Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. This Saturday, November 17, is the eighth annual National Adoption Day. On this day, courts across the country will open their doors to finalize the adoption of thousands of children from foster care. This month, four Maryland cities will celebrate with events: Baltimore, Urbana, Rockville, and our capital city of Annapolis. In Baltimore on Saturday, November 17, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City will finalize the adoptions of more than 40 children. The court will host an event with face painting, arts and crafts, a dessert reception, and a commemorative photography session. Local businesses have donated toys and gift certificates for the children. Also, on Saturday, November 17, the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, Child Welfare Services, will host an appreciation luncheon in Rockville. In Urbana on Sunday, November 18, an organization called Adoptive Families and Friends will host a celebration at the Urbana Public Library. They will have balloons, refreshments, entertainment, and representatives of adoption agencies, cultural groups, and support groups. Finally, in Annapolis on Thursday, November 29, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County will finalize between 10 to 15 adoptions and then host a reception for the new families and guests. Mr. President, celebrations similar to these four in Maryland will occur all across our Nation in the days to come. The new families will serve as the inspiration for countless more adoptions in the years to come. By facilitating these adoptions, the lawyers, foster care workers, child advocates, judges, and others are building strong families and stronger communities. This is my first year in the Senate, but for several years in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege of serving as ranking member on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, which handled issues related to families, foster care, and adoptions. Its new name is the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee. In 1997, the committee worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the Adoption and Safe Families Act. That law created the Adoption Incentives Program, which provides incentive payments to States to promote adoptions out of foster care, with additional incentives provided for the adoption of foster children with special needs. Since that time, we have seen a substantial increase in the number of those adoptions--more than 60 percent. Then in 2003, Representative Dave Camp and I authored, and Congress passed, the Adoption Promotion Act. It was introduced in the Senate by Senators Grassley and Landrieu, and became law on December 2, 2003. That bill reauthorized the program providing States with incentives for increasing overall adoptions, and it created bonuses for placing older children in permanent homes. It also authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to penalize States that fail to provide the Federal Government adequate data on adoptions and foster care services. That law will expire next year, and to ensure that these vital programs can continue, Congress will need to reauthorize it. We still need more families willing to bring children into their homes. More than 114,000 American children are still awaiting adoption, and half of them are over 9 years old. These are the children who have the least chance of being adopted and the greatest chance of spending the rest of their childhood in foster care, so we must do more to help find adoptive families for them. I will be listening closely to the people of Maryland to learn how we can improve upon current laws. Despite all the work we have done to promote adoptions, more than 25,000 age out of foster care every year. That means that they reach adulthood without ever having received permanent placement with a family. In September, a few of my colleagues and I participated in a wonderful event sponsored by the Orphan Foundation of America. We went to the Mansfield Room and helped put together care packages that are sent to college students across the country. It is something that many of us who have put children through college don't automatically think about. We have sent our college-age kids care packages with clothing, food, and other items. But what about the students without parents? This organization, with funding from Federal Express and many other companies, assembles and ships more than 3,700 packages to college campuses every year. I had the honor of meeting six talented students from Maryland--four from Morgan State University, one from the University of Maryland College Park, and one from the College of Southern Maryland. They have all the brains, promise, and enthusiasm of their fellow students, but they aged out of foster care, so they need our support to make the transition into adulthood a smoother one. Mr. President, I believe every child deserves a loving family and a safe place to call home. We in Congress have the power to make that a reality for many of the more than 100,000 foster children now waiting for a family. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the children who will be adopted this week and in working on policies that will help children who remain in foster care to get the opportunities they deserve.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 53 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower named November 11 ``Veterans Day,'' setting aside that day to honor all Americans who have served our country so honorably in the military, both in war and in peace. I want to take the opportunity this day of remembrance provides to say to all veterans and their families, thank you for your courage, your character, your strength, and the enduring power of your example. All Americans owe you our gratitude and appreciation for your commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation. Since our Nation's struggle for freedom more than two centuries ago, nearly 50 million men and women have served in the U.S. military and nearly 25 million of these veterans are alive today. Our thoughts and prayers also are with our veterans of tomorrow--the 1.4 million Americans serving in our Armed Forces, including the more than 189,000 service men and women who are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the noble service and tremendous sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, the United States stands as a beacon of democracy, hope, and opportunity to the rest of the world. At this moment, as we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our servicemembers must remain steadfast and strong. Our veterans have earned access to quality health care, affordable educational opportunities, and a chance to thrive once home. I am proud today to be a part of this Congress that has worked to honor our commitment to our Nation's veterans. In September, the Senate passed the Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill for 2008. The legislation provides nearly 65 billion dollars for the Veterans' Administration. Specifically, the bill makes substantial new investments to improve and strengthen health care for our brave veterans, making critical investments in medical services, including treatment of traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; funding for new claims processors to address the backlog of pending disability claims, and the investment in VA repair and maintenance necessary to prevent another Walter Reed type situation. These investments address key shortcomings in our veterans health care system. Although a minority in the Senate blocked our ability to send that legislation to the President's desk last week, we voted this past Thursday to provide temporary funding at the level the Bush administration requested. That amount is $4 billion less than what we in Congress originally intended. We remain committed to ensuring the VA receives the full $65 billion necessary to provide veterans the care and services they have earned. But just as important as the quality of care is access to care. My colleague, Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, and I have worked together to secure Federal funding for two new VA community-based clinics in Maryland--one at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's County and another at Fort Detrick in Frederick County. Not only will facilities like these help to reduce backlog and waiting times, they will allow more veterans to receive care close to home. We know, however, that we can and must do more for our Nation's veterans, for those who have given so much to our country. In addition to giving our veterans the benefits they deserve, we must continue to honor their service and keep the memory of our fallen soldiers alive. In that spirit, I introduced bipartisan legislation to grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, S. 1692, the only fraternal veterans' organization in the Unites States devoted exclusively to veterans of the Korean war. This bill unanimously passed the Senate, and I am hopeful it will soon pass the House. Should that happen, it will ensure that the nearly 1.2 million American veterans of the Korean war will receive the Federal recognition they deserve for their dedication and sacrifice. As elected leaders, we also have an obligation to act as good stewards for our military, exercising wise judgment for its use and providing the equipment, training, and materiel necessary for its success. My colleagues and I have made a good faith effort to act as those stewards. Just this past Thursday evening, Congress passed a spending bill that provides $460 billion for the Department of Defense, which is $40 billion above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Congress directed that money be spent on a pay raise and better medical care and benefits for our troops but also on procuring new equipment for our National Guard, increasing troop strength, and developing the Armed Forces and the tools necessary to engage in the very different types of conflicts we are confronted with in the world today. In his second inaugural address, a portion of which is engraved on our Veterans' Administration building, President Lincoln said: Let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. I see those words as a charge to us here in Government, laying out the grave and important work we have left to do. But I think these words can serve as a guide to all of us, in every community, today and every day, as we welcome and honor our returned and returning heroes and work toward a more perfect Union.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have the opportunity to serve on the Judiciary Committee, so I participated in the confirmation hearings on Judge Mukasey. I had a chance to personally meet with him. I had the chance to propound written questions and received written answers from him. Throughout this process, all of us have been looking for a person to be the next Attorney General who would be an Attorney General for the American people and not just the President of the United States. I cannot accept Judge Mukasey's answer on waterboarding. As my colleagues have said, waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates death by drowning. The original question that was asked Judge Mukasey on the second day of the confirmation hearings asked specifically about waterboarding. He didn't really answer the question. I must tell you, I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that question. He indicated that he may not have been familiar with what waterboarding is. I found that difficult to believe, but okay. He would have a chance to reflect upon it, be able to look at the historical information on waterboarding, and we asked him a written question followup as to whether he would comment on the interrogation technique of waterboarding. The question was asked. As waterboarding is generally known, it has been used for centuries. Judge Mukasey would not give us a direct answer as to whether waterboarding was torture and prohibited under U.S. law. Then we find out that Judge Mukasey says: Look, if Congress passes a statute that specifically outlaws waterboarding, I would enforce that statute. That is not necessary because waterboarding is already illegal. But that causes me some additional problems. Let me talk a little bit about the various issues because to me it is more than just waterboarding. We are talking about torture and the U.S. position on torture and the U.S. leadership in advancing human rights as the leader of the free world. I believe that reputation has been damaged. The United States historically has provided clarity and leadership on advancing human rights issues. There should be no doubt that waterboarding is torture and waterboarding is illegal. My colleagues have cited the torture statutes that have been passed by the Congress that make it clear that this kind of conduct would fall under the general definition of torture and is illegal in the United States. It is internationally condemned under the Geneva Conventions article 3. Our Constitution prohibits torture, and waterboarding would fall under that. We prosecuted Japanese officials after World War II as war criminals because they waterboarded American soldiers. We recently passed the McCain amendment that said that cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States would not be permitted. So there should be no doubt that waterboarding is torture and illegal. Admiral Hutson, who testified before the committee on a panel of outside witnesses, told us a little bit more about the historical aspects of waterboarding. He is a former Judge Advocate General, former senior uniformed legal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. He stated that waterboarding ``is the most iconic example of torture.'' It was devised during the Spanish Inquisition, and its use has been repudiated for centuries. This is not a new technique. It is well known. I don't believe we need to pass another statute. It is clear already. I have heard my colleagues say: All we have to do is pass a statute. Does that mean we are going to have to pass a statute that outlaws all types of specific uses of torture such as mock execution or forced nudity or attack dogs or the use of rack or thumb screws? Are we going to have to outlaw those specific techniques because it is not clear under our statute of torture that is illegal today? I hope not. I hope it is clear that these techniques are torture, as is waterboarding, and it is illegal. Admiral Hutson put it best when he said the Attorney General, as our chief law enforcement officer, has to be absolutely unequivocal as to what is torture and what is not. On torture, I want the President of the United States and the Attorney General to be very clear to the international community that the United States will not tolerate torture being used by the United States, waterboarding being used by the United States or used against any American. We have to be clear about that. I want our Government to use all resources at its disposal if a foreign agent attempts to torture an American, including waterboarding of an American. It has been said, but can you imagine the resolution that would be brought before this body if an American soldier was waterboarded by a foreign enemy, what we would be doing here, each one of us? I have my concern because I want our country to be clear on this issue. I have the President of the United States, in a signing statement on the McCain amendment, saying: Well, maybe torture doesn't apply to me. Now I have an Attorney General nominee who tells us that he can't tell us with precision that waterboarding is illegal? We do have international responsibilities. We are the leader of the free world. I am proud to represent this body in the Helsinki Commission as the chair, to speak up internationally on human rights issues. I find myself defending America. I am having a hard time on this issue as to where we stand on the issue of torture. Judge Mukasey is not responsible--let me make it clear because some of my colleagues have intimated this--for the Bush administration's policies on torture or on techniques to interrogate. He is not responsible. He had nothing to do with it. But I do believe we need to make sure he will stand up to the Bush administration to challenge these tactics if they, in fact, are illegal. Judge Mukasey is a good person. He is an honorable man. But on the critical issue of whether he will stand up to the President and give independent advice as to what is torture and what is not, I have my doubts. I will be voting against his confirmation. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the International Center Act to make it clear that Intelsat can continue to lease the land on which its headquarters building is located. Congress created Intelsat when it passed the Communications Satellite Act in the 1960s, intending it to be an international organization charged with establishing the world's first global satellite system. In 2000, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, which essentially mandated that Intelsat become a private company. The purpose of the ORBIT Act was to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite communication services for the benefit of consumers. Congress inadvertently overlooked some important changes that were required to complete this transformation and, as a result, had to make technical changes to correct these oversights. One technical correction still needs to be made, however: the International Center Act, ICA, must be amended to ensure that Intelsat's lease of the land on which its headquarters is located comports with the law. The U.S. Government owns this land. The State Department and Intelsat entered into a long-term lease for the land on which Intelsat built its headquarters many years ago. Intelsat constructed and fully owns the building. The lease was originally entered into pursuant to the ICA and has been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2006. The ICA, however, limits leases of this property to foreign governments and international organizations. At the time Intelsat leased the property and built its headquarters building, it was an international organization. When Congress mandated in the ORBIT Act that Intelsat privatize, it created a problem regarding Intelsat's land lease. Once Intelsat was no longer an international organization, it technically no longer satisfied the requirements of the ICA. In other words, Congress' action requiring Intelsat to privatize has left the company's right to continue to lease the land in question. But it was never the intent of the ORBIT Act to create this uncertainty with respect to the legality of Intelsat's land lease. The bill I am introducing amends the ICA to eliminate this uncertainty that the ORBIT Act created regarding the lease. It is necessary to ensure that the now privatized Intelsat can continue to lease the land. My bill would in no way alter the rights or obligations of the parties or any of the lease terms or conditions. It in no way expands any of Intelsat's rights under the existing lease. Nor does it change in any way the rights or powers that the State Department currently has under the lease. The Secretary of State will continue to have the same right to prohibit any use, development, occupancy, lease, or sublease as is currently authorized under the existing lease. My bill makes no substantive change in the relationship between the State Department and Intelsat. It merely eliminates the inconsistency between the lease and the ICA that was caused by Intelsat's privatization-- which Congress required when it passed the ORBIT Act. The State Department has approved this legislation to amend the ICA. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, too, and act on it expeditiously. 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 a bill to amend the International Center Act to make it clear that Intelsat can continue to lease the land on which its headquarters building is located. Congress created Intelsat when it passed the Communications Satellite Act in the 1960s, intending it to be an international organization charged with establishing the world's first global satellite system. In 2000, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, which essentially mandated that Intelsat become a private company. The purpose of the ORBIT Act was to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite communication services for the benefit of consumers. Congress inadvertently overlooked some important changes that were required to complete this transformation and, as a result, had to make technical changes to correct these oversights. One technical correction still needs to be made, however: the International Center Act, ICA, must be amended to ensure that Intelsat's lease of the land on which its headquarters is located comports with the law. The U.S. Government owns this land. The State Department and Intelsat entered into a long-term lease for the land on which Intelsat built its headquarters many years ago. Intelsat constructed and fully owns the building. The lease was originally entered into pursuant to the ICA and has been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2006. The ICA, however, limits leases of this property to foreign governments and international organizations. At the time Intelsat leased the property and built its headquarters building, it was an international organization. When Congress mandated in the ORBIT Act that Intelsat privatize, it created a problem regarding Intelsat's land lease. Once Intelsat was no longer an international organization, it technically no longer satisfied the requirements of the ICA. In other words, Congress' action requiring Intelsat to privatize has left the company's right to continue to lease the land in question. But it was never the intent of the ORBIT Act to create this uncertainty with respect to the legality of Intelsat's land lease. The bill I am introducing amends the ICA to eliminate this uncertainty that the ORBIT Act created regarding the lease. It is necessary to ensure that the now privatized Intelsat can continue to lease the land. My bill would in no way alter the rights or obligations of the parties or any of the lease terms or conditions. It in no way expands any of Intelsat's rights under the existing lease. Nor does it change in any way the rights or powers that the State Department currently has under the lease. The Secretary of State will continue to have the same right to prohibit any use, development, occupancy, lease, or sublease as is currently authorized under the existing lease. My bill makes no substantive change in the relationship between the State Department and Intelsat. It merely eliminates the inconsistency between the lease and the ICA that was caused by Intelsat's privatization-- which Congress required when it passed the ORBIT Act. The State Department has approved this legislation to amend the ICA. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, too, and act on it expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have the honor of serving on our Judiciary Committee, which is charged with the responsibility of recommending to this full body whether to confirm Judge Mukasey as the next Attorney General of the United States. In that capacity I have had the chance to sit through the confirmation hearings at which Judge Mukasey testified before our committee for 2 days. I chaired the third panel of independent witnesses and had a chance to question national experts in regard to the issues that I think are important and that must be met by our next Attorney General. I had the opportunity to personally meet with Judge Mukasey in my office to go over the priorities of the Department of Justice and how he would try to reverse some of the problems in that Department. I had the chance to specifically ask written questions to the nominee and got responses on those written questions. I must tell you, first, I do believe Judge Mukasey is an honorable person. He has a distinguished record of public service, and he would represent a refreshing change within the Department of Justice. He has the ability to restore morale and traditional professionalism, particularly among the career attorneys at the Department of Justice. But one of the critical issues in evaluating who should be our next Attorney General is whether that individual will exercise the independence that is so required by the Attorney General of the United States; in short, whether he will represent the people of our Nation and not just the President of the United States. We all know the record of the former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. We know about how partisan politics interfered with the selection and promotion of career attorneys at the Department of Justice. We all now know the story of the firing of the U.S. attorneys and how it appears that partisan politics in criminal investigations-- criminal investigations--may have interfered with the operation of the Department of Justice. So independence is a critically important factor in the next person to be the Attorney General of the United States. Because of Judge Mukasey's response to the questions relating to waterboarding, I have concern about his independence. Judge Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding is torture. In reply to questions that were asked, he responded that he would use independent judgment as to what constitutes torture. He said he would prosecute anyone who violated our laws. He said, in fact, if his views conflicted with those of the President of the United States in a fundamental way, and if he were unable to reconcile those differences, he would leave the office rather than compromise his views. Let me read three questions I asked of the Attorney General nominee. I asked: As Attorney General, would you order the Justice Department to prosecute individuals who, under 18 U.S.C 2340 and 2340(a), committed acts of torture? Judge Mukasey's answer: The Department of Justice has an obligation to bring prosecutions to enforce all valid criminal statutes and, as I explained during the hearing, torture is prohibited by federal law. I then asked the nominee: Do you believe that any ``exceptional circumstances'' exist that would justify torture? His answer was no. I then asked: As Attorney General, would you authorize the use of torture in any circumstance? Once again, his answer was no. I cannot understand why Judge Mukasey will not tell us clearly that waterboarding is illegal under our laws. The fact that he leaves open that waterboarding could be permitted as an interrogation technique has me very concerned. Judge Mukasey now acknowledges he understands what is generally meant by waterboarding. I gave him the benefit of the doubt during the hearing. He said: I am not familiar with the technique. That is difficult to understand but--OK. He then had time to reflect and learn about waterboarding as generally understood, waterboarding that has been condemned for literally hundreds of years--since the Spanish Inquisition. He now understands what is generally meant be waterboarding. But during the confirmation hearing and in follow-up questions he would not rule out the potential use. Questions asked during the confirmation hearing did not ask about a specific technique that may have been authorized by the President for interrogating detainees. That is not what was asked. The question that was asked is about waterboarding as generally understood. It was not a hypothetical question. Waterboarding has been condemned by the United States. The United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding as a war crime after World War II. We brought charges as war crimes for those who would try to use that torture technique against Americans. In 2005, the Congress passed the McCain amendment which prohibits the use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment and punishment of persons under the detention, custody, and control of the U.S. Government. We also then required that the Army must use the field manual while interrogating detainees. In 2006, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibited waterboarding. During our final panel of witnesses, I had a chance to question Admiral Hutson, who has a very distinguished record of service to our country-- former Navy Judge Advocate General, senior uniformed legal adviser to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. So we had a chance to talk about waterboarding. He said waterboarding is one of the most iconic examples of torture. It was devised during the Spanish Inquisition. Its use has been repudiated for centuries. Admiral Hutson said we look to the Attorney General as our chief law enforcement officer. He has to be absolutely unequivocal as to what torture is and is not. We need clarity from our principal leaders. So it appears to me that Judge Mukasey was yielding to the White House pressure on waterboarding in answering the questions of our committee. I find that very troubling. I am looking for an Attorney General who will exercise independent judgment as to what the law of our country is, and that no one is above our law. On November 1, 2007, President Bush implied if Judge Mukasey answered the questions on waterboarding, he would give ``terrorists a window into which techniques we may use and which ones we may not use.'' I want the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States to tell the world, unequivocally, that the United States will not permit the use of torture. I am not clear about the President. We all remember his signing statements to the McCain amendment, which leaves questions as to whether torture could be allowed under some circumstances. Now we are not clear, with Judge Mukasey's answers, as to whether waterboarding could be permitted under some circumstances as a form of torture. I think it is absolutely clear our leaders must make it apparent to all the United States will not use torture, nor will it ever tolerate any other country using torture or any individuals using torture against an American. If a foreign agent attempts to use waterboarding, as it is generally understood, or any other form of torture against an American, I want our country to use every means at its disposal to hold that offender accountable. On November 1 the President also said Judge Mukasey could not ``go on the record about the details of a classified program he has not been briefed on.'' I agree with the President of the United States. Judge Mukasey was not asked about specific practices of a classified program. He was requested to give information about waterboarding as generally understood. He had an obligation to answer that question. The 9/11 Commission, in one of its recommendations to Congress, said the United States should engage its friends to develop a common approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. Instead, we have gone it alone. We have not sought the advice of the international community, and we are paying a heavy price for the manner in which we are proceeding. We are losing our support internationally as it relates to how we treat detainees. We are losing our ability as an international leader, as the leader in fighting for human rights advancements throughout the world. We are losing our leadership and credibility on this issue. I serve as the Senate cochair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and delegate to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE-Helsinki process was started in 1975 between the countries in Europe, Central Asia, Canada, and the United States. It is best known for its human rights dimensions. It fought during the Soviet Union days, behind the Iron Curtain--fought to open the process and to defend human rights and to stand against torture. Today we are fighting in the emerging democracies to make it clear the human rights of all people must be respected, and torture cannot be permitted while we are being questioned by the Organization for Security for Cooperation in Europe as to what we are doing. I am having a hard time finding the right answers, particularly on the issue of torture. As I said at the beginning, Judge Mukasey is a good person and an honest man. On the critical issue of standing up to this administration as an independent adviser against torture, I have my doubts. For that reason, I will be voting against his confirmation in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, quite frankly, I don't understand the objections of the President of the United States to the Children's Health Insurance Program we are considering here today. I hope we all understand the importance of this program and how important it is for children in America to have health insurance. We know, and we have a lot of studies which show, that children who have health insurance are far more likely to be immunized against diseases, far more likely to have the benefits of preventive health care, are far more likely to get the type of health care intervention that will lead to healthier lives. Quite frankly, that will save us money because they are going to be healthier and need less health care during their lifetime. We also know that children who have health insurance are far more likely to have better attendance records at school. The list goes on and on and on. So it makes sense for children to have health insurance. The legislation we are considering is aimed at working families-- working families that cannot afford the cost of health insurance. These are families playing according to the rules. They are doing everything right, but they can't afford the cost of insuring the family with health insurance. A family from Baltimore came and testified before the Presiding Officer's committee for the reauthorization of the CHIP program. The mother explained that having children's health insurance--having the Maryland program--that mother no longer has to wake up in the morning and decide whether the child is sick enough to see a doctor. She doesn't have to worry that if her child is playing on a playground and gets hurt, how they will be able to afford that bill. Our children are the innocent casualties of the failure of our country to have universal health coverage--universal health insurance. They are the innocent casualties. The bill we have before us tries to do something about it. This is a bill that is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill; it is a bill that has been compromised in the best sense of the legislative process: Democrats and Republicans working together to produce a bill that could be supported not just for 1 year but supported now for a decade. It is a bill that builds upon private insurance. That was important to get the consensus among Democrats and Republicans. It is a bill that is administered by our States; it is not administered in Washington. This is a program that our States administer. I am proud of the State of Maryland MCHIP program, the Maryland Children's Health Insurance Program. It is designed in Maryland to meet the needs of our children, and the Federal Government is a partner in helping to pay for the program. This is a bill that has been worked in the best sense of the legislative process, by Democrats and Republicans. It is an affordable program. I have heard the President of the United States talk about the affordability. This program is affordable. First, as I mentioned earlier, it saves health care dollars. Children who have access to preventive health care are going to save us money over the long term in health care expenditures. Secondly, this bill is paid for. I know that is not always the case with legislation we pass, but this bill will not add a penny to the deficit. In fact, I would argue that this bill will actually help us in balancing the Federal budget. It is fully paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax, but economists tell us that as a result of the increase in the cigarette tax, there are going to be millions of people who will either stop smoking or will never start smoking--particularly young people who won't start smoking now because of the extra cost in buying a pack of cigarettes. The Presiding Officer and I know how much that will save in our health care system for someone who doesn't smoke. That is not figured into the cost estimates here, the savings we will have to our health care system because of the number of children who will never start smoking. In Maryland, this bill will mean that Maryland will not only be able to continue the 100,000 children who are currently enrolled in the program--because if we don't pass this bill, we can't continue our current commitment--but will add 40,000 more children to the Maryland Children's Health Care Program. That is good. We need to do that. Let me remind you that, in Maryland, we have 800,000 people without health insurance. That is not just children, that is the whole community that has no health insurance. Obviously, we want to reduce that number. This bill makes a small step in dealing with the gap we have in America where people have no health insurance, but it is an important step because it deals with children. We can certainly do that. I wish to talk about one part of the program that, quite frankly, hasn't gotten a lot of attention, and it is a very important part, which is the reason we need a reauthorization bill. In a reauthorization bill, we can expand the program to deal with the needs in our communities. This bill covers required dental services, so all the children in the Children's Health Insurance Program will receive dental insurance coverage. C. Everett Koop, a former Surgeon General of the United States, says, ``There is no health without oral health.'' Again, he is a former Surgeon General. The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry said dental decay is the most chronic childhood disease among children in the United States--five times more likely than asthma. Regarding the vulnerability of our children, of those children between the ages of 6 to 8, 50 percent have tooth decay. If you are poor and live in poverty, you are two times more likely to have a problem with your teeth. If you happen to be a minority--if you are an African American, 39 percent of them have untreated tooth decay. If you live in a rural part of your State--Mr. President, I know your State and my State have rural communities--only 11 percent of our population ever visit a dentist. We have a problem with dental care in this country. Twenty-five million Americans live today in areas that have inadequate dental care services. So we can do better, and this bill moves us in the right direction. There is a direct relationship between general health and oral health. We know that. One example: Plaque has been directly related to problems with heart disease. We know there is a relationship there, and there is a lot to be learned. I am going to try to put a face on this issue because we talk about what it means to have 25 million people who don't have access to dental services. I will tell you about one child, Deamonte Driver. He lived in Prince George's County in my State, which is about 6 miles from here. He was a 12-year-old who had problems with his teeth. His mom tried to get him to see a dentist and could not find one who would treat him. He sort of fell through the cracks. Finally, he was suffering from horrible headaches, so his mother did what many parents do with children who don't have health insurance-- took the child to the emergency room. One of the reasons we want to see the CHIP bill passed is to get children less expensive preventive health care so they don't have to use emergency rooms as primary care facilities. He went to the emergency room, and he was admitted. It seemed as if he didn't just have tooth decay, he had an abscessed tooth that went untreated. No dentist would see him. He had no insurance. They performed an operation and tried to alleviate his pain and save his life. They performed a second operation and spent a quarter of a million dollars, which we paid for because it was uncompensated care. That boy died because, in 2007, we have no program in this country to provide that child an $80 tooth extraction and for children to be able to see dentists. Mr. President, one of the really good things about this bill before us--our reauthorization bill--is we have a chance to do something about that. We have a chance to do something about the Deamonte Drivers of our communities, to make sure our innocent children get the type of attention they so much deserve. What does this bill do for dental care? It has a guaranteed dental benefit, coverage of dental services necessary to prevent diseases, promote oral health, restore oral structure to health and function, and treat emergency conditions. That is what is covered in this legislation which we will vote on in a few hours. How do you meet that? It is interesting. The States are giving benchmarks. You can do it if you have a benefit like ours, our Federal plan, in which dental benefits are included. The State can meet the requirements by providing the benefits Federal employees get. They can take the dental benefits in their State employees' plan and use that as a model or they can take the most popular commercial plan in their State for enrollment for Medicaid enrollees and use that as their benchmark. So when you are using commercial insurance as the benchmark for what children should be able to have insurance to deal with their dental needs, to me, that is the way we should be going. It is in this bill. This is even more important. The bill provides for dental education for parents of newborns. When babies are born, they don't have teeth, so why is that important? One out of every five children between the ages of 2 and 4 has tooth decay in their baby teeth. This bill provides for education so that parents know about the risks of oral health and know how to deal with oral health as their babies grow up. It also makes it easier to locate a participating provider. Let me go back to Deamonte Driver again, from Prince George's County. His parents sought the help of a social worker, Laurie Norris, who tried to find a dentist who would treat Deamonte Driver. That social worker made over 20 phone calls to try to find a dentist who would treat Deamonte Driver--without success. Think about the time that went into that. Think about how many parents must be so discouraged in trying to get help for their children. Well, this legislation before us today, which we will vote on in a couple of hours, does something about that. It requires that the Web page on the Children's Health Insurance Program list the coverage available by State for dental benefits under the CHIP program, plus the list of providers who will provide that care. So if this bill becomes law, with one phone call or one click of the mouse, a parent will be able to know exactly what the benefits are and exactly which dentist that parent can contact in order to get his or her child the type of care they need. I have heard my colleagues talk a lot about this Children's Health Insurance Program, how important it is to the health of the people in our communities. I know how important it is in Maryland. I am proud of our program at the State level, which has the cooperation and help of the Federal Government as a partner. It is a bipartisan bill, developed by Democrats and Republicans, and the bill makes sense from the point of view of proper allocation of money in our health care system and will save us money--all of those things. At the end of the day, it does speak about priorities. What is important? Where are our priorities? What do we want to be known for? Whom did we stand up for? This bill spends $35 billion over a 5-year period, and it is fully paid for. We can all make our own comparisons, but I think about the cost in Iraq, which, over a 3-month period, is costing more than this bill, and it is not paid for, but we seem to always have the money for that. And we come up with excuses to oppose this legislation. I thank the leaders who were responsible for bringing this legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope we can get the type of support we need to pass this, notwithstanding the objections of the President. I always hold out hope that President Bush will sign a bill--a bill that will allow the people of Maryland and throughout this country to have adequate care so that we don't have to again see a story such as Deamonte Driver's--a child who died because we could not find a way to get him basic dental care. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we need to invest in America's infrastructure. Today, America invests only three-tenths of 1 percent of our gross domestic product in public buildings and roads and bridges, ports and railroads. This abysmal figure is the lowest rate in the recent history of public investments dating back to at least the 1960s, and maybe before that. In Minnesota earlier this year, we saw some of the tragic consequences of the failure to invest in America. I am glad to see the Sununu amendment was not agreed to. That amendment would have put a cap on our subsidies that Amtrak can utilize on its routes. In truth, however, such an amendment would put an end to all of Amtrak's long-distance trains within 5 years. By eliminating all of these essential rail services, the amendment would also lead to the slow but certain death of America's regional service as well. The Nation receives extraordinary public benefits from mass transportation systems. They take thousands of cars off of our congested highways. They take tons of pollutants out of the air we breathe. They move people more efficiently into and out of our most congested areas. Such an amendment and the veto threat issued by the White House both are based on wrong assumptions--that we should be taking management flexibility and financial resources away from Amtrak. We should be doing exactly the opposite. We need to invest in Amtrak, just as we need to invest in our bridges, buildings, ports, and other transit systems. Amtrak operates approximately 90 trains daily in Maryland, mostly on the Amtrak-owned Northeast corridor, through Baltimore, Penn Station, and New Carrollton. In addition to the Northeast corridor service, including the Acela Express, Regional, and Metroliner trains, Amtrak operates five long-distance trains through Maryland, as well as two regional trains. More than 1.7 million passengers board and disembark in Maryland's Amtrak stations every year. Those numbers are increasing. Amtrak's fiscal 2007 ridership topped 25.8 million. That is the fifth year in a row that Amtrak has seen a growth in passenger service. So our constituents want this service. They need this service. It is in our national interest to promote a more efficient passenger rail system. It also set a record for the highest ridership that Amtrak has seen since the National Railroad Passenger Corporation was enacted in 1971. Amtrak employs more than 2,500 Marylanders, brings good jobs that range from corporate executives and accountants to trainmen and the men and women who operate and maintain the tracks. Amtrak operates weekday MARC commuter rail service on the Northeast corridor, including Washington, Baltimore, and Perryville, under a contract with the Maryland Transit Administration. It has a shared capital agreement with the State. Both Amtrak and the State of Maryland invest jointly in the improvements. The joint benefit program included the investment of $28 million by the State in 2006. Amtrak is part of the infrastructure backbone of Maryland. It carries millions of passengers, employs thousands of workers, and benefits all of us, both economically and environmentally. Let me underscore that. Transit service is important for quality of life, so people can get from one place to another. It is certainly a lot easier if you are trying to get from Baltimore to New York to get on a train. It takes you right to downtown New York. You don't have to worry about going through the security of an airport. It is easier for people to use the rail service. But you are also helping our environment. It is a friendlier way for our energy and dealing with the environmental risks of transportation today to our environment. I was at a hearing yesterday regarding global climate change. Rail service will help us in dealing with the challenges of our environment. So it is in our environmental interest. It is also in our economic interest. It helps us to become more energy efficient. We import too much oil. We are dependent upon countries with policies with which we disagree. Amtrak is part of the solution by improving rail service in this country. So we will be helping the security of America, the economy of America, and certainly the environmental issues as well. Mr. President, we need to rethink our approach to America's critical infrastructure. We need to reinvest in Amtrak. It is an investment in America that is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I thank the leadership in the Senate for bringing this issue forward. It will have my support. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 2 days ago the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the Health Impacts of Global Warming. Our lead witness was Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Administrator for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Gerberding was invited to testify by Chairman Boxer because the Director is a highly respected leader in the public health arena. The committee wanted to have the benefit of her expertise as we grapple with one of the most important issues of our time, global climate change. As everyone now knows, Dr. Gerberding's written testimony for the hearing was severely edited, with whole pages deleted. The White House says that some of her written comments did not represent the consensus view of the scientific community. The very first line that the White House censored in Dr. Gerberding's testimony was this: ``Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth's climate is changing.'' If that statement doesn't represent the overwhelming sentiment of the world's scientific community, I don't know what does. I find it astounding that this simple, sober statement of scientific fact would be censored. These continuing efforts to silence the scientific community would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high. In the censored portions of her testimony, Dr. Gerberding lists them for us: direct effects of heat; health effects related to extreme weather events; air pollution- related health effects; allergic diseases; water- and food-borne infectious diseases; vector-borne and zoonotic diseases; food and water scarcity, at least for some populations; mental health problems; and long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects. Mr. President, I found Dr. Gerberding's oral testimony to be excellent. She answered my questions directly and without qualifications. Her responses to the other Senators on the panel appeared to be equally candid. Oral testimony is always limited by time, and committees rely heavily on the written comments of witnesses to provide a more complete perspective. Because of votes on the Senate floor on Tuesday morning, we were especially constrained for time. I regret that we did not have the benefit of Dr. Gerberding's full statement prior to the hearing. Certainly, they would have added a more complete picture of the human health impacts associated with global warming than she was able to convey in the highly censored version that was transmitted to the committee. The American people and the U.S. Senate have a right to know what our top health officials have to say on this critical issue. Today I will be submitting to the Record a full copy of the testimony that Dr. Gerberding had intended to offer. Her views are critical to this debate. Science shouldn't be silenced. And today we will make sure Dr. Gerberding's words are heard. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of her draft testimony be printed into today's Record. The American people can read for themselves what the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had to say before the White House censors tried to silence her.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, there are still some requests on our side for time. I would hope we would have a chance--

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will be speaking for about 10 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will be speaking in opposition to the nomination.

Mr. CARDIN. I understand that. I wonder if we would follow the normal practice of allowing those in opposition to be able to speak in regular order rather than having to wait for the time.

Mr. CARDIN. Yes, I would prefer to have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Specter for the courtesy. I notice Senator Leahy is not on the floor, and I appreciate my colleague from Pennsylvania organizing the debate on the floor. I appreciate that. This is a unique body, the Senate of the United States. One of our most important responsibilities is the advice and consent on Presidential appointments on the confirmation of Federal judges. The Constitution envisions that we will use independent judgment in order to make these decisions. Article III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution gives us the power to confirm Federal judges. I know all of my colleagues know these are lifetime appointments, so this is our one chance in order to evaluate those who will serve as Federal judges. We are talking about the U.S. Court of Appeals. For most Federal cases, this will be the final decision on a case that is brought in the Federal court. Very few in percentages of the cases reach the Supreme Court of the United States. So the Court of Appeals is responsible for much of our laws in this country as far as the final judicial determination. When I sought to become a Member of this body, I went over with the people of Maryland the standards I would use in trying to decide whether to vote to confirm a judge. I talked about judicial temperament and experience, but I also talked about a standard that I think is very important, which is a judge's or potential judge's passion for the Constitution of this country in order to protect every individual. I think it is important that we take a look at that, particularly when we talk about an individual who will serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals. I have sat in the confirmation hearings. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. I had a chance to listen to Judge Southwick. I had a chance to listen to the questions that were posed back and forth. I must tell my colleagues I cannot support this confirmation. I will vote against it, and I would like to give the reasons why. Senator Specter talked about some of the opinions that Judge Southwick participated in or some of his rulings, and I think that is what we should be looking at. For Judge Southwick, we do have an idea about his passion for the Constitution and what his priorities will be by looking at the type of cases he ruled on, the opinions he joined, and the opinions he wrote. So let me talk about the two opinions Senator Specter raises, because I think they are important opinions in order to get some insight as to this judge's passion for the Constitution. The 1998 case of Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services was an important case. It was very offensive to not just the minority community but the entire community. The racial term that was used should never be used, as Senator Leahy said, in the workplace or anyplace else. The dissent of that opinion, of that decision, got it right, where it said that the racial epithet is inherently offensive and its use establishes the intent to offend. Unfortunately, that was the minority opinion in that court. On appeal it was overturned, but Judge Southwick joined the majority. The rationale in the majority opinion I think is important, because it speaks to what Judge Southwick used to reach his conclusions. In that opinion he said the absence of evidence of a near race riot, the remark is too inconsequential to serve as a basis of dismissal. I find that very offensive. I think we do have to be held accountable to where we allow our name to be added. Fortunately, as I said, that was corrected, but it took an appellate court to do that. In 2001, we have S.B. v. L.W. where a 12-year-old child is taken away from her mother. It was done because she was a lesbian. The language in the opinion is very offensive. It talks about a homosexual lifestyle, words that I think we all know bring out bigotry in our society. But Judge Southwick went further in that case. He joined a concurring opinion that said your sexual orientation is a matter of choice and any adult may choose any activity in which to engage. That person is not thereby relieved of the consequences of his or her choice. No wonder Judge Southwick is being challenged by many respected national groups. Upon questioning within our committee on confirmation, I didn't get a sense that there was a retraction by Judge Southwick of these decisions. He stuck by the decisions. At the confirmation hearing, Senator Durbin asked him a pretty simple question. He asked him a question about whether during his life or career, he ever took an unpopular point of view on behalf of those who were powerless or vulnerable and needed someone to stand up for their rights when it was not a popular position. That, to me, is a softball question: When did you stand up for someone else's rights? Judge Southwick couldn't think of a single example throughout his entire career. So there is no wonder that there is concern about whether this potential judge on the court of appeals will protect all of our rights as the cases come before him and why there is so much concern about his confirmation. But I want to go on to another issue that Senator Leahy raised, and that is the issue of diversity. Diversity is very important. We expect all of our citizens will live according to the rule of law and will have confidence that the laws we make and the Court's rulings on those laws will be fair to all communities, so they have a right to expect that there will be equal access to participation in all branches of Government. Looking at the record in the Fifth Circuit, there is reason for concern. The Fifth Circuit is Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas-- the highest percentage of minority population in the country of any circuit outside of the District of Columbia--44 percent minority. Of the 10 nominees President Bush has submitted to the Federal bench from Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit--10--none have been African American. Mississippi has the largest percentage of African Americans of any State in the Nation: 36 percent. Of the 19 Federal judges on the Fifth Circuit, only one is African American. These are important issues to the people of that circuit and to the people of this country. So there are many organizations that are opposing Judge Southwick's nomination. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of opposition and concern from the J. Franklin Bourne Bar Association and the National Organization for Women, the Legal Momentum, and the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I was under the impression that time was divided between the proponents and opponents.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am going to quote very briefly from the letter from the Bourne Bar Association where it says: A representative democracy is a must in a free society, and as such the residents of the State of Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana are deserving of a Federal judiciary that reflects the composition of their respective citizenry. Ten nominees from this area; none African American. The National Organization for Women states: Judge Southwick has a disturbing record and an appalling lack of sensitivity on women's rights, racial justice, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action: Judge Southwick has demonstrated his disdain for equal rights and equal protection under the law. So I am not convinced Judge Southwick is the best that we can find for the court of appeals. I am not going to give the President a blank check, and I will vote against the confirmation of Judge Southwick. Once again, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his courtesy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is offered by Senator Smith and myself. Refugees who come to this country are entitled to loans to help them defray the cost of transportation and to resettlement assistance once they arrive. I am for that. This amendment provides similar benefits to those who qualify for Special Immigration Visas. These are Iraqi and Afghan translators who have helped us, and now, in risk of their lives, are allowed to come to a safe haven, the United States. This amendment extends a helping hand to those who have helped us under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. As I indicated, refugees are entitled to this benefit for up to 7 years. This provides benefits for only up to 6 months for the SIV holders. It is carefully crafted. It has been scored at not adding additional costs to the budget. I think this is a matter of basic fairness. I urge my colleagues to support the Cardin-Smith amendment.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3396, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3325

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the fiscal year 2008 Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Some call this legislation the most significant appropriations bill we will consider as it touches the lives of every single American. Each American citizen has the right to basic education, adequate healthcare, and access to employment opportunities. In providing funding across three major agencies, we are ensuring that our citizens have every opportunity to reach their maximum potential. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a few of the bill's major provisions. American workers deserve every opportunity to provide for their families. Investment in training, education, and employment services leads to good jobs that provide self-sustainability for workers and their families. This was the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act and is what the funding provided for in this bill accomplishes through various job training programs. This bill acknowledges the value of training and employment services by continuing to fund adult employment and training, youth training and dislocated worker assistance programs. This bill also provides critical funding for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. NIH funds significant health research at over 3,000 institutions throughout the U.S. and around the world. While increased funding provided in this bill is a good start, we can, and must, do more. NIH funding supports research to develop and find cures for a myriad of health issues, including cancer, diabetes, stroke, and mental illness. These are significant health concerns facing Americans today. As you are aware, NIH is headquartered in Bethesda, MD, where more than 18,000 are employed. So it is especially important to me, a Senator from Maryland, that we give all of these individuals the resources they need to improve and save lives through health research. I commend the Appropriations Committee for supporting this agency with a 3.3 percent increase to the overall NIH budget. However, if we expect America to remain a leader in medical advancements and technologies, we must be committed to providing researchers the resources they need to move forward. I am committed to that goal and urge my colleagues to remain vigilant, as well. This bill provides a $125 million increase above the administration's budget request for the Social Security Administration's, SSA, administrative expenses and for that I am grateful. However, that increase does not adequately address SSA's serious backlog issue. It is no secret that the Social Security Administration's resources are stretched thin. Disability claims are arising at an alarming rate. Currently, over three-quarters of a million individuals are waiting for a hearing decision as pending hearings have increased to a record 752,103. Further, the time that an applicant must wait for a hearing continues to rise, currently averaging 523 days. Compounding the crisis, Medicare reform legislation passed by Congress has increased SSA's responsibilities. Field offices average over 850,000 visitors a week. Meanwhile, SSA continues to downsize its labor force. Further, we hear a lot of talk about fraud, waste, and abuses within the SSA. I submit that we will never get a handle on the problem unless we provide adequate resources to address it. We in Maryland are fortunate to have the Social Security Administration Headquarters in Baltimore. By not adequately addressing the SSA backlogs, not only are we doing harm to the hundreds of thousands of individuals that, due to health circumstances beyond their control, can no longer support themselves, we are also tying the hands of the hard-working individuals assisting them. Again, I commend the Appropriations Committee for providing additional funding SSA administrative expenses but note that the agency needs additional funding to avoid further staff reductions and an increasing disability backlog. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their support of my amendment establishing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Health and Human Services should maintain ``deemed status'' coverage under the Medicare Program for clinical trials that are federally funded or reviewed. Under current policy, trials that are federally funded or reviewed by institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, received ``deemed status'' and were not subjected to additional review to be eligible for reimbursement. This policy has worked well for 7 years. Prior to 2000, too few seniors participated in clinical trials. One reason for this disparity was Medicare's reimbursement policy. Because Medicare was modeled on the indemnity health insurance policies, it did not pay for treatment considered ``experimental'' in nature, and so often denied reimbursement for the routine patient care costs associated with clinical trials. Many seniors could not afford to pay these costs themselves, and so they were by and large excluded from these trials. CMS has recently considered changing this policy, requiring trial sponsors to undergo a process certifying that they have met 13 separate criteria to qualify for Medicare coverage. This new policy has the potential to reverse the progress that has been made over the past 7 years by making it much more difficult for trials to qualify. Seniors' participation in clinical trials serves two vital functions. First it affords many seniors with serious illnesses their only hope for lifesaving treatment. Second, it is key to researchers' efforts to determine the effectiveness of therapies for seniors. Since this issue has come to light, I have heard from hundreds of patients and providers across the country who agree that we must continue to remove access barriers to innovative healthcare treatments for our seniors. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support on this important matter. The Appropriations Committee is committed to funding significant programs that address real issues that touch the heart and home of Americans. This includes some innovative programs in my home State of Maryland, such as: funding provided through this bill will allow the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, CBF, in collaboration with Living Classrooms Foundation, LCF, to continue providing students with rich, meaningful field and classroom programs focusing on the natural and cultural history of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Funding will allow CBF and LCF to reach approximately 700 teachers, and 87,000 underserved students. The bill funds KIPP Ujima Village Academy in Baltimore through its parent organization. KIPP Ujima opened its doors in the summer of 2002 with its first class of fifth graders, and now serves 300 fifth through eighth grades. Over 99 percent of its students are African American, and 87 percent qualify for Federal free or reduced-price meals program. KIPP Ujima is the highest performing public school serving middle grades in Baltimore City, as measured by the 2006 Maryland State Assessment. On that exam, 100 percent of seventh and eighth graders scored proficient or advanced in mathematics, achieving the highest math scores in the State of Maryland. Carroll County Youth Service Bureau, CCYSB, provides a continuum of community-based mental health services for children, adults, and families throughout Carroll County. CCYSB uses a multidisciplinary approach to deliver prevention, intervention and treatment services in the least restrictive and most cost-effective manner. Funding provided in the bill will allow CCYSB to reach more underserved patients in need of mental health services. The bill also provides funding for equipment and technology in a number of Maryland healthcare facilities, including St. Agnes Hospital, Mercy Medical Center, Northwest Hospital, Kennedy-Krieger, Lifebridge, and Holy Cross. The technology and equipment provided will allow these facilities to better detect, diagnose, and treat patients who suffer traumatic illnesses and injuries. I thank Senator Harkin, Senator Specter, and their staffs for all of their hard work to develop a bill that addresses many other basic rights that all Americans deserve: education, employment, and health care.