Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague for the question. Tom Perez, in our discussions, said he would clearly use a reasonable standard. I might point out that the Executive order to which the Senator is referring was strengthened both under the Clinton administration and Bush administration. President Bush's administration also believed this was an important provision. The Senator is correct. I also point out in regard to the understanding of English, Tom Perez comes from an immigrant family and believes very strongly that everyone should learn English; that it is an important part of our country. He has expressed that openly. He also has indicated that we should be doing more to help immigrant families be competent in English. The issue here deals with the receipt of health care. One has to be able to communicate. One has to be able to communicate with the people with whom one comes in contact. We know that is one of the key issues on quality care. It was for that reason that both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration adopted regulations to deal with the ability to communicate when people enter our health care system. Mr. Perez has indicated in interpreting that regulation that a reasonable test must be complied with, but it is certainly an important issue in dealing with quality care. Let me, if I may, quote one of the individuals who has recommended to us that we confirm Mr. Perez as the head of the Civil Rights Division and compliments President Obama on his choice; that is, the former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under George Bush. I am referring to Dr. Sullivan. Dr. Sullivan states: Tom Perez is a nationally recognized civil rights lawyer who enjoys an impeccable reputation as someone who is knowledgeable, inclusive, effective, and even-handed. He is an ideal nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. I point out it is unfair to judge Mr. Perez on an Executive order, and I think that Executive order is an important part of our health care in this country. He, as the enforcer of our civil rights, will enforce that Executive order because he knows it is important in protecting the civil rights of the people who are in America. But he also has a reputation for doing that in a fair manner, an effective manner, and an evenhanded manner. That should be the judgment that we use in this body as to whether to support his confirmation. I think third party validators have made it clear that Tom Perez is a person who will exercise that judgment correctly. I hope my colleagues will support his confirmation on the floor of the Senate. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the way he handles the matters that are brought to the floor, the way he handled the nomination of Tom Perez, allowed all sides an opportunity to get all the information they wanted. It was done in a very fair manner, and I compliment him on his leadership on this appointment. I wish to comment briefly on Senator Sessions' points relating to several issues. First, in regard to voting rights, I am in complete agreement with Senator Sessions that I want the Civil Rights Division and its leadership to deal with the concerns we have of voting in this Nation. I am very disappointed that the previous administration basically didn't bring any cases to allow people who were intimidated to be able to cast their votes. We have had serious problems of groups sending out notices on the wrong date of when the elections take place, targeted to minority communities. We have had episodes where letters were sent to minority communities threatening that if they tried to vote and had outstanding parking tickets, they could be arrested. We have seen intimidation. I have been a victim myself of that type of activity in my campaign for the U.S. Senate where on the day before the election fraudulent literature was handed out trying to mislead minority voters. So I want the next head of the Civil Rights Division to be actively involved in protecting our right to vote. I would hope my colleague from Alabama would join me in trying to strengthen the laws. We had a bill that then-Senator Obama presented that I joined with Senator Schumer and others to give the Department of Justice more power to make sure those types of fraudulent activities can't take place. I would welcome the support of my friends on the other side of the aisle for this important legislation. Let's work together to make sure every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast their vote and have it counted without intimidation. I know that is certainly going to be a major goal of the Civil Rights Division under the leadership of Tom Perez. My friend from Alabama mentioned the Black Panther case. Well, let me point this out: The decision in that case was made by a career attorney, not by a political appointee. And that is what I would hope all of us would want from the Civil Rights Division, that we take partisan politics out of that division, as it was so apparent under the previous administration. Tom Perez is committed to allowing career attorneys to make those types of decisions. And quite frankly, there was an injunction to prevent one of the defendants from that activity. So I think we should look at the record and look at what we are trying to achieve. Let's not use labels. Let's look at the issues and not labels. Look at his record. On the immigrant issue, let me point out that Tom Perez is firmly committed to enforcing the laws in a fair, evenhanded manner. His 10- year record at the Justice Department is the best evidence of that commitment. Quite frankly, I am going read into the Record endorsements because I think third-party validators are a good way for us to know what type of person we have in Tom Perez. The Judiciary Committee received letters of support from a number of former assistant attorneys general to the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, including Bill Lann Lee, John Dunne, Deval Patrick, Stanley Pottinger, Stephan Pollak, James Turner, Ralph Boyd, and Wan Kim. Several were appointed under Republican administrations. This is a quality person who has the confidence of those who know of his professionalism in moving forward the Civil Rights Division under its traditional leadership in this country. Lastly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters we have received from law enforcement officials and organizations, including Colonel Terrance Sheridan, the superintendent of the Maryland State Police; Tom Manger, chief of police from Montgomery County, MD; Raymond Knight, sheriff for Montgomery County, MD; and the State Law Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance of Maryland, and others.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his cooperation as we have moved this nomination to the Senate floor and will have a vote today. I thank him for the manner in which he handled his concerns, his willingness to meet with Mr. Perez, and to talk openly about these issues. He and I may disagree on one fundamental principle; that is, I think civil rights is a basic responsibility of the Federal Government to enforce. I think every person in this country should have the opportunities that are granted in America. I want to make sure our government actively pursues a civil rights agenda because I think that is important to protect everyone's rights.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that time during quorum calls be equally charged to both Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me say how pleased I am that we are now considering Tom Perez to head the Civil Rights Division. We in Maryland are particularly proud because Tom Perez hails from our State. He has had a distinguished record in the State of Maryland in service to the people of our State and also to the people of our Nation. I am very pleased that we finally have gotten to this moment. The Civil Rights Division is the Nation's moral conscience. It has been important to protect the rights of all Americans against all forms of discrimination whether it is in employment, whether it is in education, whether it is in housing, whether it is in voting, whether it is in personal liberties or hate crimes. It is what Americans turn to to protect their rights. It has had a very proud history, the Civil Rights Division, since its inception, both under Democratic and Republican administrations. It has had a steady course. There has been one notable exception. I think we all understand that during the previous administration there was an effort made to diminish the importance of the Civil Rights Division. It triggered joint reports by the Office of Personal Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General. They issued a joint report on January 13, 2009. It found there was consideration of political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys at the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, which was a violation of Federal law. We also know that during the previous administration, the number of cases brought to protect the civil liberties of Americans was greatly diminished, and the Department took a different view, one that compromised the integrity and independence of the Civil Rights Division. So it is important we get back on track, and that is why I am so pleased today that we are considering the confirmation of Tom Perez to be the head of the Civil Rights Division. Tom brings a great background to this important assignment. He was educated at Brown University where he received his undergraduate degree, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Harvard Law School. He had experience right out of law school as a prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. So from day one Tom Perez knew he had a calling to help improve the civil rights of Americans. Maybe it was because of his family background, the son of an immigrant, maybe it was because of his commitment to the American dream, but he had that passion to help other people, to protect the civil liberties and civil rights of Americans. He rose to become the Deputy Chief in the Division's criminal section. He was a trial attorney for the Department of Justice. He then later took a very important assignment in the Senate. He became special counsel to Senator Ted Kennedy. What a mentor for him. He has commented frequently about his year in the Senate and what a great learning experience it was to understand the importance of the Civil Rights Division from the champion of civil rights in the Senate, Senator Kennedy. He then became a professor in civil rights law and later returned with an appointment to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Health and Human Services, continuously working to promote civil rights. He decided to take on a unique challenge and ran for county council in Montgomery County, MD. I am familiar with all the jurisdictions of Maryland. Perhaps the most challenging is to be a county councilman in Montgomery County, one of our most diverse counties and the largest. He was the first Latino to become president of the county council and took on the great challenges in that county in a professional way and was well respected. Governor O'Malley appointed him as secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, a critically important part of the O'Malley cabinet. Then, President Obama tapped him to be the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. On June 4, the Judiciary Committee recommended, by a 17-to-2 vote, strongly bipartisan, to recommend his confirmation to the entire Senate. As to reservations raised in the committee, after the confirmation vote, we had meetings with Mr. Perez and Members of the Senate to get a further understanding of their concerns and to understand where Tom Perez would lead the Civil Rights Division. I don't want to comment for my colleagues, but I thought those meetings went extremely well. That is the type of person Tom Perez is. He tries to work things out without compromising the responsibilities of promoting civil rights of all Americans. With this vote today, we can take a major step forward to restore the integrity, confidence, historical role, and the reputation of the Nation's most important agency to protect the civil rights of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support we have received from the following individuals: Martin O'Malley, Governor of the State of Maryland; Thomas Mike Miller, president of the Maryland Senate; Mike Busch, speaker of the house of the Maryland General Assembly; John McCarthy, States attorney for Montgomery County; along with Anthony O'Donnell, the Republican leader of the Maryland house of delegates; and our colleagues in the Congress, Chris Van Hollen, who represents the eighth district; Elijah Cummings, who represents the seventh congressional district; Dutch Ruppersberger, who represents the second congressional district; Steny Hoyer, majority leader of the house from the fifth congressional district; and Erik Paulsen, who represents the third congressional district of Minnesota.

Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I congratulate the Parks and People Foundation of Baltimore, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Community activist Sally Michel founded Parks and People in 1984. Since then, Parks and People has grown from Sally's kitchen counter to a planned, eco-friendly, LEED Platinum-certified headquarters. Today, Parks and People Foundation, under the leadership of Jackie Carrerra and the creative energy and advocacy of Sally Michel, is working hard to make Baltimore green, to educate and enable our communities to get involved in that effort, and to make sure that our children grow up knowing about the importance of the environment and their role in protecting it, whether as a landscaper, arborist, scientist, a business owner, or homeowner. Parks and People also has become a leader in enriching the lives of Baltimore-area children. Its Kids Grow program provides afterschool environmental curriculum and instruction. SuperKids Camp has become a national model for summer learning, providing rising 2nd and 3rd graders in the public schools an opportunity to sharpen reading and math skills as well as experience the cultural and academic resources in the Baltimore area. Sports Leagues provide coaches, equipment, transportation, and referees for volleyball, lacrosse, soccer, and baseball teams in public middle schools without athletic programs. Participants are required to have good school attendance and grades. In the 1980s, when support for Baltimore's parks was waning due to budget cuts and lack of leadership, the Parks and People Foundation took up the challenge and worked to establish and financially support groups interested in maintaining and creating parks throughout the city. Partnership for Parks provides grants for projects ranging from garden bed improvement and planting to new fences and benches. Watershed 263 is an ambitious experiment to improve the quality of surface water runoff on 930 acres in 13 urban communities. Parks and People works with residents to reduce litter, clean streets, increase recycling, create community gardens, install storm water management facilities and clean and green vacant lots and plant trees. Improvement here will lead to a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay and serve as a model for other urban watershed areas. I know the entire Senate will join me in congratulating the Parks and People Foundation on celebrating its 25th anniversary and in thanking the foundation for its work to improve the quality of life in Baltimore for future generations.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation that has been introduced by Senator Lugar, the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009. I have joined Senator Lugar as a cosponsor, as have Senator Schumer, Senator Wicker, and Senator Feingold. Let me first tell you the problem this legislation is attempting to deal with; that is, there are these mineral-wealthy countries, countries that have oil, countries that have gas, countries that have valuable resources and minerals, and sometimes it is called a curse because in many of these countries there is horrible poverty, there are conflicts, open war, and very poor governance. The reason, in most cases, is corruption. Quite frankly, there are individuals and groups and sometimes leaders within these poor nations that have wealthy resources who make their own individual deals with companies that extract these minerals and use them for their own purpose rather than sharing it, as they should, or using it, as they should, for the people of the nation in which these resources are located. This is happening in so many countries in the world. It is in the interest of the United States to change the way these nations deal with their resources, their wealth. It is in our interest for many reasons. There are American businesses that would like to do business in these countries. They would like to help the economy of America by having business relationships with countries that have oil and gas and countries that have other mineral wealth. The problem is, they cannot do that because they cannot participate in corruption. It is against our laws for American companies to be coconspirators in corruption in another country, as it should be against our laws. It is also not very stable for them to do business in a country that is corrupt, that does not have the rule of law, that does not have the protections necessary to make sure their business relationships will be honored. So for all those reasons, it is important for us to clean up the way these nations deal with their mineral wealth. It is also in our interests as far as energy security. I hope we will get into this debate in this Congress on the floor of this body: how we can become energy secure in America. But part of that is having a much more open relationship with those countries that have mineral wealth so we know the arrangements, so we know how the gas and oil and other minerals are entering into the international marketplace, so we can have an open policy in America to deal with our energy. It is important for this country, as I pointed out, for our economics, it is important for our national security to get this done. I might add, it is also going to be important for our environment, and we are going to have that debate, I hope, later this year in this body. The international community has understood this. As a result of recognizing this problem, the international community came together with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, known as EITI. I mention this because this international effort is to try to bring transparency in what a company pays for mineral rights in a country. So if you are a company, and you are paying a royalty to a nation for extracting its minerals, you need to disclose that so the citizens of that country have the basic critical information necessary to effectively monitor government stewardship of their natural resources. That is basically what the EITI initiative is. It is all about transparency so companies and governance can be held accountable. I would think we all agree on that. I am proud of the role the United States Helsinki Commission has played on this issue. I have had the honor of chairing that Commission, and we have made the EITI initiative a major priority of our Commission's work because we know if we can get the mineral wealth to the people of that nation, so many of the issues we are charged to deal with on human rights, on the environment, on the economy, and on security can be dealt with, if we could just get that mineral wealth to the people of that nation. That is the reason why the Commission has had a very high priority in getting more participation by countries around the world in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. That brings me to the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009 that Senator Lugar has introduced and on which I have joined him as a cosponsor. It would suggest that the United States should be an implementing country of the EITI, that we should subject ourselves to those provisions, that we should lead by example by showing the United States of America believes there should be transparency in all the contracts we enter into resulting in extraction of mineral wealth from America. That would require the proper disclosure of payments from companies that use public lands for mineral extractions. That is the right thing to do. We should have been doing this all along. The public should know what is being paid by companies to take their wealth. This is Americans' wealth. It does not belong to any one of us. There should be transparency in it. It is the right thing to do. Another part of this legislation would require companies that are listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange that are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose their payments to other countries for extraction of mineral wealth. In other words, we use the leverage of participating in the U.S. Stock Exchange--to be a listed security that Americans invest in--they have the right to know what that company is paying to other countries to extract mineral wealth. That at least gives us part of the disclosure necessary to find out what a country, which is so poor in the way it treats its people, is doing with the moneys that are being paid for the extraction of their national wealth. That would go a long way to helping us get transparency. This legislation would urge the President to work with our partners in the G8 and G20 to promote similar efforts by the industrial nations of the world so we can get more credibility on the EITI, where passage of the EITI, joining the EITI becomes a matter of respectability for a nation internationally to make sure the contracts that are entered into with that government are shown to the people of that nation. The bottom line is, the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009 is asking the United States to take a leadership position in fighting corruption. Unfortunately, in too many of the developing countries of the world there is corruption. You have to deal with that corruption if you are going to be able to develop the type of relationships where that nation can deal with the poverty of its own people and work with us on our international priorities. It helps developing countries. We give significant resources to date for humanitarian efforts in these nations. These nations should use their own wealth. This is a humanitarian issue. This is a human rights issue. It also provides economic opportunities for the people of that nation as well as the international community so they can participate in an open way to help that nation solve its economic problems. It helps us with energy security globally. We cannot afford to waste the world's resources, as we look internationally at problems of energy security and global climate change. And it certainly helps in removing conflicts in many parts of the world. It is in our national security interests to make the world safer because it is usually the United States that is called upon first to deal with these conflicts. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to take a look at the Energy Security Through Transparency Act of 2009, and to join us in moving this legislation forward because I believe it does present great hope for America to lead the world in helping these nations take advantage of their wealth in furthering U.S. international goals. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that will increase energy security and combat poverty through greater transparency in the oil, gas and mining industries. This week, Senator Lugar and I, along with Senators Schumer, Wicker and Feingold, introduced the Energy Security Through Transparency Act. This legislation will require all companies listed on U.S. exchanges to disclose their payments to foreign governments for the extraction of oil, gas and minerals on a country-by-country basis. This disclosure would apply to all companies that file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, regardless of where they are based, and would be added to existing SEC requirements. This legislation will set a new international standard for corporate and State behavior. With this bill, we are changing the paradigm within the world's oil, gas and mining companies operate, and, importantly, changing the nature of their relationship with the governments in the countries in which they operate. This is critical to our energy security, our national security and for the welfare of the citizens of these countries. When we look at countries situated on oil and natural gas reserves, we think these countries have won the global version of the economic lottery. But what economists have found by studying these resource-rich countries is that they often fare worse than their resource-poor neighbors, both economically and politically. In these countries rich in natural resources, governments do not provide the most basic of information concerning natural resource revenues. This lack of transparency facilitates and even encourages corruption. This often leads to grinding poverty in countries that are paradoxically rich in natural resources. This legislation will provide much-needed regulatory and legal support to existing initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, EITI, and Publish What You Pay. It is critical that the United States lead by example on transparency. That is why this legislation also encourages the United States to become an implementing country under EITI. U.S. implementation of EITI would have practical and symbolic value on a number of fronts. While this legislation puts human rights front and center in the global energy discussion, it also empowers people to fight corruption and hold their governments accountable. Greater transparency will lead to greater stability in countries that benefit from their natural resources and will lessen volatility in the global energy market, making them more conducive for long-term investments. Just as importantly, U.S. implementation would bolster the momentum for the EITI, helping to make it a truly global standard for transparency in extractive industries. Leading by example is one of the most powerful ways the U.S. can encourage other countries to sign on to the initiative. I look forward to working with our colleagues to ensure passage of this important and timely legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to the outstanding achievements of Stewart and Marlene Greenebaum. Stewart and Marlene are lifelong residents of Baltimore and good friends of mine who have shown a deep personal commitment to Baltimore, to Maryland, and to improving our community and Nation through their commitment of time and resources. The Greenebaums have helped to establish our community as a leader in health care. Through their efforts, they established one of our Nation's premier cancer centers. The Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center is known for translating its innovative research into better treatments. Stewart is a past chairman of the board of the University of Maryland Medical System, home to the Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center. The Greenebaums also founded the Children's House at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a facility dedicated to helping the families of children who are fighting life-threatening illness. The Greenebaums' commitment to improving health care outcomes is known nationwide. Stewart serves as the founding chair for the American Cancer Society's Cancer Resource Network, a program that provides resource navigators to major cancer centers. He is chairman emeritus and member of the Board of Advisors for the Baltimore-based Institute of Human Virology, which focuses on HIV/AIDS research, care, and treatment, and he serves on the board of Profectus Biosciences Inc. and Welldoc, a company whose products help in the management of diabetes. Stewart also is one of the five U.S. directors of the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. Marlene Greenebaum is known in our community for her commitment to Judaism. She has served as president of Temple Oheb Shalom Sisterhood and is past president of Miriam Lodge, K.S.B. She was vice president of fundraising for Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem and is currently on the Greenebaum Cancer Center board. Marlene and Stewart are also committed to education. Stewart helped to found and fund a program that sends African-American students to Israel. He is the founding president of Shoshana S. Cardin Jewish High School. On October 21, the Shoshana S. Cardin School will honor Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum for all they have contributed. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the many accomplishments of Stewart and Marlene Greenebaum and for their undying commitment and dedication to helping others.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I am happy that when morning business comes to an end we will resume consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Interior Appropriations bill. I have come to the floor today to support the significant increase in funding for water infrastructure included in that legislation. We in Maryland have witnessed one more dramatic reminder that the water infrastructure of this country is in dire straits and in desperate need of new attention and greater investment. This past Friday afternoon, water surged for hours from a broken 6- foot-wide water main in Dundalk, MD. The raging water covered streets, pouring water into basements of many homes in Baltimore County, causing significant property damage. The raging water washed out main roads in the area causing significant damage to the infrastructure of the community. Here we see the road being washed out by the water that flowed through this community. This past Friday I was in Dundalk for the groundbreaking of a new housing development. This is a proud, historic community in Baltimore County. It was devastating, the damage that was done to this community as a result of infrastructure that failed. I would like to say this is an isolated episode but, unfortunately, this is not the first time in the past year we have witnessed instances such as this. Last December, a water main broke sending a 4-foot wall of water down a busy commuter road in Bethesda, MD, just outside of Washington. Here we see the headlines from the paper. Rescue workers were trying to rescue stranded drivers. This was River Road that turned into a river as a result of another water main break in Maryland. The water flowed with such force that Maryland State emergency workers had to rescue some drivers by boat and even by helicopter. Here we see a dramatic rescue. Fortunately, no one was injured, but we could have seen the loss of life. We need to deal with infrastructure, the pipes of our Nation. While these incidents were perhaps some of the most dramatic, there have been hundreds of water main breaks, large and small, across Maryland over the last year alone, and we are likely to see more instances such as this in the future. According to the EPA's 2004 clean watershed needs survey, Maryland has nearly $6 billion in wastewater infrastructure needs alone. But Maryland is not unique in facing a crisis when it comes to water infrastructure. These episodes have been repeated throughout the Nation. Our water infrastructure is reaching a tipping point in many places, having long outlived its 50-year lifespan. The American Society of Civil Engineers rated both wastewater and drinking water systems a D minus, the lowest rating of any infrastructure category. These problems are compounded by a growing population and more frequent cycles of floods and droughts affecting communities. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an additional $6 billion per year will be needed to meet the Nation's wastewater infrastructure needs, and $5 billion will be needed for drinking water needs. This is a matter of protecting the safety of people. This is an issue of preventing property damage. Many don't have insurance to cover it because they didn't think they lived in a flood-prone area. They didn't expect a water main to cause a flood in their homes. We need it to save water. We are wasting a lot of water. We need it to save energy because we transport water in an inefficient energy way. The Interior appropriations bill, which we will be considering today, makes a significant investment in our Nation's water infrastructure. It contains $2.1 billion for improvements to wastewater infrastructure through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This amounts to $1.4 billion more than Congress appropriated in the last fiscal year. The bill also contains almost $1.4 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. This is almost $600 million more than Congress appropriated last year. These funding levels come on top of $6 billion for water infrastructure that is going to States as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Much of this new commitment is thanks to a new administration that has recognized the infrastructure crisis and is doing something about it. That commitment is echoed by my colleagues, Senators Feinstein and Alexander, who have included investments in the bill we are considering today. I thank them for their commitment, but new investment alone is not enough. That is why I have introduced, along with Senators Boxer, Inhofe, and Crapo, S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2009. This is a bipartisan effort, as it should be, to improve America's infrastructure. The Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2009 truly represents a watershed moment in the legislative history of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. First and foremost, the bill makes it possible for us to continue considerable investment in the Nation's aging infrastructure by significantly increasing authorizations for clean water and drinking water. The bill provides $20 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and nearly $15 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund over the next 5 years. The bill goes further to develop new tools to address some of our pressing and growing water infrastructure needs. It allows new and important types of projects to qualify for funding, including efforts to secure wastewater and drinking water facilities and green infrastructure that is often more effective and less expensive than traditional infrastructure. The bill provides additional flexibility in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to help poor communities by providing loan forgiveness and improving financing, an ability that is especially important as budget cuts make critical infrastructure investment beyond the reach of many communities. The legislation creates nearly $2 billion in grant programs to make infrastructure upgrades that will reduce the number of combined and sanitary sewer overflows. These overflows are estimated to contribute 850 billion gallons of untreated sewage and storm water to the Nation's waterways every year. There is a new $60-million-per-year nationwide grant program to provide funding to States and municipalities to reduce lead in drinking water to protect our children. The bill also contains a new $50 billion nationwide grant program to address water quality issues associated with agriculture. The bill gives new incentives for water utilities to plan for the future so we don't face another crisis of failing infrastructure 20, 50, or 75 years down the road. This legislation has the support of broad constituencies: utility construction contractors, engineers and manufacturers, labor organizations, environmental groups, the clean water agencies, regulators, academics, and local government. The bill was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee by a voice vote, a strong bipartisan vote. Americans have the right to clean water flowing through their streams, rivers, and bays. We have the right to drinking water that is healthy. While I proudly support H.R. 2996, the Department of Interior Appropriations Act of 2010, I hope the full Senate will have the opportunity to vote on the Water Infrastructure Financing Act of 2009 this year. If so, we will be keeping faith with the American people by providing the tools necessary to meet their basic human health and environmental needs. We will help provide water systems that can keep water running through the pipes rather than down the streets, as we saw in Dundalk this past weekend. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Durbin.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the Senate amendment to H.R. 3288 and to thank my colleagues on the Transportation, Housing & Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for their fine work in crafting a bill that meets the priorities of the Nation while remaining fiscally responsible. I would particularly like to thank my colleagues for the provision of $150 million for capital and preventive maintenance of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority's Metro System. The Metro system is sometimes known as ``America's Subway'' and for good reason. Many Metrorail stations were built at the request of the Federal Government and nearly half of all stations are located at Federal facilities. Federal employees comprise 40 percent of WMATA's peak ridership. WMATA also plays a critical role for ensuring the continuity of Federal Government operations during an emergency. The Federal Government's interest in Metro is clear. I am sure you all recall the tragic Metrorail accident on June 23 of this year that took the lives of nine individuals. We cannot allow another such tragedy to occur. I appreciate the committee making a commitment to the safety of the 100 million passengers who travel on Metro each year. Mass transit is critically important in Maryland as we look for ways of reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The committee has funded two important mass transit projects in Maryland, the purple line in suburban Washington and Baltimore's red line. The purple line is a proposed 16-mile light rail or bus rapid transit line extending from Bethesda in Montgomery County to New Carrollton in Prince George's County. The Baltimore red line is a proposed 14-mile light rail rapid transit line extending from the Woodlawn area of Baltimore County, MD, through downtown Baltimore City to the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Campus in East Baltimore. Each project will ease traffic congestion, reduce carbon emissions, conserve energy, and improve the quality of life for many Marylanders. Maryland has a number of military installations throughout the State. Consequently, several communities will be affected by the upcoming round of base realignment and closures, BRAC. I would like to thank the committee for taking this into consideration and providing funding for BRAC-related improvements at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's County, near Fort Meade in Anne Arundel County, near Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Harford County, and in the vicinity of the National Navy Medical Center in Montgomery County. Nearly 50,000 new residents will arrive in Maryland as a result of BRAC. I appreciate the committee's help to make sure Maryland's transportation infrastructure is well- prepared for this population influx. I would also like to thank the committee for funding two important economic development initiative projects in Maryland, the Harriett Tubman Underground Railroad Park and Visitors Center and the Maryland Food Bank. Harriett Tubman was born on Maryland's Eastern Shore. It was from there that she escaped from slavery and went on to become one of the leaders of the Underground Railroad. Funding for the Harriett Tubman Underground Railroad Park and Visitors Center will support the continued design, engineering, and site preparation for the joint State-Federal Visitors Center at the State park and envisioned Federal park. The project is in rural Dorchester County. Tourism is a growing part of the economy and is viewed by the State and county economic development officials as the economic future of the area. The adjacent Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge is already a major attraction for eco- tourists. This Visitors Center will serve as a focal point of a growing tourism economy in the region while also celebrating one of America's true heroes. The Maryland Food Bank provides food to 900 soup kitchens, food pantries, shelters, and other community-based organizations across the State. These agencies, in turn, feed hundreds of thousands of hungry Marylanders each year. Last year, the Maryland Food Bank distributed 14.3 million pounds of food. The dire state of the economy has placed increased demands on the food bank. Critical infrastructure needs must be met in order to sustain and expand services to meet the growing need. I am grateful that the committee has provided funds through this bill to meet those needs. This funding will greatly benefit Maryland's hungry families. In closing, again let me say how much I appreciate the work of Senator Murray, Senator Bond, and their staffs along with the rest of the subcommittee. They have in crafted a bill that adequately provides for critical transportation infrastructure, addresses housing needs for America's most vulnerable populations, and injects economic drivers into underserved communities, all while remaining 2 percent under the President's requested budget. I find that quite impressive and I support this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to extend the current first-time home buyers' tax credit for 6 months to June 1, 2010. I am pleased to have Senators Ensign, Harry Reid, Isakson, and Stabenow as original cosponsors of this legislation. I know my colleagues remember that it was housing that led us into this recession. Remember how in the housing market the values fell, there were mortgage foreclosures, and housing starts stopped. Well, housing can help lead us out of this recession. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 initially established a credit at $7,500, and that was repayable over 15 years. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased that credit to $8,000, dropped the repayment obligation, and extended the credit to December 1, 2009. The legislation I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Ensign, Harry Reid, Isakson, and Stabenow would change the expiration date from December 1, 2009, to June 1, 2010. I know my colleagues understand the time delay here which requires that the houses go through settlement in order to qualify for the credit. So I think it is important that we act timely, not waiting until November 1, but to try to get this bill moving quickly. It has been an incredibly important tool to help the housing market to help restore our economy. This is a direct extension, a clean extension. It basically extends it for 6 months. I have talked with my colleagues about ways this credit perhaps could be improved, and I know we will get into that debate. But I want to make sure we don't have a lapse in this credit being available to help first-time home buyers. It has been very valuable. As we work to perhaps modify this proposal, let us make sure we continue it so as we are fighting to get our economy back on track, we don't regress and lose this tool that is available to help the housing market. The credit has been a huge success in helping to revive a depressed housing market. As of March 6, 2009, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration identified nearly 530,000 returns claiming more than $3.9 billion in the first-time homeowners' tax credit. As many as 40 percent of all home buyers this year will qualify for a credit. That tells us this credit is working. It is getting people who have never owned a home before into the home-buying market, knowing that the Federal Government is providing an incentive. It is estimated the credit is directly responsible for roughly 300,000 to 400,000 purchases this year. According to the National Association of Realtors, those additional sales have pumped approximately $22 billion into the economy. This is a modest tax incentive to help an industry that is vital to our economy, that produces an incredible amount of economic activity and jobs. Mortgage applications increased nearly 10 percent for the week ending September 3 from late August, the largest gain since early April. Economists such as Mark Zandi of Moody's and James Glassman of JPMorgan Chase support extending this credit. While there are signs that the housing market is stabilizing, we are not out of the woods yet. The industry and part of the economy still needs help. I have talked to many of the realtors in my community in Maryland and they tell me the inventory of property on the market is at high levels. There is a lot of inventory out there. More people are wanting to sell than people willing to buy. The number of new housing starts for residential homes is at a very low level. Each housing start creates jobs. It creates jobs in the material industry. It creates all types of ripples in our economy. So getting the housing market back on track will not only help in getting more homeowners into homes and helping the economy that direct way, it also creates the jobs and maintains the jobs of those who supply the network which will create new housing stock for America. Dean Baker, the codirector for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that price declines could resume later this fall. I quote: 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. . . . So we now have a large inventory, and if the credit is not available, I think it will have a very negative impact on the ability to continue housing sales at a level of recovery for our economy. Extending the credit is prudent and a fiscally responsible measure. It provides the help. We know it works. We know what has happened. We know we are still in difficult times. It is not the time to eliminate this tool that we have available. That is why I am recommending an extension, not a permanent extension, because we want this credit to be available to get us out of our current economic problems. We know we still need it. A 6-month extension is the minimum we should do. At the same time, we should look at other ways to improve and help the housing industry and to help the recovery of our Nation. I appreciate my colleagues who have joined me in this effort. I hope my colleagues in this body will help us with moving this legislation as promptly as possible.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to extend the current first-time home buyers' tax credit for 6 months to June 1, 2010. I am pleased to have Senators Ensign, Harry Reid, Isakson, and Stabenow as original cosponsors of this legislation. I know my colleagues remember that it was housing that led us into this recession. Remember how in the housing market the values fell, there were mortgage foreclosures, and housing starts stopped. Well, housing can help lead us out of this recession. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 initially established a credit at $7,500, and that was repayable over 15 years. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased that credit to $8,000, dropped the repayment obligation, and extended the credit to December 1, 2009. The legislation I am introducing today with my colleagues Senators Ensign, Harry Reid, Isakson, and Stabenow would change the expiration date from December 1, 2009, to June 1, 2010. I know my colleagues understand the time delay here which requires that the houses go through settlement in order to qualify for the credit. So I think it is important that we act timely, not waiting until November 1, but to try to get this bill moving quickly. It has been an incredibly important tool to help the housing market to help restore our economy. This is a direct extension, a clean extension. It basically extends it for 6 months. I have talked with my colleagues about ways this credit perhaps could be improved, and I know we will get into that debate. But I want to make sure we don't have a lapse in this credit being available to help first-time home buyers. It has been very valuable. As we work to perhaps modify this proposal, let us make sure we continue it so as we are fighting to get our economy back on track, we don't regress and lose this tool that is available to help the housing market. The credit has been a huge success in helping to revive a depressed housing market. As of March 6, 2009, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration identified nearly 530,000 returns claiming more than $3.9 billion in the first-time homeowners' tax credit. As many as 40 percent of all home buyers this year will qualify for a credit. That tells us this credit is working. It is getting people who have never owned a home before into the home-buying market, knowing that the Federal Government is providing an incentive. It is estimated the credit is directly responsible for roughly 300,000 to 400,000 purchases this year. According to the National Association of Realtors, those additional sales have pumped approximately $22 billion into the economy. This is a modest tax incentive to help an industry that is vital to our economy, that produces an incredible amount of economic activity and jobs. Mortgage applications increased nearly 10 percent for the week ending September 3 from late August, the largest gain since early April. Economists such as Mark Zandi of Moody's and James Glassman of JPMorgan Chase support extending this credit. While there are signs that the housing market is stabilizing, we are not out of the woods yet. The industry and part of the economy still needs help. I have talked to many of the realtors in my community in Maryland and they tell me the inventory of property on the market is at high levels. There is a lot of inventory out there. More people are wanting to sell than people willing to buy. The number of new housing starts for residential homes is at a very low level. Each housing start creates jobs. It creates jobs in the material industry. It creates all types of ripples in our economy. So getting the housing market back on track will not only help in getting more homeowners into homes and helping the economy that direct way, it also creates the jobs and maintains the jobs of those who supply the network which will create new housing stock for America. Dean Baker, the codirector for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes that price declines could resume later this fall. I quote: 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. . . . So we now have a large inventory, and if the credit is not available, I think it will have a very negative impact on the ability to continue housing sales at a level of recovery for our economy. Extending the credit is prudent and a fiscally responsible measure. It provides the help. We know it works. We know what has happened. We know we are still in difficult times. It is not the time to eliminate this tool that we have available. That is why I am recommending an extension, not a permanent extension, because we want this credit to be available to get us out of our current economic problems. We know we still need it. A 6-month extension is the minimum we should do. At the same time, we should look at other ways to improve and help the housing industry and to help the recovery of our Nation. I appreciate my colleagues who have joined me in this effort. I hope my colleagues in this body will help us with moving this legislation as promptly as possible.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my friend, our colleague, civil rights icon of the Senate, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, our lion in the Senate. I have lost someone who has been a mentor, a friend, and one of my heroes. The Nation has lost a great leader. To his family, he was a rock. To his wife Vicki, his children, Kara, Edward, Ted, Jr., and Patrick, my former colleague when I was in the House, and to his sister Jean and the entire Kennedy family, we extend our deepest condolences. To his Senate colleagues and his constituents in Massachusetts, he was a beacon of hope and perseverance for a better day in America. When I came to the Senate in 2007, I was frequently asked during my first year--I am sure the Presiding Officer has been asked this by people in his State--what is the highlight, what is difference, what makes this place a special place? What did you find different in the Senate than you did in the House? The example I gave during my first month in the Senate, when I was sitting by myself on the floor of the Senate, Senator Kennedy came by and sat next to me. He said: Do you mind if we talk for a moment? He sat next to me, a new Member of the Senate, and he said: Ben, can you tell me what you think we should be doing in health care? He wanted my views. He was looking to find out what this new Senator from Maryland thought was possible in health care reform. That was Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy engaged each Member of the Senate to find a common denominator to move forward in solving the major problems of America. It was truly a unique experience for me to see one of the most senior Members of the Senate, a person known internationally for his legislative skills, seek out a new Member. I remember one of my constituents asking me during my first year as to which Senator I most admire for his or her work ethic. I said immediately: Senator Kennedy. They were taken aback because they didn't realize that this senior Senator, this person who had served for over 40 years in the Senate, was a person who dedicated every day to doing his very best. Whether it was working with staff or meeting with Members or working his committee or making a speech on the floor of the Senate, his work ethic was one of not wasting a single moment in order to deal with the Nation's problems. Senator Kennedy served for 46 years in the Senate and had a tremendous impact on the issues that have shaped our Nation for almost a half century. He authored over 2,500 pieces of legislation. All Americans have been touched by Senator Kennedy's work. He dedicated his life to the nameless, the poor, and the minority voices in America, and that dedication is legendary. He has touched the lives of all Americans by his work in the Senate, whether it was what he did for voting rights or improving educational opportunities, dealing with the rights of immigrants, minimum wage laws, national service, help for the mentally ill, equality for women, minorities, the disabled, children, the gay and lesbian community. The list goes on and on. He was there fighting for those who otherwise would not have had a voice in our government. He did it whether it was popular or not in the State or Nation. He was true to his principles. The list goes on and on of what he did. I had the great pleasure of serving with him on the Judiciary Committee for 2 years. What a legacy he has created on that committee. It was a great honor for me to be able to serve those 2 years on the committee with him and to listen to him engage. There has been no greater Senator on the Judiciary Committee to fight on behalf of civil rights than Senator Kennedy. He was clearly the conscience of the Senate, to make sure we used every opportunity to advance the rights of all Americans so they could achieve their best. He was a legislator's legislator. He had a gift. He had the ability to work across party lines and get work done. He believed in progress and doing the right thing. He had a voice that carried through the halls of the Senate with such passion and yet with such grace. Senator Kennedy once said: We know the future will outlast all of us, but I believe that all of us will live in the future we make. Senator Kennedy stood for and fought for a better America--even when it was not the popular thing to do. Senator Kennedy stayed true to his principles throughout his entire life. With great loss and much sadness, I give much thanks for his service, his friendship, and his dedication. Senator Edward Kennedy will never be forgotten. I thank my dear friend, Senator Kennedy, for the contributions he made to this institution, the U.S. Senate, where I now have the great honor of serving the people of Maryland. Senator Kennedy's legacy will live forever, and we thank him for his service to our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I support S. 1023 and its objectives. Indeed, I am a cosponsor. I submit these comments regarding the bill's provisions to help our Nation's many small businesses. I filed an amendment, S. Amdt. 1320, to ensure that at least one member of the Travel Promotion Board would have appropriate expertise regarding small business concerns and the retail sector. I am joined in this effort by Senators Landrieu and Snowe, the chairman and ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, who have cosponsored the amendment. I am disappointed that we are unable to get consent to lay the pending amendment aside for the purpose of considering other amendments, such as the one I have filed. This amendment would not change the number of board members; it would only require that one person have appropriate expertise and experience with small business and in the retail sector. This will ensure that at least one member will represent the interests of small business concerns as that term is defined by the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, and generally used by the Small Business Administration. When I entered the Senate in 2007, I asked to serve on the Small Business Committee because I fully appreciate how critical small businesses are to our economic recovery and strength, to building America's future, and to helping the United States compete in today's global marketplace. I think that promoting the United States as a tourist destination to foreigners increases our economic viability and the image of the United States abroad. Visitors to our country get a better picture of the United States, which shapes their perception of our country and its people. It is vital that the perspectives of small business owners be represented because they employ more than half of all private sector employees and make up 99 percent of the Nation's 29 million businesses. While I regret that we are unable to consider my amendment, I hope that my recommendations will be considered as the legislative process continues.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, few people have had as significant an impact on the scientific world over the past two decades as Dr. Francis Collins, President Obama's nominee to head the National Institutes of Health. As director of the National Human Genome Research Institute from 1993 to 2008, Dr. Collins has led the way in medical innovation. As his most renowned accomplishment at NHGRI, Dr. Collins achieved unparalleled success leading the revolutionary Human Genome Project. Established in 1990, the Project's goal was to map out the thousands of genes that make up the human genome in order to better understand the genetic makeup of humans and to ultimately reveal the cures for our most challenging diseases. In 2003, the Human Genome Project, under the guidance of Dr. Collins, released its completed version of the entire human genome, an unprecedented achievement. Dr. Collins' work has led to some ground-breaking medical discoveries, including the identification of genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes and the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. To allow this data to be used as effectively as possible, Dr. Collins has ensured that all of the data obtained by the Human Genome Project be made available to the entire scientific community without restrictions on access or use. Among other prestigious honors, Dr. Collins has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, two of the most influential medical organizations in the world. In addition, on November 5, 2007, Collins received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civil award, for his remarkable contributions to the field of genetic research. Not only has Dr. Collins proven himself to be a brilliant and revolutionary scientist, but he is also a remarkably effective leader. Perhaps the greatest evidence of this quality is displayed by his ability to finish the human genome sequence both ahead of schedule and under budget. It is clear why President Obama selected him to lead this important agency. Last week, I met with Dr. Collins to discuss his vision for the future of NIH. He is my constituent, as are many of the scientists who work at the Rockville campus, and the academic institutions and businesses that thrive due in no small part to NIH grants and other extramural programs. I am extremely proud to represent all of them. During our meeting, I raised serious concerns about recent actions of NIH leadership with regard to two grant programs, the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Technology Transfer Program. Federal law requires departments that award more than $100 million in extramural grants annually to devote a total of 2.8 percent to small businesses to foster innovation. These programs are catalysts for job creation and job growth, and a recent study found that 25 percent of all new product innovations were brought to market by SBIR grantees. But a provision--encouraged by NIH--was inserted during conference into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with no notice to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, where I serve, although we have jurisdiction over these programs. That provision excluded the NIH funds in ARRA from the SBIR and STTR requirements, effectively denying small businesses $230 million in research grant opportunities. Its origins are still unknown. The effect on small businesses has been devastating, leading some biotechnology firms in my State to lay off employees or close due to lack of funding. In June, I chaired a field hearing about this issue in Rockville, and although the hearing location was minutes away from the NIH campus, the agency did not send a witness. NIH staff promised to submit testimony, but it was faxed to us 2 hours after the hearing had ended. In addition, during the hearing, we received testimony citing a history of perceived bias among NIH review panels against SBIR applications.I raised these concerns with Dr. Collins, and we had a frank and open discussion. Dr. Collins spoke of his high regard for the SBIR program and noted that he could not have completed the Human Genome Project in such a timely and cost-efficient manner absent the involvement of small biotechnology companies. He has promised to work with me and other members of the Committee to ensure that NIH participation in SBIR and STTR proceeds according to congressional intent. I am encouraged by his support for these programs, and I believe that the Small Business Committee, will have a much improved working relationship with NIH going forward. I left that meeting with confidence in Dr. Collins' ability to lead this essential agency very effectively. Going forward, Dr. Collins faces numerous challenges, implementing the new policy on federally funded stem cell research, moving forward on promising cancer research, and developing strategies to combat the global AIDS epidemic, among others. These challenges require a visionary leader with the level of expertise and management experience that Dr. Collins possesses. I am pleased to express my support for the nomination of Dr. Francis Collins to be the next Director of the National Institutes of Health, and I look forward to working with him in the years to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice to the Supreme Court will be my first Justice confirmation vote as a Senator. It is an honor for me to represent the people of Maryland in the Senate and to serve on the Judiciary Committee. I particularly thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Sessions for the dignified manner in which the committee handled the nomination process of Judge Sotomayor. Each Senator on our committee had ample time to review Judge Sotomayor's background and ask questions of the nominee. Her answers were as responsive as possible and gave me confidence that she understood the appropriate role of a judge in applying the law. The Supreme Court, our Nation's highest Court, holds a tremendous responsibility in deciding cases of fundamental issues that have real impacts on the lives of Americans. In recent years, we have seen less of a consensus on the Court, with many 5-to-4 decisions. Regrettably, too many of these decisions have been at times when the Court has ignored congressional intent and precedent to instead move forward with its own agenda. It has been the so-called conservative Justices who have been the most active in ignoring the intent of Congress in protecting individual rights. For example, in the Ledbetter decision, the Court denied women a remedy against employer discrimination pay equity cases, thus eliminating protection intended by Congress. In the Riverkeeper and Rapanos decisions, the Supreme Court narrowed the congressional protections for clean water. In the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District decision, the Court challenged congressional authority to extend the Voting Rights Act. In each of these cases, the Supreme Court actively ruled to restrict laws passed by Congress to protect individual rights. I want the next Justice to respect legal precedent and congressional intent and advance, not restrict, individual rights. In determining whether to support Judge Sotomayor for this lifetime appointment, I looked at several factors. First, I believe judicial nominees must have an appreciation for the Constitution and the protections it provides to each and every American. I also believe each nominee must embrace a judicial philosophy that reflects mainstream American values, not narrow ideological interests. I believe a judicial nominee must respect the role and responsibility of each branch of government. I look for a strong commitment and passion for continued progress in civil rights protections. I understand there is a careful balance to be found. Our next Justice should advance the protections found in the Constitution but not disregard important precedents that have made society stronger by embracing our civil liberties. I believe Judge Sotomayor understands this balance and will apply these principles appropriately. During the hearing, we all learned more about Judge Sotomayor's approach to the law and to judging. She clearly outlined for us her fidelity to the law, respect for precedent, and due deference to the intent of Congress. With each question, our committee and the American public gained a greater appreciation of Judge Sotomayor's knowledge of and commitment to the rule of law. Her command of legal precedent and her ability to challenge attorneys in their arguments will bode well for reaching the right decisions in the Supreme Court. She is mainstream in her judicial decisions and opinions, and she possesses a correct sense of the role of a judge in deciding a case based on sound legal precedent and the facts, giving due deference to congressional intent. Over the past few months, our committee has had time to thoroughly review Judge Sotomayor's record. From the moment she was nominated by President Obama, we knew Judge Sotomayor had a strong background, including extensive experience as a prosecutor, trial judge, and appellate judge. She grew up in modest circumstances, worked hard to attend two of our Nation's most prestigious universities, Princeton and Yale Law School, and she excelled at the highest levels in each institution. Judge Sotomayor's lifelong work has been recognized by both Democratic and Republican Presidents who nominated her for Senate- confirmed judicial appointments, and for 17 years she has served as a distinguished jurist. Judge Sotomayor is an example of a highly competent and experienced nominee. She has more Federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years. She was rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, which is the highest rating given by the ABA. She has been supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the NAACP, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Women Legislators, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and many more. The nine Justices of the Supreme Court have a tremendous responsibility of safeguarding the Framers' intent and the fundamental values of our Constitution, while ensuring the protection of rights found in that very Constitution are applied and are relevant to the issues of the day. It is my belief that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created to be timeless documents that stand together as the foundation for the rule of law in our Nation. Were it not possible for the Supreme Court to apply the basic tenets of the Constitution to changing times, moving beyond popular sentiment, our Nation would never have made the progress it has, improving society for the better. When the Constitution was written, African Americans were considered property and counted only as three-fifths of a person. Non-Whites and women were not allowed to vote. Individuals were restricted by race as to whom they could marry. Decisions by the Supreme Court undeniably have moved the country forward, continuing the progression of constitutional protections. I believe Judge Sotomayor's record and background demonstrate that she understands these principles and that she will apply sound legal precedent to contemporary challenges advancing individual rights. During the confirmation hearing, I spent the majority of my time questioning Judge Sotomayor on the topic of civil rights. We discussed the right to vote, women's rights, minority rights, including race and gender issues, the environment, and the importance of diversity of the courts throughout society. While difficult questions will continue to come before the Court, for me, it bears repeating how important it is to have Justices on the Supreme Court who will apply established precedents and are not tempted to turn back the clock on landmark court decisions that protect individual constitutional rights. I gained great confidence in Judge Sotomayor after listening to her answers to questions I posed. I wished to mention a few of the key cases decided by Judge Sotomayor that we discussed at the hearing. Judge Sotomayor has protected the civil rights of all Americans, advanced equal opportunity, and promoted racial justice. In the Gant case, she protected the rights of a young African- American student who was treated differently than his fellow White classmates. In the Boyton case, she looked at the facts presented and reversed and remanded the case because the facts did present a plausible claim of disparate treatment in a housing application process. Judge Sotomayor has also shown an understanding of privacy rights. While we do not have cases to review that she participated in, her responses to questions gave me great confidence that she will respect legal precedent while applying privacy protections to the challenges in the 21st century. I have confidence that Judge Sotomayor understands the importance of protecting the freedom of speech based on the decisions she reached in the Pappas case, where an off-duty police officer used speech that was repugnant, but her ruling showed an understanding of the importance of constitutional protections, even when the speech is unpopular and hateful. I have confidence Judge Sotomayor will protect religious freedom based on her decision in the Ford case, where she protected the rights of a Muslim prison inmate. I was particularly impressed by Judge Sotomayor's record on voting rights. In the Hayden case, she wrote in a dissent: The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of a statute or to invent exceptions in the statutes it has created. Her commitment on voting rights was reinforced at the hearing when she responded to a question I posed. She acknowledged, unequivocally, that the right to vote is a fundamental right for all Americans. With current Justices on the Court ready to question Congress's right to extend the basic voting protections of the Voting Rights Act, it is refreshing to hear Judge Sotomayor say in the Hayden case: ``I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself rather than have the court do so for it.'' I have great confidence that Judge Sotomayor understands the importance of civil rights and the importance of protecting those rights for the American people. I believe Judge Sotomayor will defend Congress's intent with the passage of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and many others, based on her decision in the Riverkeeper case. In this case, she wrote for a unanimous panel and held that under the Clean Water Act, the EPA could not engage in a cost-benefit analysis. Allowing cost-benefit analysis would undermine congressional protections, when determining what constitutes the ``best technology available for minimizing the adverse environmental impact.'' She concluded, instead, the test for compliance should consider ``what technology can be reasonably borne by the industry and could engage in cost-effectiveness analysis in determining the [best technology available].'' In addition to her impressive legal background, Judge Sotomayor is on the verge of becoming the first Latino and only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Her story of personal success is an inspiration for young Latinos, women, and for all Americans. She is prepared and ready to serve our Nation on the Court, where I am confident she will continue to build upon the outstanding record she has already achieved as a distinguished jurist. For all these reasons and many more, I will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to join in support of her confirmation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letters of support: The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a joint letter with more than 25 disability rights organizations in support of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation; and letters of support signed by more than 80 civil rights and labor organizations in support of her nomination to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the time in this hour be divided in the following manner: Senator Cardin, 15 minutes; Senator Baucus, 15 minutes; Senator Merkley, 10 minutes; Senator Akaka, 10 minutes; and Senator Lieberman, 10 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have taken the floor before to talk about the need for health insurance reform, health care reform. I talked about the high cost of health care and how we need to get a handle on the amount of resources we spend as a nation on health care. I have talked about the need to improve prevention and wellness programs. I have talked about the public insurance option and why I think it is so important to have a public insurance option. But today I want to talk about a different issue. I want to talk about what happens if we do nothing because I think the people of this Nation need to understand that our current health care system is causing huge challenges for the people of our Nation. Whether you have health insurance or do not have health insurance, you are impacted by the fact that your options are limited. Let me give an example. Maryland citizens will continue to lose health care coverage every day if we do not reform our health care system. There are currently 760,000 Marylanders who have no health insurance. That number has been growing during this economic crisis. And now 230 Marylanders are losing their coverage every single day. There are people in our community who currently have adequate health insurance--at least they think they do--but they are liable to wake up tomorrow and find out that because their company is going out of business or because their employer can no longer afford to provide health coverage for their employees, they no longer have health insurance to count on. Marylanders have seen an 11-percent increase in the number of uninsured since 2007. What does this mean? As the number of uninsured increases, there is more and more cost shift. That means those of us who have health insurance are paying higher premiums than we otherwise would have to pay because we are paying for those who do not have health insurance. It means those of us who pay our doctor bills or our hospital bills are paying more than we should because we are paying for those who cannot pay their bills, who have no health insurance, who are part of uncompensated care. It is a never-ending struggle because as we cost shift more to those who have insurance, insurance becomes more expensive, and therefore fewer people can afford insurance and we have a higher number of uninsured. And that is happening today. Marylanders with health insurance are paying more. If we do not fix the system, those in my community and in your community who have health insurance are going to end up paying more. The average family premium in Maryland costs $1,100 more each year because our health care system fails to cover everybody, because we have the cost shifting, because we have not gotten health care costs under control. The fact is, health insurance premiums for Maryland families have been increasing rapidly over the last 8 years, going up by 64 percent from 2000 to 2007. Whether you pay that premium directly or your employer helps contribute to it, it is part of your family cost. It reflects in the compensation you would otherwise receive in salaries as an employee. It has been a 64-percent increase for Marylanders since 2000. For family health care coverage, the average annual premium rose from $7,200 to almost $12,000 during that period of time from 2000 to 2007. For individual health coverage, the average premium rose from $2,600 to $4,100. If we fail to enact health care reform and if we do nothing to control the escalating cost of health care, if we do nothing to deal with those who are uninsured and an increasing number of those who do not have health insurance, if we do not deal with wellness and prevention, if we do not deal with medical technology and with a more cost-effective system, then these trends are going to continue and we are going to see these types of double-digit increases in health care costs, which means more Marylanders, more people in this country will not be able to afford their current insurance coverage. Let me mention one other fact which is something we all talk about. We want to maintain choice. One of the prime objectives of health care reform is to maintain choice--choice so you can choose your doctor; choice so you and your doctor make decisions concerning your medical needs; and choice, I would hope, in terms of what type of health coverage is out there to meet your needs. Right now, two insurance companies in Maryland hold 71 percent of the Maryland market. For most Marylanders who have health insurance through work, they do not have a choice today. We want to offer more choice so we can keep costs down. You can tailor a health care plan to meet your family needs. We can do better. The current status quo should be unacceptable to everyone in my State, whether they currently have good health care insurance or they are uninsured, whether they are a small business owner or work for a large company. Let me give a couple examples of stories from Maryland. Let me give you this one. A constituent named Catherine from Baltimore wrote me a letter: Mr. Cardin: I just received my health insurance bill from [an insurance company]. The premium for next year went from $666 to $968. This is a quarterly bill. . . . We have high medical expenses and I cannot afford this increase. I cannot go to another insurance company because I am high risk and I have been turned down from other medical insurance [companies]. I cannot receive medical assistance because they say we make too much. . . . I am 51 years old. When I called my insurance carrier and asked about the increase, I was laughed at and told either accept it or go somewhere else. When I asked if I could pay monthly, I was told, ``Indeed not.'' What am I to do? I need medical help, but no one wants to help. Please, could you please look into this matter and see what you can do for me? This is a person who has health insurance, and if we don't do anything, that person is going to lose her health insurance and, quite frankly, access to quality care will also be jeopardized. I will give another story about a small business owner, Alexis from Baltimore, who owns a small software production company that oversees IT for the city of Baltimore. He competes against much larger companies for business. He wants to do the right thing, so he has health insurance for his employees. He has 20 employees. He paid half of the cost of the employees' coverage. Some of his employees came in and said: Hey, look, can't you help us with family coverage? He would like to provide family coverage for his employees; he just cannot afford to do it and be able to compete against larger companies. He goes on to tell me that his premiums are increasing much faster than what is happening with the larger companies against which he has to compete. He doesn't have the options the larger companies have. The status quo discriminates against small companies in their health care plans. What we need to do in health reform is to deal with these issues. That is why I come to the floor. I know there are different views as to what we need to do with health care reform, but I hope the one option that would not be on the table is the status quo. We cannot say to the Catherines of our community: We are not going to do anything to help you. We have to listen to the Catherines who are telling us: Look, get a handle on what is happening with health costs, whether we have health insurance or we do not have health insurance. Get a handle on helping those who don't have insurance so we don't have the cost shifting that goes on, that we can provide quality health care for all, that we can bring down the cost of health care in our community. Listen to Alexis, who says: Help the small business owner do the right thing for their employees. Help bring down the cost of health care. I urge my colleagues, we can have a robust debate as to what should be included in health care reform, but I hope at the end of the day we will listen to our constituents and provide the type of reform that will allow for people in our communities to have access to affordable, quality health care, make health care costs manageable, bring down the cost of health care, and provide prevention and wellness programs to keep people healthy. If we do that, then we are really listening to our constituents and will help our economy and help our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.