Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein amendment that would eliminate at long last the subsidies for ethanol, corn-based ethanol in America. In a little while, we are going to have a chance to vote, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment. I thank the leader for making time on the calendar so we can vote on this issue, and I hope a majority will support this amendment. I know we have a 60-vote threshold, and I hope we would be able to express, at long last, that it is time to eliminate this subsidy. This is an issue that has brought together an unusual and broad-based support among those who are seeking to eliminate this subsidy. We have taxpayer advocates who understand this is a subsidy that taxpayers should not be underwriting. We have hunger and development organizations which recognize the impact on ethanol on the corn crop is affecting the affordability of food not only here, but it is having a major impact around our entire country. We have agricultural groups, including the Maryland poultry growers and integrators, who support the repeal of the subsidy for ethanol. That is because the poultry industry understands the impact the ethanol subsidies are having on the poultry industry. I will talk a little bit more about that. We have free market groups that say: Look, let the market work. There is no need for us to interfere with the free market. We have religious organizations. We have environmental groups--and I will talk a little bit more about that--that although the ethanol subsidy was originally put on, we thought, for a positive environmental impact, it is having the reverse impact. Because of the amount of energy that is necessary to produce ethanol, all the good we thought was being done has been lost. Then we have those who are budget hawks who are saying: Look, we are being asked to do a lot to bring the budget into balance. There are a lot of hard decisions. Why don't we at least eliminate these unnecessary subsidies in an attempt to bring our budget more into balance? The wide range of interest groups supporting this issue has fostered wide bipartisan support for repealing this credit for ethanol. So we have an opportunity to bring together a lot of different groups, to work across party lines, to start the process, to bring our agricultural programs into better balance, to have a better energy policy, to help create jobs, and also to deal with our budget deficit. According to the GAO, this credit ``is a wasteful and duplicative'' federally funded support program for an industry that already enjoys a mandated market share under the renewable fuels standard. Since 2006, the renewable fuels standard has required oil companies to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into our gasoline. So when we repeal this credit, when we repeal the break the ethanol industry receives, it will not impact on the market from the point of view of the amount of ethanol that will be available. Especially during times of fiscal constraint, it simply does not make sense to continue giving billions of dollars to a robust and thriving industry from which American consumers see little benefit. We have a huge budget deficit. The Presiding Officer understands that. I understand that. The people of Ohio, the people of Maryland understand that. We need to look at ways we can bring the budget deficit down. Repealing unnecessary subsidies should clearly be at the top of our list. With more than 40 percent of America's corn crop going into fuel, the increased demand has made feed extraordinarily expensive. Let me share with you what I have heard from my poultry farmers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The poultry industry is an important part of the economic fiber of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The poultry industry translates into jobs for people who live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It is extremely important. Yet the single largest cost factor for the poultry industry is the corn feed that goes into producing the poultry--feeding the chickens. With such a high cost factor, the arbitrary demand factor for corn as a result of ethanol has raised the cost of producing poultry in my State, costing us jobs. The elimination of this subsidy will help us maintain and expand jobs in the State of Maryland and around the region. While corn-based ethanol may be a homegrown fuel, it is an extremely energy and water resource-intensive process to produce. So where we thought we were producing an energy source that would be favorable to our Nation, it takes so much energy to produce the ethanol that at the end of the day, we have used imported energy to produce our own homegrown energy source, and we do not benefit from the point of view of having energy independence in America. The energy savings are minimal when you take into consideration how much energy it takes to produce ethanol, not to mention that ethanol burns less efficiently in our engines than regular fuel, and the higher the concentration, the fewer the miles per gallon the driver gets. The result is, we use more energy, when we were trying to save energy. It does not make sense over the long term. A tax break for ethanol is a gift to the oil companies and the grain producers--a gift that actually harms American consumers and our environment. Corn is a staple food commodity that is found in millions of American products from food additives to livestock feed. More than one-third of our Nation's corn is now going into the production of ethanol. So this is causing a problem in our food stock--the amount of corn that goes into ethanol in America. It is time we eliminate this arbitrary subsidy that is causing a disruption, making it more difficult for people to afford their basic products. The increased demand for corn is raising the price of everything from eggs to milk to soft drinks to chicken to breakfast cereals, and it is the American consumer who is being hit the hardest with these higher food prices. Using corn to make ethanol also harms our environment. Once corn is harvested, it is a costly and energy-intensive process to turn it into ethanol fuel fit for commercial sale. We need to develop sustainable, renewable biofuels--those that are not derived from a food-based commodity such as corn--to make our Nation less dependent on foreign energy sources. I support developing the next generation of algae or cellulosic biofuels. I do not support providing billions of dollars for a fuel product that is driving up the cost of food, harming our environment, and doing little to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. It is time we stop subsidizing Big Oil to produce a fuel they will produce with or without an additional $6 billion a year of subsidy. I hope my colleagues also support the Feinstein amendment that would eliminate this subsidy so we can eliminate this unnecessary subsidy, help make food more affordable for the people of our Nation, and help us develop an energy policy that does make sense for America, that will help our security and help our economy. For all of those reasons, I will support the Feinstein amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for his consideration, and I compliment him for the excellent work he has done thus far in working to strengthen the real estate market and the economy in general during the economic downturn. I am sure the Senator will be pleased to learn that HUD committed to me and my staff that it would deliver within the next 2 to 3 weeks an analysis of how many borrowers are affected by the current interest policy and are required to pay excess interest. The last data published are from 2000 to 2003 but indicate what is at stake. Total excess interest payments from that period, according to the National Association of Realtors, amounted to more than $1.3 billion. If hundreds of thousands of FHA borrowers could save hundreds of millions of dollars in excess interest payments each year, those savings could provide an economic stimulus in communities across the Nation that would not cost taxpayers anything. Additionally, in the next 60 to 90 days, HUD will complete a study on the impact of changing interest calculations on its systems, and those of large and small lenders, and share those results with the Banking Committee and me. Mr. President, with these assurances and commitments from the chairman and from HUD firmly in place, I will withdraw the amendment I offered on behalf of myself and the junior senator from Georgia, Senate Amendment 407, at the appropriate time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to engage the Senator from South Dakota in a colloquy to discuss the Reduce Excessive Interest Payments Act, the REIP Act, which is a stand-alone bill that the junior Senator from Georgia and I introduced in March, and which we offered as an amendment, Senate Amendment No. 407, to S. 782, the pending legislation. The REIP Act protects homeowners from paying additional interest on their Federal Housing Administration-backed mortgages once they have repaid the loan's principal. At present, FHA allows lenders to charge interest on a mortgagor's loan through the end of the month, even if the mortgagor pays the loan off at the beginning of the month, to cover the contractual obligation to pay investors in mortgage backed securities for the full month. Mortgagors with conventional mortgages or with Veterans Administration- backed mortgages stop accruing interest once the principal is repaid, despite there being a similar contractual obligation to pay such investors. I have deep concerns about the impact these excess interest payments have on FHA borrowers, who typically have limited resources, but may end up paying more interest on their loans than other borrowers. While some might argue that this is merely an issue of educating the borrowers to encourage them to repay their principal at the end of the month, I am skeptical about whether the FHA mortgagors, who often repay their loans through selling their homes or refinancing their mortgages, have much ability to choose the day on which their transaction closes and the principal is repaid. I understand that the Banking Committee and the Department of Housing & Urban Development, HUD, are willing to work with Senator Isakson and me and our staffs to further understand this issue and make sure that FHA policies regarding interest charges protect borrowers to the extent possible. Is that right?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate June 16, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Finding Our Way Home: Achieving the Policy Goals of NAGPRA.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-192 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of SBA Programs: Eliminating Inefficiencies, Duplications, Fraud and Abuse.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commitee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June, 16, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Preliminary Results of the Nuclear Safety Review in the United States Following the Emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant in Japan.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 146th anniversary of Juneteenth, the oldest continually celebrated commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States. This significant historical event is appropriately observed as an important part of American history. Though the Emancipation Proclamation officially took effect on January 1, 1863, many slaves did not find freedom until Union troops were able to reach the Southern States to enforce the order. Lincoln's order initially directed the Confederate States to end slavery, but allowed the States that remained in the Union during the Civil War to maintain the peculiar institution of slavery. It wasn't until December of 1865 that the 13th amendment marked the complete abolition of slavery in this country. Juneteenth was an important first step toward inclusion in the greater American dream. It is a time of reflection, healing and an opportunity for our country to have meaningful discussions about our legacy of slavery and inequality and our ambitions for a more perfect Union. With the breadth of technology we have today, it is difficult for many to conceive of a time where news traveled over days, months and even years depending on where the communication began and ended. The real-time dissemination of information via mobile phones, BlackBerries and Skype video chat makes it easy to forget a time when things moved at a much slower pace. In the 1860s horses were widely used for carrying mail, although parts of the country were building out railroads--with locomotives powered by steam traveling approximately 15 miles per hour. On June 19, 1865, Union troops arrived in Galveston, TX, to deliver freedom to slaves still held in bondage. Because of the amorphous period between the Emancipation Proclamation and the official implementation of freedom for America's slaves, Juneteenth is celebrated not only on June 19, but the entire month of June, to represent the slow spread of freedom during the war. The culminating reading of General Order No. 3 on June 19 sparked spontaneous and jubilant celebration, and the spirit of that celebration has thrived in every African-American community from that day forward. While Juneteenth represents an import phase in our history, it does not represent the end of discrimination and prejudice. African Americans would continue to struggle to establish equality as citizens, in education, professional careers and socioeconomic status because of Jim Crow laws and other forms of insidious discrimination. In marking this occasion, it is appropriate to reflect on what was responsible for its creation. Millions of Africans, kidnapped by traders or sold into bondage by warring African kings, were ripped from their ancestral homes and carried across the Atlantic Ocean under hellish conditions known as the Middle Passage. While estimates vary, it is likely that as many as 2.5 million Africans died before ever reaching the shores of the ``New World.'' No comfort found them upon their arrival, as they were treated as chattel and sold to merchants and farmers. Their daily lives included intense, back-breaking physical labor for long hours in poor conditions, with no hope of attaining freedom or economic advancement. Maryland was complicit in this bondage, and at one point in the late 16th century, slaves made up approximately a third of the State's population. Maryland, however, helped to lead the abolitionist movement as well. The underground railroad, vital to the freedom of many slaves, ran through Maryland's Eastern Shore and Chesapeake Bay. Its operation relied on the kindness and secrecy of a vast network of often anonymous citizens, many who lived in Maryland, all equally dedicated to ferrying fleeing slaves to freedom in New York, Massachusetts, and Canada. Indeed, determined slaves from Maryland would leave an indelible mark on our national landscape. Harriet Tubman, a slave from Dorchester County, MD, went on to guide her family as well as 300 other slaves over 19 trips into the South out of slavery and into the North. During her clandestine daring, she never lost a single ``passenger.'' Frederick Douglass, born in Talbot County, escaped northwards at age 20 and began a long life of fiercely advocating for racial equality not only in the United States but abroad as well. He established the hallmark arguments that abolitionists would echo for years to come, until Emancipation was finally proclaimed. Emancipation was not the end of the struggle. Explicit laws and implicit associations would continue to create and sustain dire inequalities in the African-American community. Maryland passed 15 Jim Crow laws between 1870 and 1957, laws that would meaningfully segregate almost every area of public life, and would contribute to the man who would later argue the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, Thurgood Marshall, being denied admission to the University of Maryland Law School. Marshall would go on to become the first Black Supreme Court Justice, and would help to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of race. This Juneteenth, we must recommit ourselves to fighting racial disparity and prejudice. As we look back at the legacy of Juneteenth, and how the slow spread of the news of freedom brought forward a new era in our country's history, we must recommit ourselves to the hard work of ensuring that equal representation, equal opportunity, and equal justice are spread everywhere as well. Though the progress and spread may be slow, it will reach every American if we continue to vigilantly demand equality to access to health care, equal treatment by financial institutions, equal educational opportunities, and adherence to the words of our forefathers that ``all men are created equal.'' We must continue to eliminate inequality so we can truly honor the spirit of Juneteenth.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help improve and extend the value of our Nation's highways and bridges. This bill will help ensure that the Federal Government makes better investments of the taxpayer dollars spent on transportation infrastructure. Helping build the roads and bridges of this Nation has been one the best Federal investments our government has made and it is an investment that is worth taking care of to ensure the lasting value, efficiency and safety of our Nation's highways and bridges. It was during the Thomas Jefferson Administration that the Federal Government developed the concept of a ``Federal-Aid'' Highway. In 1806, Congress authorized federal funding to build the ``National Road.'' Much like the National Highway System of today, the purpose of the National Road was to facilitate interstate commerce between the large commercial centers of the Eastern United States to points west. Construction on the National Road began in 1811 in Cumberland, MD, 200 years, and trillions of dollars, later the United States has one of the world's most expansive highway networks. The age and expanse of this system underscores the importance of ensuring adequate and consistent investments in our existing transportation infrastructure. The need for performance measures and national state-of-good repair standards are long overdue. Implementing such policies are essential ensuring the quality of the road condition, the economic value of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the wise investment of taxpayer dollars on transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, gave our Nation's highways and bridges a grade of ``D-'' in its 2009 ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' These poor road conditions are costing motorists time, money, and in the worst and most unfortunate situations, costing motorists their lives. A 2011 transportation infrastructure study produced by TRIP, a non- partisan non-profit transportation research organization sponsored by various transportation stakeholder industries, found that 32 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Poor road conditions take a major toll on the repair and operating costs of motorist's vehicles to the tune of $67 billion a year, or approximately $333 per driver. Poor road conditions contribute to 42 percent of America's urban highways being congested. Traffic congestion costs American motorists more than $78 billion in wasted fuel and lost productivity, and more than 4 billion hours of wasted time that drivers could have otherwise spent with family, earning income or engaged in personal activities. Poor road conditions are a ``significant factor'' in approximately one-third of fatal traffic accidents. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that Federal transportation dollars are spent wisely to improve the safety and efficiency of our roads. Making repair and maintenance of our existing infrastructure a priority, during these times of fiscal restraint, is a wise approach to Federal transportation infrastructure. Ignoring maintenance and repair needs on Federal-Aid highways, while advancing capacity expansion projects at the expense of neglected existing infrastructure, exacerbates the decline in the state-of-good repair of our country's roads and bridges and exemplifies irresponsible spending of Federal taxpayer dollars. ASCE put the cost of the maintenance and repair backlog for roads and bridges at $930 billion. Therefore it is important to understand that this is an infrastructure issue will not be achieved of the course of one surface transportation authorization cycle. However, we can change our Federal policies in such a way that improves how Federal dollars are spent on highway and bridge maintenance so that the taxpayer gets a better return on their transportation taxes. Breaking the cycle of neglected road and bridge maintenance that stems from allowing a highway facility to decline to into poor or very poor condition in the first place is critical to improving the quality of investment of Federal transportation dollars. Highway investment figures from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: ``Rough Roads Ahead: Fix It Now or Pay for It Later'' demonstrate that neglecting maintenance and instead waiting for the road surface to reach a condition rating of ``very poor'', on average 16 years, before repairing the road cost nearly twice as much, on average, as compared with making biannual investments to maintain a ``very good'' road condition over that same 16-year period. Not to mention the costs in damage to vehicles that is caused by the years that a road spends in fair, poor, or very poor condition. My Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act aims to create a culture of sound transportation investment while providing the States improved resources and flexibility to keep their highway facilities in a state of good repair. The Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act will establish policies that require the Secretary of Transportation to establish ``state of good repair standards'' for the various classes of Federal-Aid highways to serve as benchmarks of achievement for States to reach. The act will require States to use an ``Asset Management Process'' to develop ``State System Preservation and Renewal Plans'' and ``State System Preservation and Renewal Performance Targets'' to ensure that their Federal-Aid roads are being kept in a state of good repair. The act will consolidate the Interstate Maintenance program, Highway Bridge program and half of the National Highway System Federal-Aid highway programs funds together to create a flexible System Preservation and Renewal Program Fund for the States to use as they see fit to meet the goals of their System Preservation and Renewal Plans and Performance Targets. Both the Federal Government and the States are facing enormous challenges to deliver essential services, like well-maintained, safe and efficient roads, for the country. As with any proposal that calls for a change in the way business is done there needs to be adequate time for transition. My bill, while establishing new standards for maintaining the quality of highways and bridges, also takes special care to grant leeway during emergency circumstances, when essential defense infrastructure investments are needed, and gives consideration to States that have planned to use these newly consolidated funds prior to how these funds would be repurposed under this legislation. The backlog of maintenance and repair on our existing transportation infrastructure can no longer be ignored. In recent years, our country has experienced a number of tragic incidents that resulted in the loss of life as a direct result of the poor condition of transportation infrastructure. These are preventable incidents that are costly in so many ways. We must make transportation system preservation and renewal a priority because it makes good fiscal sense, good safety sense, and good business sense for our country. My bill does this in a collaborative way between the States and the U.S. Department of Transportation. I urge my colleagues to support my effort to make improved investments in our existing transportation infrastructure so as to ensure its continued excellence for years to come by co-sponsoring the Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act. 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 legislation to help improve and extend the value of our Nation's highways and bridges. This bill will help ensure that the Federal Government makes better investments of the taxpayer dollars spent on transportation infrastructure. Helping build the roads and bridges of this Nation has been one the best Federal investments our government has made and it is an investment that is worth taking care of to ensure the lasting value, efficiency and safety of our Nation's highways and bridges. It was during the Thomas Jefferson Administration that the Federal Government developed the concept of a ``Federal-Aid'' Highway. In 1806, Congress authorized federal funding to build the ``National Road.'' Much like the National Highway System of today, the purpose of the National Road was to facilitate interstate commerce between the large commercial centers of the Eastern United States to points west. Construction on the National Road began in 1811 in Cumberland, MD, 200 years, and trillions of dollars, later the United States has one of the world's most expansive highway networks. The age and expanse of this system underscores the importance of ensuring adequate and consistent investments in our existing transportation infrastructure. The need for performance measures and national state-of-good repair standards are long overdue. Implementing such policies are essential ensuring the quality of the road condition, the economic value of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the wise investment of taxpayer dollars on transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, gave our Nation's highways and bridges a grade of ``D-'' in its 2009 ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' These poor road conditions are costing motorists time, money, and in the worst and most unfortunate situations, costing motorists their lives. A 2011 transportation infrastructure study produced by TRIP, a non- partisan non-profit transportation research organization sponsored by various transportation stakeholder industries, found that 32 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Poor road conditions take a major toll on the repair and operating costs of motorist's vehicles to the tune of $67 billion a year, or approximately $333 per driver. Poor road conditions contribute to 42 percent of America's urban highways being congested. Traffic congestion costs American motorists more than $78 billion in wasted fuel and lost productivity, and more than 4 billion hours of wasted time that drivers could have otherwise spent with family, earning income or engaged in personal activities. Poor road conditions are a ``significant factor'' in approximately one-third of fatal traffic accidents. It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that Federal transportation dollars are spent wisely to improve the safety and efficiency of our roads. Making repair and maintenance of our existing infrastructure a priority, during these times of fiscal restraint, is a wise approach to Federal transportation infrastructure. Ignoring maintenance and repair needs on Federal-Aid highways, while advancing capacity expansion projects at the expense of neglected existing infrastructure, exacerbates the decline in the state-of-good repair of our country's roads and bridges and exemplifies irresponsible spending of Federal taxpayer dollars. ASCE put the cost of the maintenance and repair backlog for roads and bridges at $930 billion. Therefore it is important to understand that this is an infrastructure issue will not be achieved of the course of one surface transportation authorization cycle. However, we can change our Federal policies in such a way that improves how Federal dollars are spent on highway and bridge maintenance so that the taxpayer gets a better return on their transportation taxes. Breaking the cycle of neglected road and bridge maintenance that stems from allowing a highway facility to decline to into poor or very poor condition in the first place is critical to improving the quality of investment of Federal transportation dollars. Highway investment figures from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: ``Rough Roads Ahead: Fix It Now or Pay for It Later'' demonstrate that neglecting maintenance and instead waiting for the road surface to reach a condition rating of ``very poor'', on average 16 years, before repairing the road cost nearly twice as much, on average, as compared with making biannual investments to maintain a ``very good'' road condition over that same 16-year period. Not to mention the costs in damage to vehicles that is caused by the years that a road spends in fair, poor, or very poor condition. My Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act aims to create a culture of sound transportation investment while providing the States improved resources and flexibility to keep their highway facilities in a state of good repair. The Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act will establish policies that require the Secretary of Transportation to establish ``state of good repair standards'' for the various classes of Federal-Aid highways to serve as benchmarks of achievement for States to reach. The act will require States to use an ``Asset Management Process'' to develop ``State System Preservation and Renewal Plans'' and ``State System Preservation and Renewal Performance Targets'' to ensure that their Federal-Aid roads are being kept in a state of good repair. The act will consolidate the Interstate Maintenance program, Highway Bridge program and half of the National Highway System Federal-Aid highway programs funds together to create a flexible System Preservation and Renewal Program Fund for the States to use as they see fit to meet the goals of their System Preservation and Renewal Plans and Performance Targets. Both the Federal Government and the States are facing enormous challenges to deliver essential services, like well-maintained, safe and efficient roads, for the country. As with any proposal that calls for a change in the way business is done there needs to be adequate time for transition. My bill, while establishing new standards for maintaining the quality of highways and bridges, also takes special care to grant leeway during emergency circumstances, when essential defense infrastructure investments are needed, and gives consideration to States that have planned to use these newly consolidated funds prior to how these funds would be repurposed under this legislation. The backlog of maintenance and repair on our existing transportation infrastructure can no longer be ignored. In recent years, our country has experienced a number of tragic incidents that resulted in the loss of life as a direct result of the poor condition of transportation infrastructure. These are preventable incidents that are costly in so many ways. We must make transportation system preservation and renewal a priority because it makes good fiscal sense, good safety sense, and good business sense for our country. My bill does this in a collaborative way between the States and the U.S. Department of Transportation. I urge my colleagues to support my effort to make improved investments in our existing transportation infrastructure so as to ensure its continued excellence for years to come by co-sponsoring the Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on May 29 our colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, commemorated Memorial Day with a visit to Flanders Field American Cemetery and Memorial in Waregem, Belgium. The Flanders region, of course, was made famous by Canadian physician and LTC John McCrae, who wrote the poem ``In Flanders Fields'' on May 3, 1915, after he witnessed the death of his friend, LT Alexis Helmer, 22 years old, the day before. While Senator Leahy visited the cemetery, which serves as a resting place for many American soldiers killed during World War I, he made brief but eloquent remarks in honor of those brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and justice. His remarks follow and I commend them to my colleagues and everyone else who reads the Congressional Record as a most fitting Memorial Day tribute: We are gathered in a cemetery consecrated by the sacrifice of soldiers of our countries who died in the final days of what, in their time, was called the ``Great War'' and ``The War To End All Wars.'' It was a battle so fierce that almost a century later, as we gaze across their places of rest, we can still feel their valor and their anguish. These crosses, row on row, carry remembrance forward, and so does the annual reappearance of the poppies in these fields. Like the Vermonters who have fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their numberless comrades in conflicts before and after the strife of these nearby battlefields, these brave soldiers made no appointment with death. We hail these fallen patriots for braving the violence and tragedy of war. But more than that, we honor our fallen here because they sacrificed all for a cause larger than themselves--defending humanity, freedom, and the ties of family and friendship that irrevocably bind our countries together. They were of a generation of Americans, Belgians, British, and French who fought, shoulder to shoulder, and gave their all so we and others could live in freedom. Four of them were sons of the states of Alabama and Iowa, which two of my Senate colleagues, who are here today, represent. I am the second United States senator to speak at this solemn resting place. The first was Senator Francis Ryan Duffy of the state of Wisconsin, who came to dedicate the chapel, 74 years ago. It is worth recalling what Senator Duffy said here in 1937, as the spreading shadow of war was once again darkening Europe: He said: ``If the boys who are buried out here could sit up in their graves and speak to us today, it would be to give voice to the agonizing question--`Cannot some other means be found to settle international disputes?' '' Just two years later the world was plunged into the Second World War, and every generation of Americans since has known war's brutality. Across the globe, in the century since then, innocent civilians increasingly have joined the ranks of those in uniform as the victims of war. Over the years, standing with families from Vermont as they bid farewell to loved ones sent away to fight, I have seen the terrible costs: wives and children left alone, parents who must bury a child. Lives with so much possibility suddenly cut short, as were those of the soldiers we honor here. The men who sacrificed everything at Flanders Field--and who are commemorated so vividly through Colonel John McCrae's poetic tribute, heard 'round the world--believed that some things are worth fighting for. They knew that vanquishing tyranny, and defending the ideals our countries share, were among them. Of course those same values are worth pursuing peacefully. Our obligation to our fallen, and to all of humanity, is to use every peaceful means at our disposal before committing any of our countrymen to battle. We are here today to solemnly affirm that we remember their sacrifice, and that we will never forget.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, earlier today, I voted against the interchange fee amendment, Senate amendment No. 392 offered by the junior Senator from Montana and I would like to explain why. Before I do that, I would like to acknowledge two important points about Senator Tester. First, I appreciate the fact that he made significant changes to his amendment in an attempt to reach a middle ground on this issue. And the concern he has for small community banks and credit unions is beyond question. Having said that, I did not reach the same conclusion he reached that we should delay the regulatory process with regard to interchange fees. Most of the concern raised has been expressed against the Federal Reserve's December 2010 draft interchange fee rulemaking. It was a draft proposal. Let me repeat that: it was a draft proposal. The Federal Reserve received 11,000 comments on the draft rulemaking. The final rulemaking, due any day and scheduled to take effect in July, will reflect those comments and suggestions. We need to let the regulatory process work. If the final rule doesn't work as Congress intended, we have a number of options to fix it, up to and including a congressional resolution of disapproval. If the Senate had approved the Tester amendment, it may have been ``fixing'' a problem that doesn't exist. The Federal Reserve's rulemaking was required by a provision contained in the Wall Street reform bill Congress passed last year. The senior Senator from Illinois was the author of that provision. He modified it to exempt smaller banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion. Now we are being told the exemption is unworkable. Again, we haven't seen the final rule yet but I don't agree with the premise. Andrew Kahr is a leading financial services expert. He was the founder and chief executive officer of First Deposit Corp, which later became Providian. He recently laid out the following arguments, which I find cogent, on the American Banker Web site: One argument is that the clearing networks, of which there are only four that matter, will not support the ``two-tier'' interchange system . . . Ridiculous. Visa is the largest of the networks. It's already announced that it will implement Durbin. (Maybe this is an object lesson as to why Visa remains No. 1.) For the small banks, MasterCard is the only other significant player. If MasterCard finds it politic not to add one more wrinkle to a skein of interchange levels that is already of Byzantine complexity, then let the small banks gravitate to Visa in order to benefit from Durbin. A second argument of the big-bank lobbyists is that merchants will reject the debit cards of small banks if these carry a 1 percent interchange cost, versus 0.3 percent for the large banks. Really? Then why don't these merchants reject all credit cards, with interchange of 2 percent or more, if the customer could instead use a debit card? When is the last time a merchant politely asked you whether you could pay with a debit card instead of a credit card? Mr. Kahr concludes that if interchange fee revenue for the big banks drops but stays the same for the small banks and credit unions, the small banks will reap a competitive advantage. They will be able to impose lower fees, pay more interest, and give greater rewards to depositors. As he put it, ``anything that reduces revenue for big banks but not for small ones should help the latter compete more effectively against the former.'' Here is why I supported Senator Durbin's amendment to the Wall Street reform bill to regulate these fees in the first place. Banks do not compete with each other on the fees that merchants pay them for debit card use. Instead, Visa and MasterCard fix fee rates on behalf of all banks. There is no naturally occurring market force that keeps interchange fees at reasonable levels. The Visa and MasterCard duopoly is so dominant that merchants cannot refuse to accept their cards. Consequently, Visa and MasterCard don't lower interchange fees--they raise them, to entice banks to issue more of their cards. Retail merchants have no leverage to stop this escalation. As a result, the U.S. has the highest debit interchange fees in the world, averaging 1.14 percent of each transaction and amounting to over $16 billion per year. These fees affect merchants, universities, charities, government agencies, and everyone else who accepts debit cards as payment. The fees end up getting passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices for everything from groceries to gas to textbooks. The Durbin provision stipulated that fees set by Visa and MasterCard on behalf of big issuing banks must be reasonable and proportional to costs incurred by the issuer that are ``specific to a particular electronic debit transaction.'' Some argue this is too narrow. The problem with the Tester amendment, well-intentioned as it may have been, is that it was too broad. It directed the Federal Reserve to let Visa and MasterCard set fee rates to ``all fixed and incremental costs associated with debit card transactions and program operations.'' The term ``program operations'' wasn't further defined and could have created a potentially enormous loophole. Rates could actually go higher under this standard. I appreciate the hard work the junior senator from Montana put into his amendment. If the Federal Reserve's final rule truly presents problems for community banks and credit unions, I will join him in the effort to fix it. For the time being, I think we should let the regulatory process proceed and that's why I opposed the amendment. We helped out the banks; now it is time to help out consumers and America's small businesses. Thank you, Madam President, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me compliment Senator Boxer for her leadership on this bill. She pointed out this EDA bill brought forward is about jobs. It is about offering jobs in underserved areas. These are areas in which it is difficult to create jobs in good times, but in hard times they get hit even harder. The EDA program leverages a small amount of public support for private sector investment that creates jobs in underserved areas. In my State of Maryland, EDA projects have been very successful in bringing jobs to the rural parts of Maryland--to western Maryland and to our eastern shore. They have leveraged private sector investment, and we maintained and created jobs. Yesterday on the Senate floor I gave specific examples of EDA projects in western Maryland and on the eastern shore of Maryland. I talked about an old manufacturing plant that was saved under an EDA grant, leveraged 10 to 1 with private sector investment, saving over 100 jobs and creating another 20. These are jobs that are important for economic growth in our community. We all understand this recovery has been a very difficult one for us to get moving at the pace of job growth that we know we need for this Nation. We all talk about what we can do for our budget deficit, but I hope we all would agree the most important thing we can do would be to create more jobs. The majority leader has brought forward three major bills now to create jobs. We would like to have a little cooperation from the other side of the aisle so we can get these bills to the President for signature. The FAA bill, which deals with the modernizing of our air system, which will create jobs and will make air transportation safer, is caught up in conference. Let's get it done and bring it to the President. We had the SBIR bill before us that will help small businesses that are in innovation as far as job growth. We had so many nongermane amendments offered to it we could not get it to the floor of the Senate. Now we have an EDA bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee by a near unanimous vote, that over the history of the EDA has not been controversial in its reauthorization, and now it looks as if we are going to see numerous nongermane amendments offered in an effort, basically, to just ignore the importance of the underlying bill that can create jobs for our communities. I urge my colleagues to, yes, come forward with their amendments. Let's debate them. If they are not relevant to creating jobs under the EDA bill, then let's be reasonable. Let's not have a whole series of amendments that are totally beyond the scope of this bill, such as the debt limit issue or repeal of our financial reform of last year. I don't mind debating those issues, but they should not be debated at this particular moment. I do hope we will be able to get to the reauthorization bill. I pointed out yesterday that one of the highest priorities, from our local people in Maryland, on need was additional help from the Federal Government for planning dollars. Planning dollars allow local communities to develop a strategy that can help them with economic growth in a community. I can tell you, having recently been out to Cumberland, MD--a great and beautiful part of our State of Maryland--they used to have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Many of those jobs have moved on. They do have a strategy, but they need the planning help to put that together so they can come forward with a game plan, attracting more private sector interest in order to create more job opportunities for families to stay in the western part of our State. It is that type of assistance that is critically important to America. I come back to the point Senator Boxer raised. The purpose of this bill is to create jobs--save jobs and create jobs. We need to get on with that business in the Senate. That is why I am proud to have worked on the Environment and Public Works Committee to bring this bill forward. I hope my colleagues will be judicious with their amendments so we can get this bill through the Senate, to the House, so we will have an opportunity to get this to the President in the very near future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I believe we are on the pending amendment?

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I will speak at a different point about this amendment, but it is an equitable amendment dealing with the interest charges on government loans that are paid off in the middle of the month to prorate the interest. It is a consumer issue. I think it will help American families. I will explain it in more detail in a later part of the proceedings. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can offer amendment No. 407.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing entitled ``Drowning in Debt: Financial Outcomes of Students at For-Profit Colleges'' on June 7, 2011, at 10 am, in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.