Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized when I have completed my remarks.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized immediately after the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I am certainly not going to object, may I inquire how long my colleague will speak?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express how pleased I am with the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 within the Department of Defense authorization bill. This day is a long time coming, and I am proud we have successfully stood up against hate crimes in this country. Such acts will not be tolerated in our society. The American public supported this goal. According to a Gallup poll from 2007, 68 percent of Americans support extending hate crimes protection to groups based on sexual orientation and gender identity, including 60 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of individuals who frequently attend church. Hate crimes continue to occur in our country every day. According to recent FBI data, there were over 7,600 reported hate crimes in the United States in 2007. That is nearly one every hour of every day. Over 150 of those instances occurred in my home State of Maryland. The passage of the legislation demonstrates that the Congress is fighting for people such as Stephen Johns, who was killed at the U.S. Holocaust Museum; Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student murdered in his high school because he was gay; James Byrd, who was beaten and dragged by a truck for 2 miles because he was Black; and for the 28-year-old California woman who was gang-raped by four men because she was a lesbian. Today, we stand and say: No more. No longer shall we tolerate these types of actions. During the recent confirmation hearing of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, I spoke about the importance of standing against hate. I expressed the importance of a Justice and a Court that will continue to move forward in protecting civil rights and not turning back the clock. I hope the Court will stand with us against such actions and continue to protect important civil rights laws. According to the recent Leadership Conference on Civil Rights education fund report entitled ``Confronting the New Faces of Hate,'' hate crimes against Latinos has been increasing steadily since 2003. This marked increase also closely correlates with the increasing heated debate over comprehensive immigration reform. There was also a 5-year high in victimization rates in 2007 toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals. That number has increased by almost 6 percent. The number of White supremacy groups has increased by 54 percent, and African Americans continue to experience the largest number of hate crimes, with an annual number essentially unchanged over the past 10 years. While religion-based offenses decreased, the number of reported anti-Jewish crimes increased slightly between 2006 and 2007. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a necessary and appropriate response to this ongoing threat to our communities. Currently, 45 States and the District of Columbia have enacted hate crime laws and have taken a stand against hate in their own States. Thirty-one of those States have already included sexual orientation in their definition of what constitutes a hate crime. Twenty-seven States and the District of Columbia prohibit violent crimes based on a victim's gender. States have a patchwork of hate crimes statutes that leaves gaps which need to be filled in order to have an effective response and prosecution of these crimes. The Federal Government has a clear responsibility to respond to hate crimes. Current Federal hate crime laws are based only on race, color, national origin, and religion. We need to include gender, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Current law also requires the victim to be participating in a federally protected activity, such as attending school or voting. Those who commit hate crimes are not bound to certain jurisdictions, and neither should the people who prosecute them, which is why this legislation removes the requirement that a victim be participating in a federally protected activity. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act will make sure all Americans are equally protected against hate crimes. The legislation will provide necessary resources to our State and local governments to fight hate crimes. Specifically, it will provide grants for State, local, and tribal law enforcement entities for prosecuting, programming, and education related to hate crimes prosecution and prevention. The bill will assist States and provide them with additional resources, not diminish their role in managing criminal activities within their own States. The bill supplements State and local law enforcement efforts. Additionally and most importantly, the legislation was carefully drafted to maintain protections for Americans' first amendment rights. Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom to assemble. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such laws do not obstruct free speech. Let me be clear: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech. Hate crimes affect not just the victims; they victimize the entire community and make residents fearful. We cannot allow our communities to be terrorized by hatred and violence. Today, we hold true to our promise for a better tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 30 minutes prior to the 2 p.m. vote be reserved for the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees, with Senator Leahy controlling the final 15 minutes.

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

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to bring to the attention of my colleagues the effect these holds--in most cases anonymous holds that are being placed by Senators on judicial appointments--are having on the lives of judicial officials and on the effectiveness of the judicial branch of government. So far, President Obama has nominated four circuit court judges who are awaiting confirmation. One of those is Andre Davis to the Fourth Circuit of Maryland. I mention his name because he was appointed by President Obama early this year. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing in April of this year. In June, the Judiciary Committee recommended his confirmation by a strong bipartisan vote of 16 to 3. When we finally get a chance to vote on Judge Davis' confirmation to the court of appeals for the circuit court, I am confident it is going to be a lopsided vote among the Members of the Senate. Yet we have been denied the opportunity to confirm his appointment because some Senators put on a hold. Every time we tried to get a time agreement, which everybody says is reasonable, there was an objection. I do not believe it is aimed at Judge Davis; I believe it is a strategy by my Republican colleagues to slow down the confirmation process of judges. I don't know why. I really do not understand. When we have a judge who is qualified, who is not controversial, why would we deny the judicial branch of government the judge it needs in order to carry out its responsibility? Why would we put people through this process of waiting for the Senate to confirm when it is clear the overwhelming majority is in support of the confirmation? I think Judge Davis presents an example. Let me try to put a face on it. You hear the numbers, you hear the statistics, but each one of those holds represents another person being denied the opportunity to serve as a judge. Judge Davis has an extremely long and distinguished career in the Maryland legal community. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania cum laude and with a JD degree from the University of Maryland School of Law, where he still teaches classes as a faculty member. He has been a judge on the District Court of Maryland since 1995 when he was confirmed by the Senate. He has had a long career--22 years--as a district court judge. He has presided over literally thousands of cases. Many of these have gone to verdict and judgment. His record is one which lawyers and his colleagues on the bench praise as being well balanced, as that of a judge who understands the responsibilities of the judicial branch of government. He tries to call the cases as the law dictates, and there is absolutely no blemish on his record as a trial court judge. He has been praised by lawyers in Maryland as smart, evenhanded, fair, and openminded. He has received a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. He will add diversity to the Fourth Circuit. When confirmed, he will be the third African-American judge to serve in the Fourth Circuit. I bring to your attention and to the attention of my colleagues Judge Davis because we have to bring an end to these holds where a judge is being held not because he is controversial, not because there is a problem, not because you want additional information, but just to slow down the process. That is wrong. That is an abuse of the responsibilities of each one of us, of the power each Senator has. I think it is important that we all speak out, whether Democrats or Republicans. It is just wrong. It is time to move these nominations to the floor of the Senate and to have votes up or down on these nominees. I urge my colleagues to let us get on with the business we were elected to do, to advise and consent to the President's appointments. If we have a problem with an appointment, let's speak out against it and let's have that type of debate. But delay for delay's sake is not befitting the Senate. I urge my colleagues to allow these appointments to go forward with up-or-down votes on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during debate on the nominees, all time during quorum call and recess be charged equally to the majority and minority sides.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cardin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1816 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. I am joined in this effort by original cosponsors, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Kaufman. Together we are committed to giving our states and municipalities the tools they need to finally restore water quality in the Chesapeake Watershed and return this national treasure to its rightful position as one of the world's most important ecological regions. Yesterday morning I stood on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, near Annapolis, Maryland, to outline the provisions of this legislation. I was joined by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland and a tireless champion of the bay. Standing with him was Preston Bryant, Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, representing Governor Tim Kaine. Both states, which embrace the entirety of the Chesapeake Bay, were there to lend their support to this legislative effort. Two of my colleagues from the other body, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Congressman Chris Van Hollen, also joined us, noting that they intend to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives today. A powerful coalition of more than 100 local watershed organizations was there, too, to lend its support. And finally, we were joined by Mr. Luke Brubaker, a dairy and poultry farmer from Pennsylvania who is already demonstrating how local actions can result in real water quality benefits. Today we take a major step forward in writing the next chapter in the history of one of America's most cherished and celebrated bodies of water--the Chesapeake Bay. The original English colony in Jamestown was settled on its shores. George Washington built his home overlooking one its great rivers. The War of 1812 was fought on its waters, and generations of Americans came to live off its bounty of oysters and blue crabs and rockfish. Harriet Tubman led a life of slavery and heroic freedom among its vast marshes, and James Michener wrote a saga celebrating its majesty. Today, 17 million people live in its watershed. Its tributaries are home to three state capitals as well as America's center of government. The bay has been called a ``National Treasure'' by American Presidents ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The United Nation's Ramsar Convention recognizes the bay as an ecological region of global significance. In Maryland it is the economic, environmental, cultural and historic heart of the state. But, the bay and its watershed are in trouble. By every scientific measure, the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay is poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy primarily because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the water. These pollutants threaten not just the legacy we have inherited but also our future. The multi-million seafood industry is suffering from chronically small harvests. That is not all. Recreational fishermen, duck hunters, sail boat and power boat operators, bird watchers and others bring tens of millions of dollars into our economies annually. Business leaders and realtors tell us that healthy rivers and a healthy bay add immeasurably to their ability to attract a quality workforce and add value to homes. At least one estimate suggests that the Bay's economic value to the region tops $1 trillion. The challenge before us is great, but so is the opportunity. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives the states strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place. The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the Chesapeake Executive Council's timeline for Chesapeake restoration. Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally binding part of the Clean Water Act. The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly created or expanded in the legislation. At least 10 percent of State implementation grants are set aside for Delaware, New York, and West Virginia. These headwater States have never been guaranteed any access to these funds in the past. At least 20 percent of the implementation grants will go for technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm Bill funds and implement conservation practices. The bill also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the positive experiences of Virginia and Pennsylvania by establishing the framework for an innovative interstate trading program. As Mr. Brubaker recounted for us yesterday, farmers can partner with those who need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that they are releasing into the Bay. These groups can meet their legal obligation to reduce pollution by giving farmers the extra financial support they need to implement additional conservation practices on their agricultural lands. It is a classic win-win situation, and by 2012 it will be available throughout the six state watershed. The bill codifies President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal departments to restore the Bay. The basics of this bill are very simple, as most good ideas are. Scientists are telling us what the maximum amounts of pollution that the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act sets a hard cap on pollution, and then we give the states until 2025 to reduce their proportional share of the pollution load. The states have maximum flexibility to reach these goals, but it still won't be easy. In the 25 years since the Chesapeake Bay program started, the number of people living in the watershed has exploded. The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12 million when the Program started to over 17 million residents today. That is a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing more pollution. The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and eventually the Bay, have increased by about 100 percent over the same time frame. We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every day in the Bay watershed. Simply put, there are millions more of us, and the size of our impact on the Bay watershed has grown twice as fast as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is. As I have said before, barely holding our own is not good enough. So merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough either. Fortunately, Federal, State and local governments, in cooperation with community organizations are standing up around our region to help renew the region's precious water resources. We are focused on three major sources of water pollution: runoff from agricultural lands, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and polluted stormwater runoff from the developed lands in our cities, towns and suburbs. Last year we passed a Farm Bill that today is providing Chesapeake farmers with unprecedented financial support in putting conservation programs into practice. Two years ago we provided our farmers with about $8 million in conservation funding. In the past year, that figure went up to $23 million. This year it is growing to $43 million and next year it reaches $72 million--nearly a ten-fold increase in just 3 years. Eight years of chronic under-funding for wastewater treatment plants changed dramatically in January. President Obama and the new Congress have teamed up to provide a 350 percent increase in Federal funding this year to up-grade and repair sewage treatment plants. The EPA funding bill that is now nearing final action will sustain that record investment into 2010. We need to make a major investment in our cities and towns, too, to combat the growing problem we have with polluted stormwater. That is why this bill authorizes $1.5 billion to provide the federal funds needed to really attack this problem. All of us, States and cities, farmers and foresters, sewage treatment plant operators and new home builders, ardent environmentalists and average residents, want to do our part to have clean water flowing through our streams and rivers. All of us want a healthy Bay. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives all of the Bay States a clear and fully enforceable goal to clean up our waters and restore our Bay by 2025. The bill also gives us the resources to get the job done and the tools to do so in a way that is flexible and cost effective. The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of our region. It is where we work, play, farm, and enjoy the beauty and abundance of the natural resources that surround us. But as anyone who has experienced the shortage of blue crabs and oysters or read about ``dead zones'' in the water knows, the Bay continues to be in trouble. We've made great strides in the last few decades through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. But we remain far from attaining the goals necessary to restore the Bay to a healthy state, one that can sustain native fish and wildlife and maintain the viability of our farmland and regional economy for the near- and long-term future. Accomplishing these goals starts with the local implementation of the most innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies for restoring and protecting water quality and vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to see local streams returned to good health and the Chesapeake Bay restored to its former glory. People are ready to take action to control pollution, restore water quality and see the living resources of the Bay return in abundance. The Chesapeake is a region steeped in history. Today, we add our own contribution to that storied past. With the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, we are proposing the most sweeping legislative effort in the history of the Clean Water Act. With the firm commitments and cooperation from the communities across the 64,000 square mile watershed, we will restore the health, productivity and beauty of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come. Today marks the beginning of that legislative effort. It will not be easy, and we will need all of our best efforts if we are to be successful. But we cannot and will not come up short. 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 Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. I am joined in this effort by original cosponsors, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Kaufman. Together we are committed to giving our states and municipalities the tools they need to finally restore water quality in the Chesapeake Watershed and return this national treasure to its rightful position as one of the world's most important ecological regions. Yesterday morning I stood on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, near Annapolis, Maryland, to outline the provisions of this legislation. I was joined by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland and a tireless champion of the bay. Standing with him was Preston Bryant, Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources, representing Governor Tim Kaine. Both states, which embrace the entirety of the Chesapeake Bay, were there to lend their support to this legislative effort. Two of my colleagues from the other body, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Congressman Chris Van Hollen, also joined us, noting that they intend to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives today. A powerful coalition of more than 100 local watershed organizations was there, too, to lend its support. And finally, we were joined by Mr. Luke Brubaker, a dairy and poultry farmer from Pennsylvania who is already demonstrating how local actions can result in real water quality benefits. Today we take a major step forward in writing the next chapter in the history of one of America's most cherished and celebrated bodies of water--the Chesapeake Bay. The original English colony in Jamestown was settled on its shores. George Washington built his home overlooking one its great rivers. The War of 1812 was fought on its waters, and generations of Americans came to live off its bounty of oysters and blue crabs and rockfish. Harriet Tubman led a life of slavery and heroic freedom among its vast marshes, and James Michener wrote a saga celebrating its majesty. Today, 17 million people live in its watershed. Its tributaries are home to three state capitals as well as America's center of government. The bay has been called a ``National Treasure'' by American Presidents ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. The United Nation's Ramsar Convention recognizes the bay as an ecological region of global significance. In Maryland it is the economic, environmental, cultural and historic heart of the state. But, the bay and its watershed are in trouble. By every scientific measure, the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay is poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy primarily because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the water. These pollutants threaten not just the legacy we have inherited but also our future. The multi-million seafood industry is suffering from chronically small harvests. That is not all. Recreational fishermen, duck hunters, sail boat and power boat operators, bird watchers and others bring tens of millions of dollars into our economies annually. Business leaders and realtors tell us that healthy rivers and a healthy bay add immeasurably to their ability to attract a quality workforce and add value to homes. At least one estimate suggests that the Bay's economic value to the region tops $1 trillion. The challenge before us is great, but so is the opportunity. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives the states strong new tools to restore the Bay and for the first time sets a firm deadline of 2025 for all restoration efforts to be in place. The internal and final deadlines for action coincide with the Chesapeake Executive Council's timeline for Chesapeake restoration. Unlike earlier, missed deadlines, this one will become a legally binding part of the Clean Water Act. The bill also significantly expands federal grants. The Chesapeake Restoration bill authorizes a new $1.5 billion grants program to control urban/suburban polluted stormwater, the only pollution sector that is still growing. Grants to the states, small watershed organizations, and for comprehensive monitoring programs are all newly created or expanded in the legislation. At least 10 percent of State implementation grants are set aside for Delaware, New York, and West Virginia. These headwater States have never been guaranteed any access to these funds in the past. At least 20 percent of the implementation grants will go for technical assistance to farmers and foresters to help them access Farm Bill funds and implement conservation practices. The bill also requires the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the positive experiences of Virginia and Pennsylvania by establishing the framework for an innovative interstate trading program. As Mr. Brubaker recounted for us yesterday, farmers can partner with those who need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that they are releasing into the Bay. These groups can meet their legal obligation to reduce pollution by giving farmers the extra financial support they need to implement additional conservation practices on their agricultural lands. It is a classic win-win situation, and by 2012 it will be available throughout the six state watershed. The bill codifies President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which requires annual Federal Action Plans across all federal departments to restore the Bay. The basics of this bill are very simple, as most good ideas are. Scientists are telling us what the maximum amounts of pollution that the Bay can withstand and still be healthy. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act sets a hard cap on pollution, and then we give the states until 2025 to reduce their proportional share of the pollution load. The states have maximum flexibility to reach these goals, but it still won't be easy. In the 25 years since the Chesapeake Bay program started, the number of people living in the watershed has exploded. The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12 million when the Program started to over 17 million residents today. That is a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing more pollution. The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and eventually the Bay, have increased by about 100 percent over the same time frame. We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every day in the Bay watershed. Simply put, there are millions more of us, and the size of our impact on the Bay watershed has grown twice as fast as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is. As I have said before, barely holding our own is not good enough. So merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough either. Fortunately, Federal, State and local governments, in cooperation with community organizations are standing up around our region to help renew the region's precious water resources. We are focused on three major sources of water pollution: runoff from agricultural lands, effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and polluted stormwater runoff from the developed lands in our cities, towns and suburbs. Last year we passed a Farm Bill that today is providing Chesapeake farmers with unprecedented financial support in putting conservation programs into practice. Two years ago we provided our farmers with about $8 million in conservation funding. In the past year, that figure went up to $23 million. This year it is growing to $43 million and next year it reaches $72 million--nearly a ten-fold increase in just 3 years. Eight years of chronic under-funding for wastewater treatment plants changed dramatically in January. President Obama and the new Congress have teamed up to provide a 350 percent increase in Federal funding this year to up-grade and repair sewage treatment plants. The EPA funding bill that is now nearing final action will sustain that record investment into 2010. We need to make a major investment in our cities and towns, too, to combat the growing problem we have with polluted stormwater. That is why this bill authorizes $1.5 billion to provide the federal funds needed to really attack this problem. All of us, States and cities, farmers and foresters, sewage treatment plant operators and new home builders, ardent environmentalists and average residents, want to do our part to have clean water flowing through our streams and rivers. All of us want a healthy Bay. The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act gives all of the Bay States a clear and fully enforceable goal to clean up our waters and restore our Bay by 2025. The bill also gives us the resources to get the job done and the tools to do so in a way that is flexible and cost effective. The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of our region. It is where we work, play, farm, and enjoy the beauty and abundance of the natural resources that surround us. But as anyone who has experienced the shortage of blue crabs and oysters or read about ``dead zones'' in the water knows, the Bay continues to be in trouble. We've made great strides in the last few decades through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. But we remain far from attaining the goals necessary to restore the Bay to a healthy state, one that can sustain native fish and wildlife and maintain the viability of our farmland and regional economy for the near- and long-term future. Accomplishing these goals starts with the local implementation of the most innovative, sustainable, and cost-effective strategies for restoring and protecting water quality and vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to see local streams returned to good health and the Chesapeake Bay restored to its former glory. People are ready to take action to control pollution, restore water quality and see the living resources of the Bay return in abundance. The Chesapeake is a region steeped in history. Today, we add our own contribution to that storied past. With the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act, we are proposing the most sweeping legislative effort in the history of the Clean Water Act. With the firm commitments and cooperation from the communities across the 64,000 square mile watershed, we will restore the health, productivity and beauty of the Chesapeake Bay for generations to come. Today marks the beginning of that legislative effort. It will not be easy, and we will need all of our best efforts if we are to be successful. But we cannot and will not come up short. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have the honor of chairing the United States Helsinki Commission, representing the Senate. The Helsinki Commission is the U.S. participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Fifty-six countries representing Europe, Central Asia, Canada, and the United States got together in 1975 in order to further advancements in security, in human rights, and in economics. We had our full meeting in Athens this past weekend, and the center subject for that meeting was climate change and the need for the international community to come together to enact meaningful goals for reducing greenhouse gases and carbon emissions. It was clear, from the urgency of this mission, that we need to act now; that the circumstances of floods and droughts in so many parts of the world are causing immediate concern. We now have what is known as climate migrants--people who are forced to leave their countries because of the impact of global climate change. This is causing serious concerns in many parts of the world in regard to stability and security, which affects U.S. interests. I know each of us in our own States can give our own examples of the impact of climate change. In my State of Maryland, the residents of Smith Island understand that their island is disappearing during their lifetime because of sea level changes, due in part to global climate change. The watermen in Maryland know their livelihood is being jeopardized because of the warming of the Chesapeake Bay, affecting sea grasses, which affects the ability of the blue crab to survive. So we all know the immediate impact. But in Athens it became apparent to the international community that we need to act now. We need to act now for the sake of our security, we need to act now because of the economic imperative, and we need to act now because of the environmental risk. The good news is it was apparent to all of us that there is a common solution. If we deal with our energy issues, we can solve all three of those problems. We can strengthen our economies, particularly in these difficult times, by creating good new jobs; we can deal with international security threats, when one nation threatens to cut off its oil or gas to another country; or the fact that so many places in the world that have the mineral wealth have values that are different than our values and we are actually helping to support their values; and for the environmental need of making sure that we deal with global climate change in future generations and we work together. The question that was asked at this meeting was: Where is the United States? Where is the leadership from the strongest Nation in the world? Well, my reply was: The United States is back. We are ready to assume international leadership on global climate change issues. The Obama administration has already taken action. They have taken action on CAFE standards for automobiles. They have taken action through the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear that we are ready to act. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation, and Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer have brought forward the Clean Energy Jobs and the American Power Act, and I am proud to be part of that effort and that legislation. That legislation builds on the work done in the last Congress with Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner, and it is very similar to the bill that has passed the House of Representatives. What that legislation will do is to reestablish U.S. leadership on international efforts to deal with global climate change. The legislation would establish a 20-percent reduction by the year 2020. That is stronger than in the House bill and it establishes America as a leader. It dedicates investment toward domestic clean energy and 21st century infrastructure by providing the necessary investments in wind and solar. These technologies were developed in the United States and now it is time for us to put that technology to work creating jobs in America and alternative renewable energy sources that will wean us off the need for imported oil. The legislation also dedicates funds for other types of green transportation, which we know can be very valuable. Green transportation represents 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions and 70 percent of our oil. We can do much better. I am personally working very hard to promote additional funding sources for public transportation. You can't help, when you travel to Europe, but know that their models are much stronger than ours in transporting people through public transportation. I happen to represent two of the most congested urban areas in our country--Baltimore and Washington. Both have transit systems that are in need of expansion. By doubling the ridership on public transportation, we can reduce our imported oil by 40 percent alone. This legislation is friendly toward alternative energy sources and nuclear energy, which has a very favorable carbon footprint. It also creates jobs. We know that we can create four times as many jobs here in America by investing in green energy rather than in oil or gas. Japan also knows that. They have been investing in renewable energy sources. Germany knows that. They are investing today because they know it is good for jobs. China knows that. They are investing today. They are going forward with these programs for alternative and renewable energy sources in wind and solar and many other areas, because they know that is where the competition will be tomorrow, and they are going to be prepared. We also need to be prepared. The legislation Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer have brought forward protects the consumers, making sure that in our transition we don't add to the cost of the typical consumer in America. It also helps industries that are very dependent today on carbon energy sources. It helps them in transition so they can transition to the new energy of tomorrow. It invests in clean coal. We have plenty of coal, but it emits too much carbon. Well, this bill invests in figuring out how we can use coal in an environmentally friendly way. The legislation also deals with our international responsibilities. As a developed nation, we have a responsibility to developing countries. They have already been impacted much more adversely than we due to the impacts of global climate change. We need to strengthen their ability and resolve to protect our forests, to be good stewards of our environment, and to help them deal with development. The bill also provides for wildlife--to preserve wildlife. One last part about the Kerry-Boxer bill. It is deficit neutral. It will not add any additional debt for future generations. This is truly a bill that my two granddaughters, that all our children and grandchildren will benefit from by having a cleaner environment, a safer country through energy security, good jobs for the future, and all without adding to the deficit. I reminded my colleagues in Athens that for Copenhagen to be successful, we need to have a bill that sets reasonable targets, absolutely--short term and long term. We have to have the mechanisms that get us to those targets in place in Copenhagen. We also have to have the financing to help the developing countries, and we also have to have enforcement. We have to have enforcement. What do I mean by that? Well, we are not going to accomplish our goals if the United States does everything it does to reduce carbon emissions but we find other countries don't do that and then they send their products here to America at a cheaper price. That is unfair to U.S. manufacturers and producers, and it doesn't accomplish our international goals of bringing down carbon emissions. So what I have suggested is that in Copenhagen there needs to be a mechanism that says if your country does not meet the international standards, your products are subject to a border adjustment reflective of the cost to bring that product in compliance with international carbon standards. That is fair to the manufacturers in those countries that have met those standards, and it also permits us to make sure that other countries in fact do act to deal with their international responsibilities. I am optimistic. I am optimistic we are going to be able to achieve these results. The urgency of the issue requires us to act. We have Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer who have brought forward a reasonable bill, and hearings are scheduled before the Environment and Public Works Committee later this month. Recently Senator Kerry and Senator Graham have gotten together on a blueprint on how we can move forward on global climate change legislation in this Congress, and they bring up two subjects I have already mentioned--the use of nuclear power in America, which clearly needs to be part of the solution, and how we can deal with clean burning coal. In Copenhagen, in December, we need to achieve the international results that are the strongest in setting these goals and mechanisms in place. I am confident that America will be a leader in Copenhagen, and a leader in bringing forward responsible legislation to deal with energy. For those who say we should go slow, let me tell you, reviving our economy is intrinsically linked to rethinking how we solve our energy challenges. Investing in new technology creates new jobs. Diversifying our energy sources creates competition, stabilizing and lowering energy prices. And thinking beyond fossil fuel buried in unstable and unreliable countries makes us all more secure. Our dependence on old ways, old patterns, and old resources puts us at a financial and national security disadvantage. Those same fossil fuels we burn to drive our cars, power our homes and heat and treat our water are polluting our air, making our children sick, and raising our planet's temperature. The good news is that in solving our energy security challenge, we can also grow our economy and clean our environment. But let's remember that any deals we reach in Copenhagen and any laws we pass here are but the beginning. The work must continue with earnest follow-through dedicated to truly changing the way we work and live and move around this Earth. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank him very much. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for bringing us together. He has been not only a real champion on the public insurance option within the health care debate but a real leader in that we need to do something. I listened to my Republican friends. They take the position the status quo is acceptable. The status quo is not acceptable. Health insurance reform is vitally important for the American public. I thank the Senator for bringing us all together to talk about it. There is some general consensus among the Democrats. The first is we need to reform our health insurance marketplace. It is important for the Federal Government to take action to deal with preexisting conditions so people can get health insurance without discrimination, they get the ability to renew their policies, there is no cap on the annual amounts that preventive care covers without copayment or without deductibles. These are all important changes that are included in the health insurance reform that is making its way through the Senate. Let me tell you, the main reason for all this is cost. I will be honest with my colleagues. We cannot sustain the current health cost escalation in this country. Let me give you a few numbers: 6, 12, 23. Ten years ago in Maryland, a family health insurance policy cost about $6,000. Today it is about $12,000. If we don't do anything, in 2016 it is going to be $23,000. That is not sustainable. We are currently spending, in America, about $7,400 per person for health insurance, $2.4 trillion. We have to do better. Let me tell you something. Every family in Maryland who has health insurance is paying an extra $1,100 a year for those who do not have health insurance. So the status quo is unacceptable to the people in Maryland. It is unacceptable to the people of this Nation. Our objective is simple. Our objective is to reduce the cost of health care to make sure every American has access to affordable, quality care, and we are going to do it in a fiscally responsible way that will not add to the Federal deficit. We want to build on the current system. Those who have insurance, we want to make sure they can continue to keep that insurance; that it remains affordable; that they have the right to choose their doctor. We want to make sure Medicare is strengthened. One of the best ways to strengthen Medicare is to bring down the escalating cost of health care. We understand that. Democrats want to make sure the Medicare system remains strong and that is one of the reasons why we think health insurance reform today is so critically important and we want to help small businesses have more choice. That brings me to the public insurance option. Why do we think the public insurance option is so important? First, I have heard some of my colleagues come down to the floor and say we want to protect you against the Democrats' bill that is a government takeover. This is not a government takeover. Was Medicare a government takeover? Of course, that is what our Republican friends said when we were considering Medicare in 1965, and if they had had their way we would never have passed Medicare. But Medicare allows you to choose private doctors, private hospitals. It is all about providing an affordable way that our seniors and disabled population can get access to affordable care. It maintains the private network. We want to make sure we continue that. Let me tell you the problem in Maryland today. That is that 71 percent of the people in Maryland who have private insurance are in one or two plans. That is not competitive. That is not competitive. One out of every three Marylanders has no choice on the private insurance plan that their employer offers. They must take that. That is not choice. So the reason I am such a strong proponent of the public option is to bring down costs, to add more competition, to make sure we have an affordable product there to save taxpayers' dollars. That is why I want to see us make sure that we maintain a public insurance option, to be able to maintain your ability to choose your own doctor. I will give you one more comparison; that is, take a look at what has happened in Medicare. We have Medicare Advantage. You can go to a private insurance option within Medicare itself. It would be one thing if they competed on a level playing field. They do not. Today we are paying 12 to 17 percent more for every senior who chooses private insurance. Let me repeat that. For every senior who goes into private insurance, the taxpayers of this Nation have to spend more money. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated to us that that amounts to about $150 billion over 10 years. We cannot afford that. I am for private insurance, but I want to make sure it is affordable and that we are not oversubsidizing as we are today. Let them compete on a level playing field. The reason we want the public option is to keep costs down, to keep basically the private insurance marketplace straight and honest in a way they make their profit, to make sure that in every part of Maryland, indeed every part of this Nation, there is an affordable insurance plan available. Marylanders know what happened with what was called Medicare-Plus Choice when we had private insurance plans in Medicare and they left overnight. They had no insurance available. Fortunately they still had the public insurance option called Medicare. We want to make sure there is affordable coverage for all Americans, to keep the cost down. I applaud my colleague from New Mexico for allowing us an opportunity to talk about this. I really do applaud the work that is being done by all of our committees, by the HELP Committee, by the Senate Finance Committee. Their options give us hope that we are going to move forward with health insurance reform and health care reform this year, to bring down the cost of health care, to make sure that every American has access to quality, affordable care and do it in a way that will be fiscally responsible. Democrats are giving us hope that we are going to be able to achieve that in 2009.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act of 2009. I am joined in this effort by Senator Collins. I am also joined by the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown, Senator Mikulski, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer. This week marks the 1-year anniversary of the tragic murder of John Robert McGraham. Mr. McGraham was a well-known member of the Wilshire neighborhood of Los Angeles, CA, for more than 20 years. On October 9, 2008, he was doused with gasoline and set ablaze as he slept. By the time neighbors and residents ran to his rescue, his clothes had been burned off and his face blackened. The attacker apparently had a dislike toward homeless individuals. Known for rarely asking for money and not bothering anyone in the community, Mr. McGraham lost his life because of his homeless status. Days after his murder, hundreds of people gathered at the spot of his death and created a memorial for him. Mr. McGraham is just one of many homeless individuals who have suffered hate crimes because they were homeless. In a popular men's magazine, under the blurb titled ``Hunt for the Homeless,'' the following was displayed: ``Kill one for fun. We're 87 percent sure it's legal.'' We have heard the horrific stories: A woman sleeping was pushed into a river; a man was beaten, soaked in beer and urine and covered with trash; a woman was beaten in the face with a tire iron; and many more unfortunate stories. This behavior should not and cannot be tolerated in our society. What kind of society would we be if we allowed these types of attacks to continue without standing up against them? The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Department of Justice to collect data from law enforcement agencies about ``crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based upon race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.'' In 1994, Congress expanded coverage to require reporting on crimes based on disability. Data collection provides the needed information to policymakers, law enforcement, and communities so they can make informed decisions as to how best to proceed with the problem presented to us. The Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Statistics Act will again expand coverage by adding ``homeless status'' to the list of categories required to be reported on by the Department of Justice. In order to measure the level of bias-motivated crimes, data is needed. Currently, there is a significant problem in establishing a baseline for meaningful comparison. The best way to prove or disprove an issue's validity is data collection. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, which has tracked these types of attacks since 1999, they have reported an increase in the number of hate crimes targeted at homeless individuals in the last decade. If we take the statistics provided by this coalition and compare them to the available statistics currently being collected by the FBI under the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the results are startling. The number of hate crimes resulting in death among listed members, those in the statute, is lower than the known number of fatal attacks on homeless individuals. Between 1999 and 2007, there were 94 hate crime fatalities among the listed individuals, compared to 218 fatalities in the same period directed at homeless individuals. I am introducing this bill today in an effort to get uniform data collection on these attacks so that we have a uniform basis on which to know how serious the problem is. There are approximately 3.5 million people a year who are likely to experience homelessness. They are mothers, fathers, and children, and they are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Veterans account for 20 percent of our homeless population. Families displaced because of domestic violence make up another 28 percent of the homeless population. With increased funding to provide housing for the homeless, the previous administration had seen a 20-percent drop in family homelessness. However, because of the current economic crisis, an increase in the homeless population has been reported. The 2008 annual homeless assessment report to Congress revealed that the number of homeless families, particularly those in suburban and rural areas, has increased. The number of families seeking shelter has increased by 9 percent overall and by nearly 56 percent in suburban and rural areas. Our current economic crisis has reversed the progress that we made between 2005 and 2007. There is also evidence that when State and local budgets are cut, homeless services are affected. With an increase in the vulnerable population, with the government unable to provide funding, at a minimum we have a duty to report senseless violence against this risk population. That is what I am asking, pure and simple, that we find out exactly how many homeless people are being victimized in a uniform way by having reliable data and information so that we, the policymakers, can make the right policy decisions. Homeless people are part of America. Every day we see veterans, men, women, and families who have been forced by circumstances to live on the streets. We have walked by them on our way to work or to school. In an effort to monitor bias-motivated violence, the first step is to realize the scope of the situation by gathering the data. I urge my colleagues to support this modest legislation so that we are better prepared to deal with this challenge.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. We have a quality person who will return the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to its historic role, increasing the morale and professionalism in that Department. I am proud to support him and urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time.

Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield.