Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today Senator Casey and I are introducing a bill to help facilitate the completion of critically important transportation infrastructure to the Appalachian region of the United States. The Appalachian Development Highway System, ADHS, is designed to alleviate Appalachia's isolation from major commercial corridors and create better transportation connectivity between communities within the Region and to destinations outside of Appalachia. According to the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC: ``Because the cost of building highways through Appalachia's mountainous terrain was high, the Region had never been served by adequate roads. Its network of narrow, winding, two-lane roads, snaking through narrow stream valleys or over mountaintops, was slow to drive, unsafe, and in many places worn out. The Nation's interstate highway system had largely bypassed the Appalachian Region, going through or around the Region's rugged terrain as cost-effectively as possible.'' That's why in 1964, ARC recommended that investments in improving Appalachia's highways were essential to economic growth of this historically economically depressed region of the country. The ADHS is currently authorized at 3,090 miles and is nearly 88 percent complete or under construction. The remaining miles left to be built are located in some of the more difficult places to build located near the mid- Atlantic portion of Appalachia. The difficulty of construction in this region makes these stretches of the ADHS more expensive to build as well. The legislation I am filing today will provide Appalachian States with greater flexibility on how they may raise and their portion of matching funds that are used towards ADHS projects. Toll credits, first authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), are being used extensively by States with toll facilities. As of May 31, 2007, over $18 billion in toll credits had been approved in 22 States and Puerto Rico. Toll credits are designed to encourage States to increase capital investment in transportation infrastructure and enable States to simplify program administration. However, there is an interesting exception for how and where toll credit may be used. SAFETEA-LU included a modification to the toll credit requirements as codified in Section 120(j) of Title 23, United States Code, U.S.C., prohibiting the use of toll credits on the Appalachian Development Highway System program under Section 14501 of Title 40. Our legislation, quite simply, repeals this prohibition against States using toll credits as their state matching funds for ADHS projects. Given these particularly difficult economic times that have presented exceptional budgetary challenges for States to revenue adequate revenues to pay for essential infrastructure projects, I believe States need the flexibility to use highway revenues as they see fit regardless of the means in which those revenues are raised. The SAFETEA-LU prohibition against the use of toll credits on the ADHS is discriminatory against a particular revenue mechanism. Allowing a State to use toll credits towards an ADHS project does not require that State to raise the tolls revenues on the ADHS road that the toll credits were used towards. I urge my colleagues to join Sen. Casey and I in repealing SAFETEA- LU's prohibition against one particular revenue stream that could be used to complete an incredibly important system of transportation infrastructure designed to serve a historically underserved region of rural America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today Senator Casey and I are introducing a bill to help facilitate the completion of critically important transportation infrastructure to the Appalachian region of the United States. The Appalachian Development Highway System, ADHS, is designed to alleviate Appalachia's isolation from major commercial corridors and create better transportation connectivity between communities within the Region and to destinations outside of Appalachia. According to the Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC: ``Because the cost of building highways through Appalachia's mountainous terrain was high, the Region had never been served by adequate roads. Its network of narrow, winding, two-lane roads, snaking through narrow stream valleys or over mountaintops, was slow to drive, unsafe, and in many places worn out. The Nation's interstate highway system had largely bypassed the Appalachian Region, going through or around the Region's rugged terrain as cost-effectively as possible.'' That's why in 1964, ARC recommended that investments in improving Appalachia's highways were essential to economic growth of this historically economically depressed region of the country. The ADHS is currently authorized at 3,090 miles and is nearly 88 percent complete or under construction. The remaining miles left to be built are located in some of the more difficult places to build located near the mid- Atlantic portion of Appalachia. The difficulty of construction in this region makes these stretches of the ADHS more expensive to build as well. The legislation I am filing today will provide Appalachian States with greater flexibility on how they may raise and their portion of matching funds that are used towards ADHS projects. Toll credits, first authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), are being used extensively by States with toll facilities. As of May 31, 2007, over $18 billion in toll credits had been approved in 22 States and Puerto Rico. Toll credits are designed to encourage States to increase capital investment in transportation infrastructure and enable States to simplify program administration. However, there is an interesting exception for how and where toll credit may be used. SAFETEA-LU included a modification to the toll credit requirements as codified in Section 120(j) of Title 23, United States Code, U.S.C., prohibiting the use of toll credits on the Appalachian Development Highway System program under Section 14501 of Title 40. Our legislation, quite simply, repeals this prohibition against States using toll credits as their state matching funds for ADHS projects. Given these particularly difficult economic times that have presented exceptional budgetary challenges for States to revenue adequate revenues to pay for essential infrastructure projects, I believe States need the flexibility to use highway revenues as they see fit regardless of the means in which those revenues are raised. The SAFETEA-LU prohibition against the use of toll credits on the ADHS is discriminatory against a particular revenue mechanism. Allowing a State to use toll credits towards an ADHS project does not require that State to raise the tolls revenues on the ADHS road that the toll credits were used towards. I urge my colleagues to join Sen. Casey and I in repealing SAFETEA- LU's prohibition against one particular revenue stream that could be used to complete an incredibly important system of transportation infrastructure designed to serve a historically underserved region of rural America. 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 invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Woman's Club of Bethesda, MD. The club, a nonprofit organization, was organized on May 27, 1911. It was founded by seven women for the purpose of promoting civic activities and welfare in the neighborhood. Those activities included assistance and fundraising for schools, churches, and hospitals. Club members selected the American Beauty Rose as their flower; ``An Earnest Club for Earnest Women'' as their motto; and American Beauty Red and green as their colors. Before a clubhouse was built, meetings were held at various members' homes, limiting membership to 35 and allowing only a cup of tea and a cracker to be served. During World War I, from 1914 to 1916, the members sold over $10,000 worth of Liberty Bonds, raised funds for French orphans, worked with local merchants to beautify the roads into the Nation's Capital, and worked to secure a new fire truck for the community that was capable of fighting chemical fires. In 1925, club members raised $1,500 to purchase three lots at the corner of Sonoma Road and Old Georgetown Road for construction of a clubhouse. On May 27, 1927, the club laid the cornerstone for the clubhouse, which is still in use today. In 1948, the mortgage was burned--quite a feat for women who began the club without the right to vote. During World War II, the clubhouse was used to host USO entertainment. Today, the club continues its philanthropic efforts by raising money for local charitable organizations--Friends of the Maryland Library; Mobile Medical Care, Inc., Montgomery; Crisis Center of Montgomery County; Bethesda Cares; and Manna Food Banks--and by supporting national and international efforts to curb homelessness and domestic violence, and promote access to health care and clean water. There is no doubt that the Woman's Club of Bethesda has made significant contributions to the betterment of the surrounding community and is a valuable asset to the people of Montgomery County and the State of Maryland. I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the past and present members of the Woman's Club of Bethesda on their century of service.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I greatly respect my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, although I come to a different conclusion in regard to Jim Cole. I have worked with Jim Cole. I was part of a legislative committee in the House of Representatives that had to do some very difficult work on an ethics issue involving a former Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was a tough decision to bring together six Members of the House--three Democrats, three Republicans--and do it in a way that would maintain the nonpartisan requirements of an ethics investigation. The atmosphere was very partisanly charged around the work we were doing. I know this sounds familiar. People in Maryland and Connecticut and around the Nation understand we are working in a very partisan environment, and they expect the people who are charged at the Department of Justice to work in a nonpartisan manner. This is not a partisan position, the Deputy Attorney General. This is a person who is working with the Attorney General, the Nation's lawyer. We want somebody who has the experience, someone who has the character and commitment to carry out this very important position. As I said, I have known Jim Cole. He has 13 years' experience within the Department of Justice. He is a public interest attorney. That has been the largest part of his professional career, the service of public interests. He has always followed policy, not politics. He has a very distinguished career in law, and he is the type of person we like to see within the Department of Justice. As I pointed out, I worked with Jim Cole when I was in the House of Representatives. We worked on a very difficult investigation involving the former Speaker of the House of Representatives who at the time was Speaker. The chairman of the committee was Porter Goss, a Republican from Florida. Porter Goss's observations of Jim Cole were that he was a brilliant prosecutor, extraordinarily talented. Then Mr. Goss goes on to say that over time, he brought our committee to a bipartisan cooperation which was desperately needed in order to successfully complete that matter. At the end of the day, the six of us came together in a unanimous recommendation. That is the type of person Jim Cole is. He was professional and put policy ahead of politics. Former Senator John Danforth testified at Jim Cole's confirmation hearing. John Danforth is a former Republican Member of the Senate. He called Jim Cole ``a lawyer's lawyer.'' Jim Cole has support from Democrats and Republicans. Former high officials within the Department of Justice have all recommended him, including former Deputy Attorneys General appointed by both Republicans and Democrats. Let me quote one other person I had hoped would be greatly respected on both sides of the aisle; that is, Fred Fielding, the White House counsel for former President George W. Bush. He said Mr. Cole ``combines all the qualities you want in a `citizen public servant'--he understands both sides of the street and is smart and tenacious, and is a person of unquestioned honor and integrity.'' That is what Fred Fielding, the former White House counsel to President Bush said, about Jim Cole. Jim Cole is supported by former RNC officials and DNC officials because he is nonpartisan. He is a nonpartisan person who has put public interest law as his top priority. I was listening to Senator Sessions talk about terrorism. We have had a spirited political debate taking place in this country over the best way to bring terrorists to justice. Mr. Cole, however, will always put principle over politics, and he is committed to evaluating each case and matter that comes before him based on the facts and the law. That is what you want from the Department of Justice. They are the values and the character we want in our Nation's Department of Justice, and Jim Cole will bring that to the Department of Justice--already brought it to the Department of Justice. The bottom line about Mr. Cole's approach on fighting terrorists is one I believe we all believe in. We are a nation at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We need tough, aggressive, and flexible policies that recognize the paramount importance of providing the President with the ability to use all of the lawful tools--all of the lawful tools--of our national power to protect the American people and bring terrorists to justice. Jim Cole believes in that. He is committed to working with the Congress so we use all available tools. We make the judgment in each individual case as to what is the most effective way to bring a terrorist or criminal to justice. He not only has expertise in handling terrorists and bringing them to justice, he has had very important positions in the Department of Justice supervising the criminal prosecution of white-collar crimes. He understands the full breadth of the Department of Justice and is a very valuable player in making sure the Department of Justice follows in the fine tradition of that agency. I urge my colleagues to vote to move forward. At least vote to allow this nomination to get an up-or-down vote. This is a very important position: the Deputy Attorney General. We talk about we were sent here to Washington to make tough votes. OK. I do not think this is a tough vote. I think Jim Cole is the best person for this critically important job, and I do not think he is at all a partisan person. I know him well. I know him to be a career type individual who is interested in doing what is right. But this is not a nominee where you should be using a filibuster to prevent an up-or-down vote. This is a very important position for our country. For the dignity of the Senate and the Department of Justice and the decency of Jim Cole, I urge my colleagues to allow us to go forward with an up-or-down vote on his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will help prevent millions of gallons of pollution from entering our Nation's precious water resources. The season we are in makes my legislation particularly timely. Spring is one of the wettest times of year, and with every Spring shower polluted stormwater runoff washes a myriad of chemicals pollutants, sediment, debris, oil and grease, and other contaminates from our nation's roads and highways into our lakes, rivers, streams, bays, and coastal waters. Stormwater is the Nation's largest source of water pollution. While rain itself contains air pollution particulates that are deposited in every drop, most stormwater pollution is picked up on the surface and carried off as runoff. Stormwater washes contaminants like oil, grease, heavy metals, nutrients, asbestos, sediments, road salts and other de- icing agents, brake dust, and road debris from the millions of miles of America's roads and into storm drains that discharge into nearby waters. Almost all of this polluted stormwater is discharged without any treatment. When rain falls on these hard, impervious surfaces it often has no where to go but down the channels created by curbs and retaining walls, into storm drains and into the nearest natural water body. According to research compiled by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, the U.S. is covered by more than 112,600 square kilometers of impervious surfaces. That is a space larger than the State of Ohio. With 985,139 miles of Federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the country, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our Nation's waters. The effects of polluted stormwater runoff are real. For example, the Anacostia River--Washington's ``other'' and often forgotten river--can be seen from the Capitol Dome as it flows out of Prince George's County, MD, and into the District and on to its confluence with the Potomac. Runoff from within the 176 square mile watershed of the Anacostia, most of which is in Maryland, but also includes the east side of D.C. and the entire Capitol complex, all makes its way into the Anacostia. The stormwater that enters the Anacostia is extremely polluted from the thousands of acres of road surfaces that cover the watershed, which exacerbates the incidence of combined sewer overflows and has impaired the Anacostia for many years. It is no coincidence that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found the Anacostia's bottom- feeder catfish to have the highest incidence of liver tumors than any other population of catfish in the country. The cause of the tumors are the high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a by-product of fuel combustion, that come from vehicle tailpipe emissions and are deposited on the road and in the air and then washed into the river with every shower or thunderstorm. This is not a problem unique to Maryland or the Chesapeake Bay region, nor is it a problem unique to urban environments as opposed to rural environments. Polluted runoff is a problem that affects any watershed where impervious paved road and highway surfaces have altered the natural hydrology of a watershed. Over time, federal highway policy has come to recognize the drastic impacts highways and surface transportation can have on the environment and on water quality. Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, authorized using transportation enhancement funds for ``environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff.'' It is important to note, however, that this is just one of 12 types of eligible enhancement projects and only 1.1 percent of enhancement project funds have gone toward environmental mitigation projects since 1992. In 2008, at the request of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that need to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. Taking a policy approach to require that the planning, design, and construction of highways are done in an environmentally responsible manner, with an eye toward mitigating the water quality impacts highways have on our Nation's water resources, will help address this issue and better meet our Nation's transportation goals. This legislation also helps advance the October 5, 2009, Executive Order affirming that Federal policy and Federal agencies shall ``conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; and leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products and services.'' Over the years, The U.S. Department of Transportation has established design standards for federal-aid highways to improve the performance and safety of our highway infrastructure. These design standard improvements were the result of obvious safety and engineering problems that needed to be addressed. These design standard are essential to ensuring that the Federal Government's investment in transportation infrastructure is resulting in a well-designed, safe and reliable ``product'' for the benefit of the American people. The same can be said for the need for establishing environmental design standards for Federal-aid highways as a means of protecting water quality. While stormwater runoff from highways may be classified as non-point source pollution, it is unquestionably the source of a wide range of contaminants that impair rivers, lakes, streams and coastal waters; create costly remedial situations; and detract from the value and health of our precious water resources. Requiring Federal-aid highways to meet an environmental standard for protecting water quality will improve the value of the Federal Government's investment in our Nation's highway infrastructure. The approach my legislation takes to mitigate polluted highway runoff is through the implementation of a design standard, developed by the United States Department of Transportation, requiring the maintenance or restoration of the pre-development hydrology of a federal-aid highway project site. This same approach was made law by the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 for the development of new Federal buildings and facilities. My bill would require that all substantial federal highway projects must be planned and designed ``to ensure that covered projects are sited, constructed and maintained in accordance with design standards intended to protect surface and ground water quality and ensure the long-term management of stormwater originating from Federal-aid highways.'' This would be achieved by approaches that avoid and minimize alteration of natural features and hydrology and maximize the use of onsite pollution control measures using existing terrain and natural features. My bill also recognizes that geography and other physical characteristics of the land may not always allow on-site treatment of polluted highway runoff. When conditions are impracticable my legislation would allow for an ``appropriate off-site runoff pollution mitigation program'' within the watershed of a Federal-aid highway project site that can protect against the water quality impacts of the project. The Clean Water Act requires that we protect the waters of the United States. As with most pollution abatement strategies, preventing stormwater pollution is cheaper, more effective, and easier to implement than trying to clean up and remediate the problem after contamination has occurred. Not addressing stormwater pollution at its source just kicks the proverbial can down the road for someone else to deal with. When water resources are contaminated by polluted highway runoff, mitigating the pollution, which is a preventable discharge in the first place, should not be the responsibility of local goverments, wastewater treatment facilities, or drinking water utilities. Water pollution has many sources and our nation's highways produce a tremendous volume of contaminated stormwater. Time and time again, experience has taught us that addressing pollution at its source is the most effective means of abating pollution. It is time we applied this principle to our Nation's Federal-aid highways. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and help move our country closer to meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act and the goals of our national transportation policy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this month people all over the country will grab their tackle boxes and head off in pursuit of the elusive trout in mountain streams. Mothers and fathers will turn on their kitchen faucets and hand their children glasses of clean, pure drinking water that we have in this country. Farmers will irrigate their spring plantings in vegetables and grains with clear water from nearby streams. All over the United States, Americans will take advantage of the simple but priceless natural resource of America's water. Thanks to the actions taken by the Obama administration last week, we can rest assured these vital resources are being protected by the full strength of the Clean Water Act. Last week, the Obama administration released a guidance document on the jurisdictional waters of the United States. The document was a sensible response to the confusion left in the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings. The draft document that was released last week will help the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the near term as they make decisions about whether projects will impact the waters of the United States and therefore require protective permits. Eventually, this draft document will be replaced by formal regulations that will ensure the Clean Water Act continues to protect America's waters. For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act has safeguarded almost all of our Nation's waters. These safeguards protect our rivers, streams, and wetlands from pollution in accordance with Congress's intent that the landmark statute, ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters.'' Nowhere in America is this more important--the enforcement of the Clean Water Act--than the Chesapeake watershed. We understand more than 100,000 rivers and streams come together to form North America's largest estuary, and they are all critical to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. These streams and rivers, along with their associated wetlands, serve as a habitat for hundreds of species, buffers for slowing the flow of pollutants into the bay, and sponges that soak up and hold large amounts of floodwater and stormwater runoff. Despite major steps forward that have resulted in a majority of the Nation's waters now being safe for fishing, swimming, and other uses, recent Supreme Court decisions have placed this progress at risk. The guidance developed by professional scientists and improved by the Obama administration provides strong protection for our Nation's waters and restores the ability of Federal agencies to enforce the Clean Water Act. I also wish to underscore the fact that the guidance reflects the longstanding agricultural and other exemptions codified in the Clean Water Act. This is a commonsense solution right in the mainstream of American values. The Supreme Court's recent rulings put millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams at risk. The Court's decision in its 2001 ruling in SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and its more recent rulings in 2006--Rapanos v. United States and Caravell v. Army Corps of Engineers--threatened to roll back the Clean Water Act, making nearly 60 percent of our Nation's waters vulnerable to polluters. The waters threatened by the narrowing of the Clean Water Act protections are important for fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, and supply of drinking water. More than 117 million Americans receive drinking water supplied, at least in part, by headwaters and similar streams. These vital streams and wetlands are also critical to the health of our most treasured water bodies from the Chesapeake Bay, to the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, to Puget Sound. Millions of small streams and wetlands provide the fresh water that flows into these regional economic engines. If we do not protect this incredible network of waters, we cannot hope to restore these water bodies to health. As Americans, we cherish clean water and the magnificent bounty we are blessed with. That is why last week's announcement was met with such strong support from a broad range of Americans, especially from our sportsmen. Among the groups supporting the administration's actions are Ducks Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Wildlife Foundation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited. As chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am especially pleased the administration has taken such a strong and sensible approach to protecting our Nation's waters. Too often we raise our voices in criticism of the actions of others. Today, I am proud to add my voice to the chorus of thanks to the Obama administration for a job well done. Thank you, Madam President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2011 along with my colleagues, Senator Landrieu, Senator Mikulski, Senator Merkley, and Senator Hagan. This legislation will build on the successful Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003. This program encourages habitat protection, education, research, monitoring, and capacity building to provide for the long- term protection of coastal wetlands from destruction caused by nutria. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to biodiversity in the United States today. As invasive species go, the nutria is one of the most destructive creatures we have, especially in my home State of Maryland and in Louisiana. The nutria is a large, semi-aquatic rodent that was originally brought to the United States to bolster the fur trade in the early 20th century. Unfortunately, we underestimated their strong appetite and high reproductive potential. Since their introduction, the nutria have damaged millions of acres of wetlands and countless miles of shoreline and have even earned a spot among the International Union for Conservation of Nature's list of the world's 100 worst invasive alien species. By the early 1990s, the Chesapeake Bay/Delmarva Peninsula population was estimated to exceed 150,000 animals. These ``eating machines'' can consume up to 25 percent of their body weight in plants per day, feasting directly on plant roots. This wrecks havoc on our wetlands, turning our once productive lands into barren mud flats. The destruction exacerbates the damaging impacts of ongoing land subsidence and sea level rise. We understand how important our wetlands are and provide numerous ecosystem services to our society. They provide fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, erosion control, and water quality preservation. In my own State of Maryland, nutria invaded the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge nearly 6 decades ago, destroying vital habitat for native shorebirds, muskrats, and blue crabs. They are responsible for the loss of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands in this refuge alone. We must remember this has a significant impact on people--people who depend on it for their livelihood and for people who use it for recreation. The loss of Blackwater wetlands, that are vital to the fishery, was estimated to cost Maryland's economy nearly $4 million annually. Millions of Americans spend billions of dollars pursuing their fishing, hunting and wildlife watching activities, which contribute to millions of jobs in industries and businesses that support wildlife-related recreation. In 2000, Congress established a Federal funding source to develop a successful public-private partnership program to address nutria in Maryland. This financial support has directly led to the successful eradiation of nutria from 150,000 acres of the approximate 400,000 acres of wetland habitats that they infest. The project success is due to strategic planning, permanent and dedicated staff members, and cooperation with private landowners. In Louisiana, an incentive program is used to encourage trappers to trap nutria. Since the implementation of the program, the damage to coastal wetlands has been reduced from 90,000 to 20,000 acres. The management techniques developed in Maryland and Louisiana have already been exported to other states like Oregon and Washington to control their own nutria populations and minimize the damage done to their marsh habitats. Healthy wetlands are returning to places where nutria have been removed. But the job is not yet done. Last Congress, I introduced the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2009 to continue and improve the successful nutria eradication program in Maryland and Louisiana and expand it to other significantly impacted states like Oregon and Washington. This bill passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2009 and had the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, and the Nature Conservancy. Today, I proudly rise again and rededicate myself to passing the Nutria Eradication Control Act of 2011. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the states of Maryland, Louisiana, Delaware, Oregon, Washington, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and North Carolina to eradicate and control nutria populations and restore nutria-damaged wetlands. We know how valuable our wetlands are. We know how destructive the nutria is. We know what we can do to stop the nutria and that these programs work. I urge my colleagues to remember that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will help prevent millions of gallons of pollution from entering our Nation's precious water resources. The season we are in makes my legislation particularly timely. Spring is one of the wettest times of year, and with every Spring shower polluted stormwater runoff washes a myriad of chemicals pollutants, sediment, debris, oil and grease, and other contaminates from our nation's roads and highways into our lakes, rivers, streams, bays, and coastal waters. Stormwater is the Nation's largest source of water pollution. While rain itself contains air pollution particulates that are deposited in every drop, most stormwater pollution is picked up on the surface and carried off as runoff. Stormwater washes contaminants like oil, grease, heavy metals, nutrients, asbestos, sediments, road salts and other de- icing agents, brake dust, and road debris from the millions of miles of America's roads and into storm drains that discharge into nearby waters. Almost all of this polluted stormwater is discharged without any treatment. When rain falls on these hard, impervious surfaces it often has no where to go but down the channels created by curbs and retaining walls, into storm drains and into the nearest natural water body. According to research compiled by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, the U.S. is covered by more than 112,600 square kilometers of impervious surfaces. That is a space larger than the State of Ohio. With 985,139 miles of Federal aid highways stretching from every corner of the country, polluted highway runoff is no small problem facing our Nation's waters. The effects of polluted stormwater runoff are real. For example, the Anacostia River--Washington's ``other'' and often forgotten river--can be seen from the Capitol Dome as it flows out of Prince George's County, MD, and into the District and on to its confluence with the Potomac. Runoff from within the 176 square mile watershed of the Anacostia, most of which is in Maryland, but also includes the east side of D.C. and the entire Capitol complex, all makes its way into the Anacostia. The stormwater that enters the Anacostia is extremely polluted from the thousands of acres of road surfaces that cover the watershed, which exacerbates the incidence of combined sewer overflows and has impaired the Anacostia for many years. It is no coincidence that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has found the Anacostia's bottom- feeder catfish to have the highest incidence of liver tumors than any other population of catfish in the country. The cause of the tumors are the high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a by-product of fuel combustion, that come from vehicle tailpipe emissions and are deposited on the road and in the air and then washed into the river with every shower or thunderstorm. This is not a problem unique to Maryland or the Chesapeake Bay region, nor is it a problem unique to urban environments as opposed to rural environments. Polluted runoff is a problem that affects any watershed where impervious paved road and highway surfaces have altered the natural hydrology of a watershed. Over time, federal highway policy has come to recognize the drastic impacts highways and surface transportation can have on the environment and on water quality. Title 23 of the U.S. Code states: ``transportation should play a significant role in promoting economic growth, improving the environment, and sustaining the quality of life'' through the use of ``context sensitive solutions.'' The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, authorized using transportation enhancement funds for ``environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff.'' It is important to note, however, that this is just one of 12 types of eligible enhancement projects and only 1.1 percent of enhancement project funds have gone toward environmental mitigation projects since 1992. In 2008, at the request of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, the Government Accountability Office issued a report examining key issues and challenges that need to be addressed in the next reauthorization of the transportation bill. That report highlighted the clear link between transportation policy and the environment. Taking a policy approach to require that the planning, design, and construction of highways are done in an environmentally responsible manner, with an eye toward mitigating the water quality impacts highways have on our Nation's water resources, will help address this issue and better meet our Nation's transportation goals. This legislation also helps advance the October 5, 2009, Executive Order affirming that Federal policy and Federal agencies shall ``conserve and protect water resources through efficiency, reuse, and stormwater management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; and leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products and services.'' Over the years, The U.S. Department of Transportation has established design standards for federal-aid highways to improve the performance and safety of our highway infrastructure. These design standard improvements were the result of obvious safety and engineering problems that needed to be addressed. These design standard are essential to ensuring that the Federal Government's investment in transportation infrastructure is resulting in a well-designed, safe and reliable ``product'' for the benefit of the American people. The same can be said for the need for establishing environmental design standards for Federal-aid highways as a means of protecting water quality. While stormwater runoff from highways may be classified as non-point source pollution, it is unquestionably the source of a wide range of contaminants that impair rivers, lakes, streams and coastal waters; create costly remedial situations; and detract from the value and health of our precious water resources. Requiring Federal-aid highways to meet an environmental standard for protecting water quality will improve the value of the Federal Government's investment in our Nation's highway infrastructure. The approach my legislation takes to mitigate polluted highway runoff is through the implementation of a design standard, developed by the United States Department of Transportation, requiring the maintenance or restoration of the pre-development hydrology of a federal-aid highway project site. This same approach was made law by the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 for the development of new Federal buildings and facilities. My bill would require that all substantial federal highway projects must be planned and designed ``to ensure that covered projects are sited, constructed and maintained in accordance with design standards intended to protect surface and ground water quality and ensure the long-term management of stormwater originating from Federal-aid highways.'' This would be achieved by approaches that avoid and minimize alteration of natural features and hydrology and maximize the use of onsite pollution control measures using existing terrain and natural features. My bill also recognizes that geography and other physical characteristics of the land may not always allow on-site treatment of polluted highway runoff. When conditions are impracticable my legislation would allow for an ``appropriate off-site runoff pollution mitigation program'' within the watershed of a Federal-aid highway project site that can protect against the water quality impacts of the project. The Clean Water Act requires that we protect the waters of the United States. As with most pollution abatement strategies, preventing stormwater pollution is cheaper, more effective, and easier to implement than trying to clean up and remediate the problem after contamination has occurred. Not addressing stormwater pollution at its source just kicks the proverbial can down the road for someone else to deal with. When water resources are contaminated by polluted highway runoff, mitigating the pollution, which is a preventable discharge in the first place, should not be the responsibility of local goverments, wastewater treatment facilities, or drinking water utilities. Water pollution has many sources and our nation's highways produce a tremendous volume of contaminated stormwater. Time and time again, experience has taught us that addressing pollution at its source is the most effective means of abating pollution. It is time we applied this principle to our Nation's Federal-aid highways. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and help move our country closer to meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act and the goals of our national transportation policy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to reintroduce the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2011 along with my colleagues, Senator Landrieu, Senator Mikulski, Senator Merkley, and Senator Hagan. This legislation will build on the successful Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003. This program encourages habitat protection, education, research, monitoring, and capacity building to provide for the long- term protection of coastal wetlands from destruction caused by nutria. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to biodiversity in the United States today. As invasive species go, the nutria is one of the most destructive creatures we have, especially in my home State of Maryland and in Louisiana. The nutria is a large, semi-aquatic rodent that was originally brought to the United States to bolster the fur trade in the early 20th century. Unfortunately, we underestimated their strong appetite and high reproductive potential. Since their introduction, the nutria have damaged millions of acres of wetlands and countless miles of shoreline and have even earned a spot among the International Union for Conservation of Nature's list of the world's 100 worst invasive alien species. By the early 1990s, the Chesapeake Bay/Delmarva Peninsula population was estimated to exceed 150,000 animals. These ``eating machines'' can consume up to 25 percent of their body weight in plants per day, feasting directly on plant roots. This wrecks havoc on our wetlands, turning our once productive lands into barren mud flats. The destruction exacerbates the damaging impacts of ongoing land subsidence and sea level rise. We understand how important our wetlands are and provide numerous ecosystem services to our society. They provide fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, erosion control, and water quality preservation. In my own State of Maryland, nutria invaded the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge nearly 6 decades ago, destroying vital habitat for native shorebirds, muskrats, and blue crabs. They are responsible for the loss of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands in this refuge alone. We must remember this has a significant impact on people--people who depend on it for their livelihood and for people who use it for recreation. The loss of Blackwater wetlands, that are vital to the fishery, was estimated to cost Maryland's economy nearly $4 million annually. Millions of Americans spend billions of dollars pursuing their fishing, hunting and wildlife watching activities, which contribute to millions of jobs in industries and businesses that support wildlife-related recreation. In 2000, Congress established a Federal funding source to develop a successful public-private partnership program to address nutria in Maryland. This financial support has directly led to the successful eradiation of nutria from 150,000 acres of the approximate 400,000 acres of wetland habitats that they infest. The project success is due to strategic planning, permanent and dedicated staff members, and cooperation with private landowners. In Louisiana, an incentive program is used to encourage trappers to trap nutria. Since the implementation of the program, the damage to coastal wetlands has been reduced from 90,000 to 20,000 acres. The management techniques developed in Maryland and Louisiana have already been exported to other states like Oregon and Washington to control their own nutria populations and minimize the damage done to their marsh habitats. Healthy wetlands are returning to places where nutria have been removed. But the job is not yet done. Last Congress, I introduced the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2009 to continue and improve the successful nutria eradication program in Maryland and Louisiana and expand it to other significantly impacted states like Oregon and Washington. This bill passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2009 and had the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, and the Nature Conservancy. Today, I proudly rise again and rededicate myself to passing the Nutria Eradication Control Act of 2011. This bill will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the states of Maryland, Louisiana, Delaware, Oregon, Washington, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and North Carolina to eradicate and control nutria populations and restore nutria-damaged wetlands. We know how valuable our wetlands are. We know how destructive the nutria is. We know what we can do to stop the nutria and that these programs work. I urge my colleagues to remember that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, late on Sunday evening, the world was told of news we had been waiting to hear for almost 10 years. Osama bin Laden was a murderer who devoted his life to the destruction of freedom, democracy, and our way of life. His death is an important milestone in the fight against global extremist violence and a relief to the millions of Americans and others around the world who have felt his murderous destruction. I, first and foremost, wish to thank the military and the intelligence professionals who carried out this daring mission, which was executed flawlessly and will go down in our history books as to how we should do our work. I wish to take a moment to compliment all of our military and intelligence people who were involved in this effort. I take great pride in representing the State of Maryland and our intelligence agencies that are located at Fort Meade. They do incredible work for our national security and for our Nation. They do a lot of work that keeps us safe, but they can never issue a press release because of the nature of their work. Many times I believe their work goes basically unappreciated by the vast majority of Americans. But I wish to take a moment to congratulate all the men and women in our intelligence agencies and in our military who have devoted their lives to keeping us safe. This mission demonstrates the type of work they do in order to make this a safer nation. This successful interagency operation illustrates intelligence sharing at its best and the commitment of the men and women of our Armed Forces as well as our political leadership. As you know, after the attack on our country on September 11, we had commissions do work, we had a lot of congressional investigations, and there was one theme that came out very clearly in regard to the way we collected intelligence information to keep this Nation safe; that is, there was too much stovepiping and not enough sharing of information. Information that could have been shared, that could have been used in a way to keep us safe was not. This effort demonstrates the advantages of sharing information. Our intelligence agencies acted upon information that was made available through various sources and using that to be able to conduct this mission. Truly, bin Laden was brought to justice as a result of President Obama's deliberative planning, coordination, and communication, his leadership, partnership, and dogged persistence. Because of that, we were able to accomplish this mission. I wish to congratulate President Obama. He had to make a tough call. The intelligence information was not conclusive. Much of it was circumstantial. Yet he evaluated the best information we had to determine that bin Laden was at this location. He then had to make another tough choice, as to what type of mission to use--whether to use a sophisticated bomb in order to destroy the property, which would have caused the loss of some innocent life, or whether to use a higher risk mission of sending our SEALs into Pakistan. The President made the right call. He made the right decision, and I congratulate him on his leadership. All Americans were affected by bin Laden's evil actions. We all remember that fateful day in September of 2001. I was on the other side of the Capitol as a Congressman in my office in the Rayburn Building. I remember receiving information that we thought there was a plane that could be heading to our own building. The Capitol Police ushered us out of the building so we could try to get out of harm's way. We all began to understand our Nation was under attack and the world was changing. While we are still living in that changed world, this event reminds us again the strength of America is freedom and that its persistence can prevail. As a lifelong proponent of human rights, I know we do not rejoice in killing, but this death rids the world of a man who was committed to intolerance, destruction, hatred, and the desecration of human dignity. Bringing bin Laden to justice helps heal the wounds of those who lost their loved ones and to a nation who lived through 9/11. We must remain vigilant as the fight against al-Qaida and other extremists goes on. While al-Qaida is increasingly marginalized-- particularly as we see so many in the Arab world exercise their desires for change--the threat posed by terrorist organizations will remain with us. We must remain on our highest guard, working with our allies around the world, in order to fight these extremists. Once again, I wish to congratulate the tremendous efforts of our President, our military, and our intelligence community, especially as their hard work continues, and may this event bring some sense of peace to the families affected by bin Laden's evil, as well as to all in the world who love freedom and peace. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum calls be equally charged against the majority and the minority.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the Senate chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I rise today to pay tribute to Max van der Stoel, the first High Commissioner on National Minorities at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, who died last week at his home in The Hague at the age of 86. Van der Stoel, a two-time Dutch foreign minister, worked tirelessly throughout the OSCE region as High Commissioner from 1992 to 2001 to prevent crises involving minority issues. Max van der Stoel had a life-long commitment to human rights. From his early life in Nazi-occupied Netherlands to defining moments spent with Soviet-era dissidents, van der Stoel was deeply affected by the abuses he witnessed. He described one such encounter, in then- Czechoslovakia in 1977, when as foreign minister he met with Charter 77 activist, Jan Patocka in full view of Czechoslovak authorities. Van der Stoel commented that, ``This support was of great concern to the Communist authorities. After our short meeting, Professor Patocka was arrested and rigorously interrogated. He died of a heart attack the next day.'' Following the first gulf war, van der Stoel was appointed U.N. Human Rights Representative for Iraq, and he continued to raise human rights concerns in Iraq throughout the 1990s. In 1992, he was appointed as the OSCE's first High Commissioner on National Minorities, HCNM, with a mandate aimed at preventing conflict through quiet diplomacy and early warning to the OSCE countries. His successes in that role are largely unrecognized, as they lie in what did not happen rather than in what did. He traveled to countries where tensions were rising, encouraged dialogue, and made practical recommendations to address underlying issues related to ethnic tension. He worked in Estonia and Latvia in the early 1990s to address the processing for acquiring citizenship--which at the time disadvantaged particularly ethnic Russians in the newly independent states because of stringent language testing. He was the OSCE Chairmanship's Personal Representative on Kosovo--although unfortunately his early warnings in 1997 and 1998 went unheeded by policymakers. His work on inter-ethnic relations and education in Macedonia resulted in the establishment of the South Eastern European University in Tetovo in 2001, which is still a model for integrated education. Throughout his time as HCNM, he promoted rights for Roma, the single largest minority in the OSCE region as a whole. His job was not easy, but his integrity, commitment, and diplomatic skills paved the way for his successors and built the position of the HCNM into one of the most effective OSCE tools for conflict prevention. His legacy to the OSCE is not only the work he did as HCNM, but the advice he left behind on the importance of early action to prevent conflict. In his last statement to the OSCE Permanent Council in 2001, he said: Governments should see the self-interest in protecting minority rights and living in peaceful and prosperous multi- ethnic states. The only people who profit from inter-ethnic conflict are nationalist entrepreneurs. That is not a business that reaps long term profits. In the end, intolerance, violence and instability hurt us all. I maintain that preventing inter-ethnic conflict will continue to be one of the organization's biggest challenges in the near future. Despite improvements in many OSCE states, conflicts still rage and tensions boil below the surface. We have to sharpen our tools and invest sufficient resources to ensure that we remain on the cutting edge of conflict prevention. . . . Collectively, we must do more to act in response to the warning signs. It is not enough to admonish States for falling short of their commitments. A concerted response by the international community must be resolute, targeted, and timely. . . . When a crisis becomes acute, everyone wonders what went wrong or what steps should be taken to contain the situation. Things do not need to get to that point. While Foreign Ministries seem to be increasingly sensitive to the benefits of relatively limited funding, treasuries are still hesitant to invest in preventing the conflicts of tomorrow. We need to put our money where our mouth is. It makes political and financial sense to put resources into keeping multi-ethnic states together, rather than bailing them out after they have fallen apart. His words are as timely and relevant today as they were 10 years ago. It is my hope that, inspired by the dedication and accomplishments of Max van der Stoel, the United States and its allies will strive to ensure that ethic tension and human rights violations are not allowed to fester until they erupt into conflict.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the importance of investment in our national infrastructure on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of the National Road. On May 7, 2011, Americans will gather in Cumberland, MD, to celebrate the bicentennial of the groundbreaking for the construction of this first federally financed road. Congress approved The National Road in 1806 and construction was completed in 1818, connecting Cumberland, MD, with Wheeling, WV, located on the Ohio River. This road would connect East to West, allowing for economic growth and opportunity as a young nation sought to unite a diverse country and facilitate the flow of people, goods, services, information, and Federal authority in new territory. The National Road's completion created a flow of goods and people to and from the Port of Baltimore, along privately developed turnpikes to Cumberland, and across the mountains to the Ohio River Valley. The road was extended to Vandalia, IL, in the early 1840s. For more than a century, The National Road was this Nation's only federally funded interstate highway, making its importance to commercial and political enterprise unparalleled. By the 1850s, the lure of trade and migration to the West led to the development of the ``horseless carriage,'' running parallel to the road, connecting the Port of Baltimore to the West right through Cumberland, MD, over the mountains and westward. While The National Road remained important, trains began to transport the bulk of goods and people travelling West. In the 1900s, it was the invention of the automobile that brought The National Road back to popularity as travelers and tourists explored America and the natural beauty of western Maryland and truckers transported goods along with the trains. I would encourage my colleagues and their constituents to take a journey on The National Road. The National Road has been designated a Maryland Scenic Byway and is marked by signs and historical markers, connecting heritage areas, arts and entertainment districts, and historic landscapes and structures. A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary can be found at www.crnps.gov/nr. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this national achievement, which reminds us of the importance of supporting infrastructure investments that promote trade and commerce, and in thanking the people of Cumberland, MD, for celebrating this national achievement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, shortly we are going to be having three votes. One vote will be on the budget for our current fiscal year that began on October 1 and ends on September 30 of this year. I think we have talked about that vote at some length. I took the floor yesterday and explained how the negotiated budget for this year is far better than the Republican-passed budget in the House of Representatives, the original H.R. 1. I pointed out how a budget represents the vision for our future, that it is a policy document. I far prefer the agreement that was reached that preserves America's ability to have a competitive workforce. I pointed out yesterday, and I will repeat again today, that the budget we will vote on will maintain most of the funding for NIH basic research, which is critically important for innovation in America. That is the basic research that is used by our high-tech companies so America can outinnovate our competitors, whereas the House-passed budget would have cut $1.4 billion from NIH research, or how the agreed-to budget will provide for job training and Job Corps pretty much at the current rates, whereas the Republican-passed House budget would have eliminated most of the funds for job training and 40 percent of the funds for the Job Corps; or, for our students and Pell grants, maintaining the funding so students can continue to receive $5,550 maximum under Pell grants. As I pointed out, college education tuition is going up. The House-passed budget would have cut 15 percent off of that program. I think perhaps the one that really points to the major difference between where the Republicans were on the budget and what we finally ended up with is the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program has worked very effectively in all of our States. Children who participate in Head Start do much better in life. We know that. The House-passed budget would have cut the number of children in Head Start by 218,000, eliminating 55,000 teachers and assistants from the Head Start Program. I am pleased the agreement reached will maintain all services at Head Start so all of our children can continue in that program. The list goes on and on about the compromises that were reached. I wish to make clear this was a true compromise. It is not what the Democrats wanted or what the Republicans wanted. It is going to be painful. There is a lot I would like to have seen done differently. I wish to point out that the GSA budget is going to be reduced by $1 billion. At the White Oak facility in Maryland for the FDA, we are doing some critically important construction work to bring together the different participants for the safety of Americans. That program is going to be severely slowed as a result of the cut to the GSA budget. I pointed out yesterday that on the environmental front regarding the Endangered Species Act, there is a provision that delists the great wolf. That shouldn't be targeted for congressional action. That is a dangerous precedent for us to set. I pointed out that the Community Development Block Grants are cut. Even though the EPA budget which would have been cut by 30 percent with the House-passed budget--we bring that down by 50 percent, so it is only a 15-percent cut, but a 15-percent cut is too large of a cut for the Environmental Protection Agency. The good news is we were able to remove those policy riders that would have prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment, protecting our public health. Those were eliminated. I wish to speak for the next few minutes about the other two votes that will be taking place on the floor in a few moments. They are votes on what are called correcting resolutions. Let me explain this, because I think it might surprise some of the people to learn we are not talking about the amount of dollars that is going to be appropriated in this current year's budget. These are restrictions as to how money can be spent, so it deals with a philosophical agenda, not a budget agenda. This is not about reducing the deficit; this is about trying to impose a philosophical position on the budget for this year. Let me talk about the two correcting resolutions which I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against. One would restrict funds going to Planned Parenthood-- women's health care issues--which I call the war on women. This deals with title X funding. Title X funding is used for preventive health services such as cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, immunizations, diabetes and hypertension testing, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, HIV testing and referrals. Not one dime of Federal money can be used for abortions. That is the current law, the current prohibition. Currently, there are approximately 5 million people who benefit from title X funding with over 4,500 clinics across the Nation. Ninety-one percent of the people who take advantage of these clinics have no health insurance. Less than 25 percent of title X funds go to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood spends approximately 3 percent of its total budget on abortion services, not one dime of which is Federal funds--not one dime of which is Federal funds. So this is not about abortion; this is about whether we are going to be able to provide preventive care to our most vulnerable in America. It is an attack on women, because women are the basic beneficiaries of title X funds. It is going to cost us more money for the use of emergency room services. It makes no sense at all. It is certainly counter to what we all say we want, and that is gender equity in health care in America. I urge my colleagues to vote no on that correcting resolution. The second correcting resolution is an attempt to repeal the affordable care act that we celebrated the anniversary of a few weeks ago. If you are a senior, you should be concerned about this vote, because now you have a wellness exam annually under Medicare that is reimbursed, so you can take care of your own health care needs. That would be put in jeopardy. If you are one of the 3.2 million Americans who fall within the so- called doughnut hole, or the coverage gap for prescription drug coverage, you should be concerned about the repeal. If you got $250 last year, you are going to get 50 percent of the cost of your brandname prescription drugs covered and, by 2020, we are going to close the doughnut hole altogether. That would be eliminated if this correcting resolution were passed. Seniors should be pleased that at least we were able to extend the solvency of the Medicare Program by 10 years. Frankly, you should be worried about whatever efforts are being made here to privatize the Medicare system, making seniors pay more for their health care. It starts with this vote later today where we can reject the efforts to turn back the clock on Medicare where seniors would have to pay more. If you are a small business owner, you should be pleased by the tax credits that are now available and which this correcting resolution would take away, making it more expensive for employers to provide health care for their employees. If you are a consumer and are now able to cover your child up to age 26--1.2 million Americans--the correcting resolution would turn the clock back on the progress we have made on fighting the abusive practices of private insurance companies in dealing with preexisting conditions. If you have a child with asthma, now you can get full coverage. If we turn the clock back by approving that correcting resolution, you will be at the mercy of private insurance companies to provide coverage, which is very unlikely to happen. I can talk about emergency room visits where some insurance companies require preauthorization. I don't know how you get preauthorization when you need to go to an emergency room. We corrected that in the affordable care act. Once again, the correcting resolution we are being asked to vote on will turn the clock back on that, putting people at the mercy of private insurance companies as to whether they will cover emergency room visits. If you are a taxpayer, which is what we are talking about today with the budget, you should be very much concerned about this correcting resolution because by turning back the clock on the affordable care act, it will cost the taxpayers over $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years. So it is tailored to your need. If you have pride, as I do, that America has at long last said that health care is a right, not a privilege, and recognize that we need to do more to improve our health care system, you want us to move forward and talk about the health care issues and try to improve our health care system; you don't want us to turn the clock back. The large number of people who have no health insurance or have restricted coverage because of the abusive practices of private insurance companies or the inability to cover children after they graduate from college--that has now been corrected. We certainly don't believe a correcting resolution would take that away from us. We are going to have three votes. I urge my colleagues to vote against both of these correcting resolutions. They are attacks on women's health care issues and attacks on quality health care for all Americans. We need to pass the budget, and these correcting resolutions should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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 April 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fulfilling Our Commitment to Support Victims of Crime.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Perspectives on Deficit Reduction.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011.

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 April 13, 2011, at 3 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial and Executive Nominations.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 11 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``International Development Policy Priorities in the FY 2012 International Affairs Budget.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, from 2-4 p.m. in Dirksen 562.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, there has been a lively debate on the floor concerning our 2011 budget. Now we are starting to talk about the 2012 budget. I think it is important to point out what I hope is the obvious, which is that the budget of our Nation represents our vision for our future. It is a policy document that speaks to what our priorities will be. It provides the financial tools for us to be able to meet those objectives. I know we are in very difficult fiscal times, but this is not the first time in the history of America. I remind my colleagues that in the 1990s we were confronted with a large budget deficit. I happened to have been in the House of Representatives during that time. We saw, through the leadership of President Clinton, that we were able to bring our budget into balance, and we did that from large deficits. We did it in a way that maintained America's priorities and maintained the priorities for our children and our future because we continued to fund those essential programs that allowed our Nation to grow. As a result of what we did in the 1990s, we saw unprecedented growth in our economy because we did our budget the right way, speaking to America's future and to our priorities, and doing it in a fiscally responsible way. I think President Obama was correct when he stated in his State of the Union Address that America will meet the challenges of international competition, and we will do that by outeducating, outinnovating, and outbuilding our competitors. That requires a budget that speaks to those priorities, that speaks to educating our workforce, to provide the type of climate where America can continue to lead the world in research and innovation, that we pay attention to our infrastructure, whether it is transportation, water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, so we have the capacity to be able to compete internationally and that we can create the jobs that will be critically important for America. We need more jobs and we need good-paying jobs. That is what President Obama's vision is about, and our budget needs to underscore that vision. Yes, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way but in a way that allows America's future to be secure. That is why I so much opposed the budget that was sent over to us from the House of Representatives, the 2011 budget, H.R. 1, before the ability to reach a compromise. I did that because when you look at what H.R. 1 would have done--particularly in light of the budget agreement we have now reached on the 2011 budget--you cannot help but notice a huge difference between our visions for America. We all agree we have to have a workforce that can compete. Look at the stark differences between the budget agreement and the House-passed budget. In NIH research--and I take pride in this, since NIH is headquartered in Maryland--most of the funding for basic research, which is critically important for innovation--you cannot get to the applied research unless you have the basic research, and you cannot get good high-tech jobs unless you invest in basic research. Thanks to the budget agreement we reached, most of the funding will be able to be maintained for the basic research at NIH. If the House budget would have become law, it would have been $1.4 billion less. That would have been a huge hit on America's ability to be able to compete in this global marketplace. You also need to have a trained workforce. You need job training and Job Corps programs. Most of the funding has been maintained in this budget agreement for our job training and Job Corps programs; whereas, if you look at the House- passed budget, they eliminated all funds for job training and a 40- percent reduction in the Job Corps program. That was restored under the budget agreement that allows America to have the competitive workforce it needs to meet future challenges. Perhaps the area that I think people in Maryland and Minnesota may recognize the most is what happens to Pell grants. Most students cannot make it today, unless they have help in higher education. It is too expensive to be able to afford without the help of programs such as Pell grants. You need to have education beyond high school if you are going to be competitive today. Well, the House-passed budget would have reduced Pell grants by 15 percent. I can assure you that tuition isn't going down by 15 percent this year. Tuition at colleges and universities is going up and up. I am proud we were able to, in the budget agreement, maintain the maximum Pell grants at $5,550. We maintain funding for Race to the Top funds because we want excellence in K-12. The House-passed budget would have zeroed out the Race to the Top funds. To me, if you talk about a budget that speaks to America's values, to give young children the chance to succeed in school, Head Start has never been a partisan program. It has been supported by Democrats and Republicans because there are proven results in Head Start. People who participate in Head Start will do better. We have those results, so it is in our economic interest. The Republican-passed budget in the House would have knocked 218,000 children off the Head Start Program. It would have reduced 55,000 teachers and aides from Head Start Programs around our Nation. I am pleased to see that the agreement we will be voting on shortly restores all the funds for the Head Start Program, so our children can get the Head Start they need to succeed in K-12. The budget speaks to our energy policies and transportation policies. It is interesting to look and see that the agreement reached by our negotiators restores more than $268 million in renewable energy and alternative energy sources. If we are going to be able to be competitive, we need an energy policy that makes sense. If we are going to keep jobs in America, we need an energy policy that makes sense. If we are going to be secure, we have to get ourselves off foreign oil. We need alternative energy sources. The compromise restores a lot of the funds that were not in the House-passed budget document. I might talk about one issue that is very important to the people living in this region. We made a commitment years ago that the Federal Government would participate with the surrounding jurisdictions in the funding of the Nation's transit system, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit System, which is critical to getting Federal workers to work and to our Nation's Capital. Our government committed $150 billion a year to modernize that system. Taxpayers of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are contributing also to the modernization of a system that is aged and critically important. We live in the second most congested area in the Nation, as far as commutes are concerned. The House of Representatives, in the Republican-passed budget, took out that $150 million--took it out. I am proud the compromise reached restores that $150 million. Our budget speaks to our health and our environment. The Health Resources Services Administration was severely cut in the Republican- passed budget. It would have affected care in each one of our communities. Our negotiators restored $900 million to that budget. What does that mean? It means the 11,000 community health centers, located in all our States, will be able to continue the services they are currently providing. I took the floor before and talked about the Greater Baden Center, located just a few miles from here, and how they have expanded service this year to deal with prenatal care. In Maryland and in America, our infant mortality rate is too high. For a wealthy nation and State to have the type of infant mortality rate we have is inexcusable. It is because we have low-birth-weight babies. Some die and others survive and have complications and have a tough time in life and they are very expensive to the health care system. In our health centers, we are doing something about that. At the Greater Baden Center, they are now going to provide prenatal care so pregnant women can get the attention they need and can deliver healthier babies. Under the House-passed budget, they would not have done that. The math is simple. We invest in the health of Americans. We understand that. That is our budget. The Republican-passed House budget would have cut off those funds. The affordable care act will be able to implement it. We are not going to be stopped by the effort made in the Republican-passed budget. As far as the environmental protection riders we have talked about, these are the policy riders. I know this is confusing to people listening to this debate, and they understand that the House-passed budget by the Republicans had a lot of policy issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the budget. They blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. Let me say that again. They blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. They couldn't enforce the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. For the people of Maryland and this region, that means blocking the enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay Program--a program that enjoys broad support from the people not only of our region but the Nation. Well, I am pleased to say the budget we will be voting on later this week eliminates those restrictions. All of them are out. Thank goodness they are because they should never have been in the budget document to start with. I will make it clear, Mr. President. I am very disappointed by many of the provisions included in this compromise. It is a true compromise. It is not what the Democrats would have written, I can assure you of that, and it is not what the Republicans would have written. It is a true compromise, and that is what we had to go through, I understand, but I feel compelled to at least let the people of Maryland know the cost of the compromises. For example, the General Services Administration will have $1 billion less to deal with government construction. What will that mean? Well, at White Oak, MD, we have the FDA's expansion. That will be put on hold. That will not only affect my community, but it will affect our country because we are talking about public health and food safety. There is a rider that was attached that did survive that deals with the delisting of the great wolf under the Endangered Species Act. That is not how we should be acting. There is a remedy for dealing with the delisting. There is a process we go through. We shouldn't go down a dangerous precedent that starts congressional or political action on delisting species that are included under the Endangered Species Act. The cuts for the community development block grant are much more than I would like to see. These are programs that are important for our urban centers. During these times, when their budgets are being hit the hardest, I think it is very unfortunate to tell them we are just going to add to their challenges. We should be helping them during these times. We shouldn't be taking resources away from them. The Federal Transit Administration has a major cut in this budget. I find that regrettable, particularly as it relates to their new start budget. I come from a State that has major new transit projects we want to get moving--the purple line to connect our suburban areas around Washington, the red line in Baltimore, Carter City's transit way to connect the 270 corridor for high-tech jobs. All those depend upon us continuing to move forward with sensible transit projects that, quite frankly, I think are in jeopardy as a result of the compromises that were needed to be made. Teach for America is eliminated. The Federal participation in that is eliminated. On Monday I had a chance to teach for Teach for America. I was in a high school in Baltimore with some very dedicated young people willing to give up their lives so America can compete in the future. We certainly should have continued the Federal partnership in Teach for America. I talked about the Environmental Protection Agency, but I didn't point out that the Republican budget in the House cut that agency by 30 percent--30 percent. We restored half of those funds, but the cut is still going to be pretty severe. So I just wanted my colleagues to know that, whereas I am very pleased that many of the decisions made in this compromise for the 2011 budget will allow us to be able to move forward as a nation for America's vision--being able to out-educate, out-innovate, and out- build our competitors--there are challenges as a result of the compromise that have to be faced. Mr. President, these discussions will continue now to the 2012 budget. We are already seeing that happen. In the House they are already starting to act on what is known as the Ryan budget, which we think is pretty much inspired by the tea party. It is pretty extreme. It is pretty radical. It is not a credible plan, in my view. It is not a credible plan to reduce the Federal deficit. Now, why do I say that? Well, the Ryan budget concentrates on domestic spending. It doesn't touch military spending, and it doesn't touch our revenues. Let me correct that. It does deal with our revenues, but it deals with it in the wrong way. It not only extends every tax break that is currently available, providing tax relief for millionaires, but it provides additional tax relief. It lowers the highest rates. Now, how is that going to be paid for? Well, they are expecting they are going to take more out of middle-income families. That is bad for middle-income families, but my guess is they will not even be able to reach those targets, and we will have huge deficits as far as the eye can see. It is not a credible plan. The deficit commission taught us if we are to have a credible plan to deal with the deficit, we have to deal with domestic spending. We have to deal with military spending. We have to deal with mandatory spending. And we have to deal with revenues. We have to deal with all of them. The Ryan budget does not. It is going to be hard for middle-income families, it protects America's wealthiest, and it attacks our seniors--attacks our seniors. The Ryan budget would turn Medicare into a voucher program. Now, I can tell you what that means in dollars and cents. It means our seniors, who currently have--currently have--the largest out-of- pocket costs for health care than any other age group of Americans, will see their health care costs go up dramatically--double. Some of us remember how it was for seniors to get health care before we had Medicare. We had to fight with private insurance companies. Private insurance companies are not interested in insuring people who make a lot of claims. Guess what. As you get older, you make a lot of claims. What the Republican budget would do is tell our seniors: We are going to give you a voucher. It is a limited amount of money. Now you go find a private insurance plan out there. Whatever it costs, you are going to have to fill up the difference. We know it is going to cost a lot more than the voucher we are giving you. That is what they are doing. They are making it more expensive for our seniors to afford health care where they are asking us to reduce their costs, not make it more expensive. Then the Ryan budget goes further by block-granting the Medicaid Program. That means, quite frankly, Medicaid will not survive. We can talk about the hardships it will have on providing health care in our community, how it will have more and more people using the emergency rooms rather than using preventive care or seeing doctors, and that is all going to absolutely happen if we ever block-grant Medicaid. Let me follow up on our seniors. Many of our seniors depend upon the Medicaid system, and their families depend upon it for long-term care-- nursing care. That will not survive if we block-grant that to our States. So the Ryan budget not only is not credible as it relates to dealing with the deficit, it also is very punitive against our seniors. What I find probably the most disappointing is where I started this discussion, saying our budget is our vision for our future, that it speaks to our priorities for our future. The Ryan budget leaves our children behind. If we are going to succeed, we have to take care of our children. They are our future. We have to deal with their education and with their health care. The Ryan budget puts them in severe jeopardy. It is a philosophical document that I don't think represents the values of America. I think our values are in our children and in our future and in our ability to meet those economic challenges. I think there is a better way. President Obama is calling for a comprehensive progrowth economic strategy that will invest in winning the future. I would hope all of us could embrace that. Don't we want a comprehensive progrowth economic strategy that invests in winning in the future, that invests in our children, that invests in education and in innovation? As President Obama says, he wants to meet our values for the dignity of our retirees. Think about that for one moment. How we treat our retirees speaks to what we are as a nation--the dignity of our retirees. Think about a retiree trying to find an insurance company that will take care of their insurance needs because we dumped the Medicare system. We can't let that happen. We can't let that happen. There is a better way. Sixty-four of us in the Senate have said there is a better way. We have said: Look, it is time for us to be serious about a credible plan for our deficit, and we are prepared--64 of us: 32 Democrats, 32 Republicans--to not only cut our domestic spending, but we will look at bringing down mandatory spending, and we will look at military, and we will look at revenues. There is a better way to do this. I think we can represent the best of America's future in our budget by providing education, innovation, job growth, health and environment policies that make sense, and we can do it with fiscal responsibility. That is our mission. So I know a lot of my colleagues come down to say we have to take care of the deficit--do the deficit--and I agree with that. But, remember, our budget document is our statement about America's future. It is our policy document, and America needs to stand up for quality education, for the best health care in the world, and for encouraging innovation that will give us the jobs of the future so that America can continue to lead the world. I think America deserves nothing less, and I intend to continue to fight for that type of vision for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.