. We still have too much inventory that is out there, and it is affecting new home starts, which are critically important for our economy. We know the real estate market was the spark that put us into this recession. We know that. We know what happened to home values. We know what happened to people who were unable to sell their homes. We know what happened with foreclosures. We know we need a healthy real estate market to get us out of this recession. We have seen some signs of improvement and stabilization in the market, but we are certainly not out of the woods yet. Inventories are still way too high. Dean Baker, codirector for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that price declines could resume later this fall. Quoting Mr. Baker: The uptick in sales driven by the credit has led to a substantial increase in the number of homes offered for sale at just the time that the boost from the credit is dwindling. The inventory will also be a much larger drag in the slow- selling winter months. We know winter is notoriously a slow season, but we have too much inventory that is out there. This would be the wrong time for Congress to allow this credit to expire. Other economists, such as Mark Zandi of Moody's, and James Glassman of JPMorgan Chase, support extending the credit. The substitute amendment, which I have cosponsored and which is similar to the bill I introduced--S. 1678--extends and expands the credit to April 30, 2010, for binding contracts and then allows 60 more days to close. I think that makes sense. The closing period sometimes hampers the use of the credit. For example, if someone was to enter into a contract today, even though the credit is there, it is highly unlikely they could settle by the end of the month, taking advantage of the $8,000 credit. It makes sense to say that as long as you have a binding contract by April, you have 2 months later to close in order to get the credit. The amendment keeps the $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer and then provides a $6,500 credit available to other home buyers who have lived in their current homes for at least 5 years. These are the step-up sales. These are people who currently own homes, who have lived in their home for 5 years, and are now trying to buy another home. You can't buy a house and try to flip it to take advantage of the $6,500 credit. It is a smaller credit than the first-time home buyers', but it is still a significant credit and it is available for homes costing up to $800,000. I don't think there are many homes in the area that will qualify under the income limits, but it does allow those to qualify. The income limits have been lifted slightly from $75,000 to $125,000 for an individual and from $150,000 to $225,000 for joint filers. So it takes care of where the market needs help, where there is too much inventory, and will allow the credit to, again, tell people: Look, the economy needs your help. This is a good time to buy. The government is going to be your partner with this $8,000 credit for the first-time home buyer and a $6,500 credit for the person who has lived in their house for 5 years. There are a couple more points that I think need to be underscored. The credit is fully paid for. It will not add to the deficit. That is an important point, but I would also point out that this credit will help stimulate our economy, which will generate economic activity, which will help us on our budget deficit. It really does help our economy, and it is fully paid for, so it doesn't add to the deficit, and that is one of the points I mentioned when I first introduced this bill with Senator Isakson--we were going to look for a way to make sure it is paid for. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for coming forward with an amendment that is fully paid for, that is offset. I believe that is the way it should be. The second point I want to bring up is it includes tough antifraud language and ``math error'' authority for the IRS to ensure that only those individuals and families who qualify for the credit take advantage of it. I know we are all concerned about reports we read in the paper about potential fraud on this credit. Any fraud is wrong, but we know if we set up a new credit there are those who will press the point more than they should. We have to make sure the antifraud provisions are in this bill so those entitled to this credit are those who take advantage of it and it is not used inappropriately. Language is included in this amendment to make sure that, in fact, happens. It is a bill that is properly balanced. I wish to make one other point. I heard the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said this, and I agree completely. Senator Isakson and I talked about this. The credit will end. This is not an extension because we believe this is a credit that should be there indefinitely. We do not. This credit is to help bring real estate back to where it needs to be for our economy to recover. We give until April so that people can take advantage of this credit during this tough economic time, knowing full well that the winter is going to be a slow season, normally, for home sales and in the spring people are more likely to start again looking at home sales. We want people to take advantage of this now, recognizing that come April this credit will not be extended. This is the time to take advantage of this government credit that helps you in buying a home. As I said earlier, the slump in housing led us into this recession. A rebound in the market will lead us out of this recession. Extending the credit is a prudent and fiscally responsible measure. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the leader's amendment, and I hope we will shortly have an opportunity not only to pass this amendment but to pass the underlying bill that will extend unemployment compensation to literally, in my State, the tens of thousands of people who otherwise will lose their benefits by the end of this month and the 1.4 million Americans who will lose their unemployment compensation benefits by the end of this year if we do not act. For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.