Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, well, we are less than 6 hours away from a potential government shutdown. I take this time to sort of bring people up to date in Maryland as to where we are. I say that because in Maryland we have about 150,000 civilian active Federal employees. Obviously, they are directly affected if we have a government shutdown. They will not get a paycheck. Whether they work or not, they will not be getting their paychecks. I just want everyone to think about what that means. If you have a car payment that is due and you do not have a paycheck or a full paycheck, you still have to make that car payment. You might not have the money to do it. If you have certain responsibilities on a student loan, you may not be able to come up with the money to deal with it. So it is going to cause real problems for those Federal workers who had nothing at all to do with the problems we are confronting in passing a budget. They are not at fault. But yet they will be the first ones who will be suffering as a result of a government shutdown. But it does not end with the Federal workforce because the Federal workforce, with their salaries, buys goods and services. Literally thousands of small businesses in Maryland are going to be adversely affected, and many around the country, because of the impact of the Federal workforce being on furlough, not getting their checks, the impact that is going to have on our businesses and on our economy. But it does not end there. Federal contractors who depend upon the Federal contracts, whether to help us with national security or homeland security or to deal with health care issues, are going to be affected also because these contracts are not going to go forward. So I really want to continue to underscore that a government shutdown will have a major negative impact, not just on our Federal workforce, not just on the businesses that are going to be hurt as a result of it, but on our entire economy. All of us will suffer. But I really take this time to try to bring people up to date on where we are on the negotiations because I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Gee, if we could only balance the budget, if we could only bring up a short-term CR. That is not the problem. It is not the problem we are confronting right now because, quite frankly, the negotiators have agreed on the dollar amount of a budget from now to the end of the year. That number has been agreed to. So this is not about the Federal deficit any longer. It is about whether we can reach an agreement on a budget for the remainder of this year--not the dollar amount. We are now tied up on what we call the policy riders. But we are not even talking about all the policy riders; we are talking about one policy rider which my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, I think outlined very clearly. I wish to take this time on behalf of my wife, on behalf of my daughter, on behalf of my two little granddaughters, because it is about women's health care issues. That is what we are talking about, and we are talking about whether we are going to be able to allow those programs to move forward during the next 6 months. It does not affect the dollars, the types of programs that we allow. So to make it clear, we are talking about women's health care issues that deal principally with preventive health care--the cancer screenings to keep women healthy. Not one dollar of those funds can be used for abortions. So let's make that clear from the beginning. This is not part of the abortion debate. This is talking about whether we should allow this type of policy rider to be on this bill. It is not appropriate. I think all of us understand it is not appropriate. But I even go further than that. I am not even sure it is about that. It appears to many of us that you have an element in the House of Representatives on the Republican side that really wants to see a government shutdown. They have said that. They applauded the Speaker when the Speaker said: Let's get prepared for a government shutdown. They gave him a standing ovation. They said, over and over again, maybe a government shutdown will be good. Well, a government shutdown will not be good. I think we all can agree on that. If this is about the budget, as it should be, a government shutdown costs more money. Then I hear a lot of my colleagues come to the floor and say: Look, we have to get rid of all this red ink and all these deficits. We could go back to the fact that we did balance the budget in the 1990s. We did it without a single Republican vote. We took a deficit and we balanced the budget. When George W. Bush became President, he had a large surplus--only to see the policies of that administration, which went to war and did not pay for it, and we ended up with large deficits and an economy that was losing 700,000 jobs a month when Barack Obama became President. We could go back and start talking about how we got here, but the question is, How are we going to get the budget back into balance? There, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We need to do that. But remember, the debate tonight on preventing the government from shutting down has nothing to do with that. The dollar amounts are in agreement. It is the policy issues concerning women's health care or whether, in fact, there is a group on the other side that represents the tea party that does not want to enter into an agreement. Remember, they said: Don't compromise at all. ``No compromise'' was their position, where they controlled the day. But I must tell you, we have to come together and deal with the budget deficit. There are 64 of us--32 Democrats, 32 Republicans--who have signed a letter saying we are prepared to consider all the issues of balancing the budget, whether it is domestic spending, military spending, mandatory spending, or revenues. That is what we are going to have to do. We are going to have to get together and put the Nation's interests first. I believe we can do that. I believe we can get this budget into balance. But it starts with a little good-faith effort here tonight, a good- faith effort. When we have already reached the agreement on the dollar amount, let's not let a minority in the House of Representatives prevent us from keeping the government operating--that is what it comes down to--so the Federal worker in Maryland or that person who happens to be in Rhode Island tonight, and tomorrow recognizes he needs his passport renewed in order to take a trip, can find the passport office open or whether it is that potential homeowner who is going to need an FHA loan and is told that if there is a government shutdown, that loan cannot go forward or whether it is that family who was planning to come to the Nation's Capital and enjoy the Smithsonian and is going to be told the Smithsonian is now going to be closed. Let's not use those individuals as a target for the extreme actions in the other body. I am convinced we still have time to get this done. We know offers have been made in good faith. We know we have the dollar amounts. So I hope that within the next couple hours we can prevent a government shutdown because it absolutely makes no sense. My constituents are angry about this, and so am I. I hope we will see reason prevail, and then we can move on and deal with the real budget problems of this country. We cannot deal with it in only 12 percent of the budget, and that is all we are talking about here in this budget for the rest of this year. Hopefully, we will be able to get together and figure out how we can move forward. But it starts with keeping government functioning. It starts with honoring the types of commitments we have all talked about here to negotiate in good faith. I have said this many times: It is not going to be the budget the Democrats want. It will not be the budget the Republicans want. That is what negotiations are about. But when you have some on the other side who say: Look, it is going to be our way or no way, that is not the way the process works. I hope the majority in the House of Representatives is listening to this debate and listening to the American people and will act in the best interests of the American people and allow the process to move forward so we can keep government functioning. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the lives lost in last year's plane crash near Smolensk that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, and 94 others who represented the political, cultural, and religious leadership of Poland. Words alone offer little solace before such awesome tragedy, which is one of the reasons people must gather together before monuments and flowers to add a tangible dimension to our shapeless grief. While eloquent remarks can move the heart, we all know a smile, a gaze, or an embrace can often do more to bring comfort to the sorrowful. Katyn has become a tragedy in three acts--the crime, the coverup, and now the crash. Surely it is fitting for us to meet, comfort each other, and remember those who died. But what lies beyond our tears? Can good come from this evil? For the loved ones of those 96 souls who perished nearly a year ago, they must take comfort in knowing that the final act of their beloved was a noble one--that of remembering those martyrs whom Stalin and his henchmen sought to erase from Poland and, indeed, from history. As Stanislaw Kot, Poland's wartime Ambassador to Moscow, said, ``People are not like steam; they cannot evaporate.'' He was right and it is written, ``Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!'' In a haunting twist of fate, a hungry wolf in the Russian winter would scratch at the snow and uncover the hastily buried bones of Poland's best and brightest. And the truth about this unspeakable crime would one day be known. We have come a long way--a very long way--from the time when this atrocity was falsely presented as a Nazi crime and from the time when the names of the dead could only be circulated in communist Poland in the form of samizdat publications and whispered around kitchen tables. Nevertheless, there is still more that must be done to set the record straight. This involves insuring that all the evidence relating to the execution sites, the executioners' identities, the motives for the crime, and the fate of so many Polish families who vanished on the Siberian steppe are publicly available. We must ensure that the fullness of the truth is uncovered and shared for its own sake and for closure. To that end, I welcome recent news of the Kremlin's release of still more documents relating to the massacre. Further, I believe that finally coming to terms with Katyn is a necessary precondition for a durable Polish-Russian rapprochement, which is itself good insurance for maintaining a Europe, whole, free, and at peace. Next week Presidents Komorowski and Medvedev will meet before the mass graves at Katyn and, I trust, will continue a dialogue of healing between two great nations that have suffered so much from the elevation of an ideology over a people. I wish them well in their talks and ongoing mission of reconciliation and believe that the only lasting balm for this wound lies in the heart and not in a courtroom or even a legislature. This is not to say that charges or claims should not be pursued, but to recognize that, in many cases, such actions will fall short and offer little by way of consolation. It would be most unfortunate for the memory of Katyn to be debased by ideologues of any ilk who would usurp this sacred memory for partisan projects. For too long the truth about Katyn was denied by those on the left who turned a blind eye to the reality of communism and many on the right seemed to view Katyn as just another issue to be exploited in the struggle of ideologies. People and their memory are an end, in and of themselves, and must never be used as a means to advance even a just cause. The only decent relationship to them is that of love and remembrance--our dignity and theirs demands nothing less. My sincere hope is that Poland and Russia can do better than some countries that have fought bitter diplomatic battles and enacted laws to force or deny recognition of historic crimes. By honestly evaluating a shared past of suffering, Poles and Russians have a real opportunity to build a shared future of friendship and prosperity. Poland is now free and her traditions support the forgiveness that offers a path out of the valley of this shadow of death. In so many ways, Poland is, and must remain, a light to those nearby who still live in the darkness of oppression and lies. As we continue to ponder the devastation of last year's catastrophe, I would like to close by putting a couple faces on our sadness; those of Mariusz Handzlik and Andrzej Przewoznik, who both died in last year's crash. Mariusz was a diplomat and father of three. He was well known and well liked in Washington from the years he spent assigned to the Embassy of Poland. In 2000, he played a fateful game of chess with Polish war hero and Righteous Gentile Jan Karski who narrowly escaped ``liquidation'' at Katyn. Karski would die in a Washington hospital and Handzlik in a gloomy Russian forest. Andrzej was a historian, a husband, and father of two. He was the principle organizer behind the conference I cohosted as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission last year at the Library of Congress to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Forest Massacre. Andrzej hoped to spend time at our National Archives sifting through the papers of the Madden Committee and other relevant U.S. Government documents on Katyn. The memories of Mariusz, Andrzej, and so many other truly exceptional people on that doomed flight offer much by way of virtue and accomplishment that will inspire Poles for generations to come. Let us take comfort in the truth that is, at last, known and bask in the warmth of heroic memories and do this together with our Polish friends who are second to no one in their love of freedom.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time because we are now only literally hours away from a potential shutdown of government. I must tell you that my constituents are angry about this, and I join them in saying this should never happen. There is no reason why we should have a government shutdown. We know the financial issues, and there have been good-faith negotiations. It is my understanding we have pretty much resolved the financial issues. And, remember, we are dealing with 12 percent of the Federal budget. We need to get to the 2012 budget and get a credible plan to deal with the deficit. We all understand that. We are talking about the 2011 budget--the budget that started on October 1 of last year and will end on September 30 of this year. We are over halfway through that budget year. There are differences between where the Democrats were and where the Republicans were. Everyone understood it couldn't be what the Republicans wanted or the Democrats wanted; that we needed to have good-faith negotiations. Those negotiations have taken place, and it is my understanding we have pretty much agreed on the dollar amounts and we are prepared to move forward. But let me talk a little about what will happen at midnight tomorrow night. I have the honor of representing the people of the State of Maryland. There are almost 150,000 active civilian--civilian--Federal employees who live in the State of Maryland. I happened to bump into one of those Federal employees today who asked me a question. She asked me: What am I supposed to do if we have a government shutdown and I don't get a paycheck? I don't have any savings. How am I going to pay for my mortgage? We already have too many people whose mortgages are in jeopardy because of the weakness of our economy, and now 150,000 Marylanders are in jeopardy of losing their paycheck as a result of the inability to resolve this year's budget. I also happened to talk to people who run our Metro system here, and they told me if we have a government shutdown it will mean $1 million less in the fare box, possibly every day, because of the number of people who won't be taking the Metro because they are not going to be going to work. A lot of Federal workers are not going to be going to work. Guess what. They are not going to stop at the coffee shop to buy coffee or buy that lunch. They won't be patronizing the shops. It is going to hurt the small business owners who depend upon that business; depend upon the people who use their paychecks to do their cleaning or go to the different shops. It is going to hurt our economy. It is going to hurt innocent small business owners, just at a time that our economy is starting to recover. I will give another example. A person contacted me today, one of my constituents in Maryland who happens to have an issue concerning the need for a passport to be issued. It needs to be issued rather quickly. We are going to try to accommodate that person to get it done by tomorrow. But suppose that call would have come in next week after there is a government shutdown and that person has travel plans that now may be disrupted because we cannot issue that passport. The list goes on and on of people who are going to be hurt as a result of a government shutdown. We know a government shutdown will actually cost the taxpayers more money. A shutdown costs taxpayers money, More money than the differences in our negotiations in the last couple of days will be lost. So don't tell the taxpayers of this country that we are having a government shutdown to save money. It will not save taxpayer money, it will cost them additional moneys. It will jeopardize our recovery, and individual people will get hurt as a result of the government shutdown. What is the issue? We have already said the money issues--this is a budget debate--have been pretty well resolved. It is not the dollars. It is not the differences you heard--and the differences, frankly, were quite small compared to the size of our budget deficit and the gap between spending and revenues. The issue that is now being raised by the Republicans has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with their social policies. It has to do with family planning. It has to do with the Environmental Protection Agency being able to enforce our environmental laws, the Clean Air Act. Does that sound familiar? It should because we debated those issues on the floor of the Senate yesterday, and we took votes on these environmental issues yesterday on the floor of the Senate, as we should do, debating these issues on their own individual merits. It should not be included in the budget resolution for the remainder of this year. That is not the appropriate place for it. We are not here to debate the social agenda. Those issues should be done on the bills, the substantive bills that come forward. You sort of get a little suspicious as these issues are being raised as to whether, in fact, those who are negotiating on the Republican side are sincere in trying to reach an agreement to prevent a government shutdown or whether they continuously move the goalposts and change the rules in order to bring about a government shutdown. I must tell you, I was disappointed, as I heard Republican after Republican in the last couple of weeks talk about a shutdown might be good for the country; if we have a shutdown, so be it. Let's do it. Even some Republicans calling for a shutdown. I understand there is a problem the Speaker of the House has in dealing with the members of the Republican caucus who belong to the tea party, and they are insisting he not compromise; they don't want to see any compromise. I understand that, but those Members do not control the process. We have a majority of the Members of the House and a majority of the Members of the Senate who are prepared to move forward with this compromise that will not only keep government functioning but will allow us to get on to the real issues of dealing with the deficit of this country by looking at the 2012 budget. There we will be considering more than just the discretionary domestic spending cuts, we also can take a look at the other programs, including military and mandatory spending and revenues, and get a credible plan to deal with the deficit. We have enough votes among the Democrats and Republicans to pass this compromise. We do not have to yield to the extremists on the Republican side in the House who do not want to see any compromise whatsoever, but what worries me is that perhaps the design is to close the government; that is what the Republicans want. I know Speaker Boehner got a standing ovation when he informed his caucus to begin preparing for a possible shutdown. These are serious issues--like that Marylander I talked to today who may, in fact, lose her home if there is a government shutdown or that constituent who had planned a trip and found out that because their passport will expire shortly, they need to get it renewed before they are permitted to enter a foreign country and will need to get that passport tended to or lose the opportunity to travel, perhaps, for a family event or perhaps for business or the taxpayers of this country who are scratching their heads saying: What are you doing adding to the cost of government when I thought this was a debate about reducing the cost of government. It is not about the dollars. If we have a shutdown of government--and I really hope we do not have a shutdown of government, but if we have a shutdown of government, it is not the dollar difference, it is the social agenda that the Republicans are trying to push through this document, that should not even be on this document, that they are now using as a reason to deny a compromise. It is the extreme elements within the Republican caucus who are saying let's have this government shutdown who will be getting their way. There is still time remaining. I hope common sense will prevail. I hope people understand how serious a government shutdown is to our country, to our image internationally, to our ability to conduct business internationally, as well as our ability to provide the services to the people of this Nation who expect those services. We still have time. This is a democracy. Let the majority rule. I think we have the majority of Democrats and Republicans alike who want to bring this issue to conclusion, who know that we have a good compromise done right now that compromises the differences between what the Democrats would want and what the Republicans would want. That is how the process should work. Yes, I am here--representing the people of Maryland, including a large number who work for the Federal Government and a large number who depend upon those who work for the Federal Government and a large number who depend upon the services of the Federal Government--to say let's get this done, not yield to the few on the Republican side in the House. Let's get this job done for the people of Maryland and for the people of this Nation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a moment or two talking about how devastating it would be for our country and for the people of our country if, in fact, we have a government shutdown. I represent Maryland, and there are a lot of Federal workers in Maryland. They are very concerned because it will affect them. A government shutdown will affect everyone in this country. It will affect people who depend upon their government being there to serve them. If you are depending upon a timely IRS refund check and the government is shut down and you need that money and are counting on it--it is your money--you may find out, if the government is shut down, there is no one to talk to and that check will be delayed. If you are a person who is entitled to Social Security disability payments and you have a case that is pending, there will not be people there to resolve that case and you will have to wait. That could also very well affect your ability to literally pay your bills. If you are doing research at NIH--cutting-edge research--which depends upon the continuity of the work in order to discover the answers to many of the problems we face in health care, that will be disrupted if we have a shutdown of the government. The bottom line is, everyone loses if we have a shutdown of our governmental body. The taxpayers lose. Study after study shows that a shutdown of the government will actually cost the taxpayers more money. It makes no sense at all. Yet there are some in the House who say: Look, bring on a shutdown. They are not negotiating in good faith. They are saying it is our way or the highway. Basically, they want to shut down the government. We need to negotiate in good faith. It is not going to be what the Democrats or the Republicans want. That is how the system works. You have to negotiate in good faith. I know our leaders are doing that. I urge all of us to understand the consequences of a shutdown and make sure we take steps to negotiate in good faith and have a budget agreement completed by Friday of this week. I want my colleagues to understand why people in my State should be very concerned about the budget that passed the House of Representatives--the Republican budget. It would hurt children on Head Start. In Maryland, 1,795 children who are on Head Start would lose their ability to go to that program. You know how important that is. For students in Maryland, they would find that their Pell grants would be reduced by almost $700. Women would be hurt by the loss of essential preventive health services. Families would be at risk with the lack of enforcement of our regulatory bills that protect us on public health issues. The list goes on. It has been estimated that 700,000 jobs would be lost if the House budget became real. That would jeopardize our recovery. As you know, we are just starting to see job growth. We certainly don't want to take counterproductive steps in that recovery. As we pointed out many times, the budget the House sent over is concentrating on 12 percent of Federal spending. We need to broaden this discussion, and we all understand that. It starts with allowing the political system to work and for us to get together and reach an agreement for the budget that is already 6 months--we are talking about the last 6 month's budget. In Maryland, if the House budget were to pass, Metro would lose $150 million. This is the Nation's transit system. People would find that if the transit system can't operate, the roads will be more congested and it will take a lot longer to commute. My point is this: The House budget--the Republican budget--is not going to become law. It is not what the Republicans want or what the Democrats want. We have to come together, and we are doing that. But let's not allow a minority in the House to tell us we are not going to let the system work for the best interests of the American people. I think, though, we should be very concerned about whether this is part of a plan with the Republicans, when we look at their budget for next year, the 2012 budget, which was released this week. There are disturbing signs as to what their intentions are. We saw it with the budget for this year and now we see that continued for their budget for next year. They literally want to turn the Medicare system into a voucher program, where seniors have to rely on private insurance companies. We tried that before Medicare. In the early 1960s, the number of seniors who could not get health care insurance was staggering. Why? Because private insurance companies are not interested in insuring people who make claims. The older you are, the more you will make claims on our health care system. If seniors are at the mercy of private insurance companies, it will be much more expensive for them, and they will not get adequate protection. We should all be concerned about the budget that was brought out this week. The Medicaid system that protects our most vulnerable, our seniors, who rely, in large part, on the Medicare system to deal with long-term care and nursing care--the Republican budget would transfer that to the States with a block grant, making it unlikely to see the continuation of the program that is critically important, not just to people who are vulnerable, but if they have to rely on the use of emergency rooms to get care, it will be more expensive for all of us. These short-term so-called budget savings will turn into long-term costs for our country. The Republican budget continues to do these domestic discretionary cuts--well beyond what we need as a nation to grow--taking, again, our most vulnerable, those who depend on government, making a college education more expensive and denying young people the opportunities they need. Guess what is missing in the Republican budget. There is no effort to deal with the revenue problems of America. I say there is a better way to do this, and there are 64 Senators who have come together and said: Look, we have to deal with our national debt with a credible budget plan--a credible budget plan that starts with discretionary spending cuts, and we all agree to that. We have to reduce military spending and deal with mandatory spending, but we have to also deal with the revenue side. Thirty-two Democrats and 32 Republican Senators said that. The Republican budget in the House doesn't take us down that path. It is not a credible plan for dealing with the budget deficit that can pass and be enacted and give confidence not only to the financial markets in America but around the world and tell the American people it puts their interests first. I want my colleagues to understand we don't want to jeopardize the recovery. We want to get our budget into balance, and we have to get this year's budget behind us. We have to deal with that. President Obama is right when he said in the State of the Union Address that we have to beat our competition. We have to outeducate, outinnovate and outbuild them and we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We can do that now if we work together and deal with the budget we are currently in, which ends September 30 of this year, in a fiscally responsible way. Let's get this done and move on and work together for the sake of our Nation. I am convinced that if we work together, we can have a responsible plan and we certainly should not allow a minority in the House to block a budget resolution for this year, causing the government shutdown. That is the worst case for the American people. I urge my colleagues to continue to work together so we can keep the government operating, reduce the deficit, and allow America to grow and compete and meet the challenges of the future. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this weekend I know that Marylanders will be taking advantage of Passport Day this Saturday, April 9. During these weekend hours at our passport acceptance facilities in Maryland, my constituents will have the ability to renew their passports or apply for a new passport, as we get ready for the summer travel season. When Marylanders apply for and ultimately receive their passports, I want them to continue to have confidence that the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. It certifies an individual's identity and U.S. citizenship, and allows the passport holder to travel in and out of the United States and to foreign countries. It allows the passport holder to obtain further identification documents, and to set up bank accounts. The U.S. Government simply cannot allow U.S. passports to be issued in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. Unfortunately, hearings that I have chaired in the last Congress have convinced me that we have serious vulnerabilities in our passport issuance process that need to be closed quickly. Nearly two years ago, on May 5, 2009, I chaired a Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled ``The Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud.'' During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light. Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States. A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, also revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud. A Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing that I chaired in July of 2010 revealed that the State Department issued five additional passports on the basis of fraudulent identity documents that had been submitted by undercover GAO agents. As a result, today I am reintroducing the Passport Identity Verification Act, or PIVA. This legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Feinstein, Lieberman, and Kerry. It is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access relevant information contained in federal, state, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation. The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud. I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. My legislation would not lengthen the average amount of time it takes U.S. citizens to obtain passports. We have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud. We already have much of the technology and the information to prevent such issuance of genuine U.S. passports based on fraudulent documents or information. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud, and strengthen the integrity of every American's passport.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this weekend I know that Marylanders will be taking advantage of Passport Day this Saturday, April 9. During these weekend hours at our passport acceptance facilities in Maryland, my constituents will have the ability to renew their passports or apply for a new passport, as we get ready for the summer travel season. When Marylanders apply for and ultimately receive their passports, I want them to continue to have confidence that the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. It certifies an individual's identity and U.S. citizenship, and allows the passport holder to travel in and out of the United States and to foreign countries. It allows the passport holder to obtain further identification documents, and to set up bank accounts. The U.S. Government simply cannot allow U.S. passports to be issued in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. Unfortunately, hearings that I have chaired in the last Congress have convinced me that we have serious vulnerabilities in our passport issuance process that need to be closed quickly. Nearly two years ago, on May 5, 2009, I chaired a Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled ``The Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud.'' During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light. Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States. A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, also revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud. A Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing that I chaired in July of 2010 revealed that the State Department issued five additional passports on the basis of fraudulent identity documents that had been submitted by undercover GAO agents. As a result, today I am reintroducing the Passport Identity Verification Act, or PIVA. This legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Feinstein, Lieberman, and Kerry. It is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access relevant information contained in federal, state, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation. The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud. I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. My legislation would not lengthen the average amount of time it takes U.S. citizens to obtain passports. We have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud. We already have much of the technology and the information to prevent such issuance of genuine U.S. passports based on fraudulent documents or information. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud, and strengthen the integrity of every American's passport.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her extraordinary work and patience. She gives us credit. We give her credit for patience in the manner this legislation has been considered. This bill is very important not just to the small business community but to our economy. We are talking about providing the wherewithal for innovation in America. Small businesses will produce the largest amount of innovation in this country and the largest job growth. This bill gives them some degree of predictability on getting the types of resources so they can innovate. I do applaud the Senator. I am proud to be part of the committee. This has been a very bipartisan bill. I thank her. I thank her for accommodating the amendment that she was helpful in getting passed initially, along with Senator Snowe, that increases the size of surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, which makes a difference for a small construction company getting government procurement. It is critically important. It has worked much more successfully than we thought when we first put the increase into effect. We actually had a lot more contracts than we thought when we originally suggested this. I am pleased to tell the chairman that it has no scores as far as cost. There is no taxpayer cost involved. This is a win-win situation to help small businesses get construction work, adding to our economy and job growth. I look forward to talking about this amendment tomorrow. Hopefully, we will be able to get a vote. I again thank the Senator for her attention. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I will take 30 seconds and yield to my friend Senator Inhofe. For the reasons we already said about public health or the protection of our Clean Air Act, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Rockefeller amendment. Let me add one other point. The American renewable energy industry has written to us and told us that the uncertainty of a 2-year delay is more than 2 years. It causes American renewable energy companies to be at a disadvantage with foreign energy companies, costing Americans jobs. Uncertainty adds to job loss in America. For the sake of the public health of Americans, for the sake of our economy, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rockefeller amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Jimmie Reyna to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. I had recommended that Mr. Reyna be nominated. Mr. Reyna comes to the Senate with 23 years of experience in international trade law. Mr. Reyna currently is a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Williams Mullen. Mr. Reyna directs the firm's Trade and Customs Practice Group, as well as the firm's Latin America Task Force, and has also served for several years on his firm's board of directors, where he currently serves as vice president. In his practice, Mr. Reyna handles matters before the various federal agencies, and represents clients before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and foreign governmental, administrative, and judicial bodies. He also serves on the roster of dispute settlement panelists for trade disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Mr. Reyna has also authored several articles and two books on international trade issues, and his third book on the subject is due to be published this spring. His experience in trade law would bring important expertise to the Federal circuit, a unique court with nationwide jurisdiction that deals with many trade law issues and yet currently lacks a trade specialist. Mr. Reyna was admitted to the New Mexico Bar in 1979 and the District of Columbia bar in 1994. He received his J.D. from University of New Mexico School of Law and his BA from University of Rochester. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluated Mr. Reyna's nomination and rated him unanimously well qualified, the highest possible rating. Mr. Reyna's personal history is compelling. Born in New Mexico to a modest family, his missionary parents instilled in him a belief that all people are equal, a principle he has exemplified in his work to ensure that all people are treated fairly in our legal system. After law school, he worked as a litigator at a firm in Albuquerque and later established his own practice dealing with domestic relations, civil rights, tort, and criminal defense matters. In his practice, he often represented clients pro bono, devoting a large portion of his time to providing advice and representing individuals who could not afford legal assistance. A few years later, Mr. Reyna moved with his family to the Washington, DC metro area, where he built his well-regarded career in international trade. Mr. Reyna has continually proven that he is an outstanding and civic- minded person. Mr. Reyna is a well-known national leader in U.S. Hispanic affairs. He has held various leadership positions in the Hispanic National Bar Association, HNBA, including national president, vice president of regional affairs, regional president, and chair of the International Law Committee. During his term as national president of HNBA, Mr. Reyna launched the association's first-ever community outreach program called ``The Promise in the Law,'' which was designed to instill trust and confidence in the U.S. legal system by the Hispanic communities. Mr. Reyna also created ``The HNBA Journal of Law and Policy,'' the HNBA's first law journal, which addresses policy and legal issues affecting the Hispanic community. Currently, he serves on the board of directors of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, an organization that includes the country's 29 largest leading Hispanic organizations. Mr. Reyna is also a founder and a member of the board of directors of the U.S.-Mexico Law Institute. He has received multiple awards for his service to the Hispanic community, including the 2009 Ohtli Medal Award, Mexico's highest award for a non-Mexican citizen. Through his work, Mr. Reyna has strived to ensure that members of disadvantaged communities are informed about the law, that the legal community is prepared to handle the legal challenges facing the growing Latino community, and that the judiciary remains strongly independent, impartial, and accessible to all. Mr. Reyna's civil service is not limited to his work for the Hispanic community. He has been recognized by the Court of International Trade for his extensive pro bono work before that court. He also serves on the board of directors of the Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children Foundation. Mr. Reyna's nomination would also bring much-needed diversity to the Federal circuit. Throughout his career, Mr. Reyna has shown a strong commitment to diversity and racial equality, not only through his service to the Hispanic community, but also through his service on the ABA Presidential Commission on Diversity in the Legal Profession, and as chair of the Williams Mullen Diversity Committee. If Mr. Reyna is confirmed, he would be the first Latino to serve on the Federal circuit in its history. With the nomination of Mr. Reyna, the Senate has another opportunity to further increase the diversity of the Federal bench. Because of his vast qualifications, Mr. Reyna's nomination has received support from various organizations and individuals, including the HNBA and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Additionally, seven former chairs of the American Bar Association Section on International Law wrote a letter of endorsement for Mr. Reyna, affirming that Mr. Reyna has ``the professional credentials, the experience and skills, the appropriate temperament, and the fair and sound judgment'' to serve on the Federal circuit. And, last but certainly not least, Mr. Reyna is a resident of Silver Spring, MD, and a constituent of mine. In conclusion I urge the Senate to confirm Mr. Reyna's nomination to be a U.S. circuit judge for court of appeals for the Federal circuit.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous waste. The federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year. This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous waste products of our modern world. Unfortunately, the tracking system itself is in serious need of modernization. Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has seven or eight copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility records. The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases, the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or after a disaster to identify the responsible parties. Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste companies that handle hazardous waste. An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden, assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real- time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials support this bill. EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the general treasury. A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871 introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by all the witnesses including EPA. In September of 2008, an equally similar bill introduced by Senator Thune was reported favorably out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the House did not take up the measure. This is legislation that is overdue. I ask members to join us in supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry, states, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest system to move into the 21st century.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous waste. The federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year. This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous waste products of our modern world. Unfortunately, the tracking system itself is in serious need of modernization. Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has seven or eight copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility records. The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases, the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or after a disaster to identify the responsible parties. Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste companies that handle hazardous waste. An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden, assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real- time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials support this bill. EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the general treasury. A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871 introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by all the witnesses including EPA. In September of 2008, an equally similar bill introduced by Senator Thune was reported favorably out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the House did not take up the measure. This is legislation that is overdue. I ask members to join us in supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry, states, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest system to move into the 21st century.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, sometime today we are going to get back to the SBIR bill, the bill that deals with helping our small businesses with innovation and growth so we can create more jobs and continue to lead the world in innovation, so we can win that international competition the President talks about. We need to do that by outeducating and outinnovating and outbuilding our competitors. Part of that is helping our small business community with innovation. The bill that is on the floor--the authorization of the SBIR program--helps small, innovative companies in order to create jobs and help America grow. I take this time, though, to urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments that may be offered that would take away from the Environmental Protection Agency their ability to enforce our Clean Air Act. I say that because I truly believe--I think most people believe; and it has been proven over history--we can have a clean environment and we can grow our economy. In fact, I think if we do not have a clean environment, it is going to be more difficult for us to grow our economy. We need to do what is right for the people of this Nation as it relates to their public health. The Clean Air Act has been one of the most important bills to protect the public health of the people of this Nation. Carbon emissions are pollution. They are polluting our environment. They are causing respiratory ailments. They are making it more difficult for people who have respiratory illness to be able to breathe. We have children with asthma who are directly affected by the quality of the air they breathe. It is our responsibility to take care of our children. It is our responsibility to make sure they have clean air. The Clean Air Act has helped us deal with those needs. We want the enforcement of the Clean Air Act to be based upon science, not the political whims here in Washington. We want the scientists to tell us what we can do to protect our public health. That is what the Clean Air Act and its enforcement is about, and it is being done in a way that allows our economy to grow. There are some here who say: Well, some of these amendments are a temporary holdback from what EPA can do to enforce our laws by putting a moratorium on enforcement. Well, we all know what happens with moratoriums. We do not know whether we will ever get beyond those short-term delays. We do not want to go down that path. What do you do if you are a business and you are trying to do what is right with the investments of your company to comply with the Clean Air Act and now you are being told, well, maybe those rules will change? How do you make the necessary investments in your company without knowing the ground rules are the ground rules? Let's not go down that path. That would be the wrong way to go. Let me give an example in my own State of Maryland where we have seen that a clean environment is good for our economy. In 2007, the Maryland legislature passed the Healthy Air Act. Let me tell you something, Mr. President. Since the creation of that bill, it created thousands of jobs. It created more opportunity for the people of Maryland. Constellation Energy invested $1 billion in compliance with the 2007 Healthy Air Act, reducing its SO2, SOX emissions by 85 percent and mercury by 80 percent. We have seen in our State of Maryland that the Healthy Air Act created jobs and has provided healthier air for the people of Maryland. Let me tell you something, air knows no boundary. We have helped our surrounding States. The problem is, the people of Maryland are downwind from other States we wish were making the same type of commitments we are making in Maryland. Let's at least maintain the standards of the Clean Air Act. This is the wrong bill to consider this issue anyway. Remember, I started by saying we will be taking up the small business bill to help our small business communities with innovation--SBIR: innovation and research. That is the bill we are on. Yet my colleagues want to attach to this bill amendments that would restrict the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its responsibility on behalf of the public to protect our clean air. Let me give you by way of example--we tried this. The EPA is the cop on the beat to make sure the polluters do not pollute our air. We at one time had a cop on the beat for the financial markets, and we sort of eased that up because we said we needed to do that for business. What happened is, we had a financial meltdown. We do not want to go down the same path on protecting the public health of the people of this Nation by removing the cop on the beat. That would be the wrong thing to do. I urge my colleagues to reject those types of amendments. Let me tell you something: The public gets this. Seven out of ten Americans want us to enforce our Clean Air Act against the polluters. Seven out of ten Americans do not want us to weaken the laws of this country that protect the public health of the people of America. We cannot afford to turn the clock back on our clean air policies and we cannot turn the clock back on the health of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to reject each and every one of these amendments that may be offered that would restrict the enforcement of the Clean Air Act against the polluters of America. Let's speak out for our children, let's speak out for clean air, let's speak out for our future, and let's speak out for our economic growth which very much depends upon a clean environment. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to go back to the SBIR bill itself and compliment Senator Landrieu, the chairman, and Senator Snowe, the ranking Republican member. This bill is an important one. I think it is important we get back to it and that we deal with amendments relevant to this legislation and move it forward. We have been on this bill for a period of time. It is time to move on. I urge my colleagues, let's take up the amendments that are relevant to the legislation and move it forward. This is bipartisan legislation, passed out of committee by an overwhelming vote of Democrats and Republicans. It is a bill that will help create jobs in our community. We are talking about how America, as the President said, can outeducate, outinnovate and outbuild our competitors. We have to outinnovate. The SBIR bill makes it easier for small companies to innovate for America, to help this Nation grow, to help our economy grow. It is about jobs and innovation. The SBIR Program provides funds for small-tech firms to innovate and grow and create jobs and for America to continue to lead the world in innovation. That is what this bill is about. It provides predictability so if you are going to go into a business, you know the program is going to be here to give the permanency of reauthorization. It provides a greater share of the pie for our smaller companies. Why? Because that is where we are going to get the job growth in America and that is where innovation is going to come from. This is commonsense legislation we need to move forward. I know everybody has their particular amendment they want to get on that is not related at all to this bill. Let's do our small businesses a favor, let's do the American economy a favor, let's do something that can help not only create jobs but move America forward in innovation and let's get this bill moving for the sake of our economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of legislation I have introduced today to establish a national Blue Alert Act. This would establish a nationwide program for blue alert. It would be similar to what we do for AMBER alert today. With AMBER alert, when children are abducted, we use that communication system nationwide to get information out about the abductor so we can get the public assisting law enforcement in apprehending the individuals responsible for the abduction of a child. My legislation would establish a similar system of disseminating information when a police officer has been murdered or severely injured as a result of a violent attack. This bill would help in keeping law enforcement safer by removing these individuals who have committed these horrible crimes from the streets sooner and holding them accountable for their acts. Every day 900,000 law enforcement officers go out in our communities to keep us safe. They are the frontline for public safety. They put their lives on the line. Our communities are much safer as a result of their actions, so we want to do everything we can to help our law enforcement officers. In recent years, too many have lost their lives in the line of duty. We need to do something about that. In Prince George's County, MD, today I joined with law enforcement officers at the FOP Lodge 89 to talk about this legislation. There is a fallen heroes memorial located at that FOP lodge to honor law enforcement officers in Prince George's County who gave their lives in the line of duty. Unfortunately, there are 26 individuals honored at that memorial. They have lost their lives since 1937. The Superintendent of State Police was also there, and we recalled State trooper Wesley Brown who died in June of last year in Forestville at the age of 24 serving his community. I mention Trooper Brown specifically because as a result of Trooper Brown's death, Governor O'Malley took executive action to establish a blue alert system in the State. We now have nine other States that have joined Maryland--10 States altogether--in establishing their own blue alert programs so we can assist in the capture of those who murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers. We need to use technology the best we can to help those who are serving our communities. My legislation would make that program nationwide. I am proud we have bipartisan cosponsors in Senators Graham, Leahy, Klobuchar, and Coons. It complements the work being done by Attorney General Holder in his Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative. The purpose here is try to keep our law enforcement officers safer and keep the community safer. We think both will be achieved by using a blue alert system nationwide. I am also pleased to say it has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Concern of Police Survivors, COPS. I urge all colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I hope we can get it enacted shortly. This can help in living up to our commitment to those who serve us.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of legislation I have introduced today to establish a national Blue Alert Act. This would establish a nationwide program for blue alert. It would be similar to what we do for AMBER alert today. With AMBER alert, when children are abducted, we use that communication system nationwide to get information out about the abductor so we can get the public assisting law enforcement in apprehending the individuals responsible for the abduction of a child. My legislation would establish a similar system of disseminating information when a police officer has been murdered or severely injured as a result of a violent attack. This bill would help in keeping law enforcement safer by removing these individuals who have committed these horrible crimes from the streets sooner and holding them accountable for their acts. Every day 900,000 law enforcement officers go out in our communities to keep us safe. They are the frontline for public safety. They put their lives on the line. Our communities are much safer as a result of their actions, so we want to do everything we can to help our law enforcement officers. In recent years, too many have lost their lives in the line of duty. We need to do something about that. In Prince George's County, MD, today I joined with law enforcement officers at the FOP Lodge 89 to talk about this legislation. There is a fallen heroes memorial located at that FOP lodge to honor law enforcement officers in Prince George's County who gave their lives in the line of duty. Unfortunately, there are 26 individuals honored at that memorial. They have lost their lives since 1937. The Superintendent of State Police was also there, and we recalled State trooper Wesley Brown who died in June of last year in Forestville at the age of 24 serving his community. I mention Trooper Brown specifically because as a result of Trooper Brown's death, Governor O'Malley took executive action to establish a blue alert system in the State. We now have nine other States that have joined Maryland--10 States altogether--in establishing their own blue alert programs so we can assist in the capture of those who murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers. We need to use technology the best we can to help those who are serving our communities. My legislation would make that program nationwide. I am proud we have bipartisan cosponsors in Senators Graham, Leahy, Klobuchar, and Coons. It complements the work being done by Attorney General Holder in his Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative. The purpose here is try to keep our law enforcement officers safer and keep the community safer. We think both will be achieved by using a blue alert system nationwide. I am also pleased to say it has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Concern of Police Survivors, COPS. I urge all colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I hope we can get it enacted shortly. This can help in living up to our commitment to those who serve us.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Landrieu for her extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This is a critically important bill for our economy. It helps small businesses. It helps the economic engine of America. It helps with innovation with small businesses. We already know small businesses will be where most of the job growth will take place. We know that. We also know small businesses are where most of the innovation will take place. When we look at patents that are filed, there are more from the small businesses per employee than we see from large companies. But in order to help small businesses be able to be innovative, the SBIR Program is critically important. I congratulate Senator Landrieu for bringing this bill forward. It has received strong bipartisan support within the Small Business Committee. It provides the resources where small companies can take risks and innovate for America's future. It extends the program for 8 years, giving predictability to companies and investors, so they can go out and do what is best for this country, extending the program to 2019. It increases the allocations available for the small business community over time from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent. It increases the individual size of the grants from $100,000 to $150,000 in phase I and in phase II from $750,000 to $1 million. It does one other thing that is critically important. It allows small businesses to bring in venture capitalists and still be able to qualify for an SBIR loan. For all these reasons, I strongly support the efforts of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe and would encourage my colleagues to support the legislation that has been brought forward. But I come to the floor, and I am going to ask consent that the pending amendment be set aside, but first let me explain the amendment I would like to offer. It is an amendment that would continue a policy that was started in 2009 to allow small businesses the opportunity to be able to get surety bonds to be able to compete on government procurement in the construction industry. Current law requires that for all Federal and State construction projects--Federal and State construction projects--exceeding $100,000, the company must provide a surety bond. Congress established the Surety Bond Guarantee Program more than 30 years ago because they knew it was difficult for small businesses to be able to get a surety bond. The limit had been $2 million under that program. So we assisted small companies in being able to get surety bonds of up to $2 million until 2009. As part of the Recovery Act, I offered an amendment with Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe--this was a bipartisan amendment; as a matter of fact, I do not know of any objections to the amendment--that increased the amount from $2 million to $5 million and gave the Administrator the authority to guarantee bonds of up to $10 million to permit small companies to be able to compete with large construction companies for procurement work. What is so difficult? Well, you talk to a small business owner, and they will tell you what they have to go through with their bankers in order to get any type of financing. Then, if they try to get a surety bond, it is the same assets that the surety bond company wants them to guarantee in order to get the surety bond, putting them in a catch-22 situation, where they cannot get the surety bond and financing. They have to choose between one or the other. That is the reason why we established the Surety Bond Guarantee Program 30 years ago. The higher limit had been in place from 2009 to 2010. The SBA had estimated they would issue $147 million in bonds in support of projects over $2 million. In March of 2010, the SBA Performance Report indicated that more than $360 million in bonds was actually issued. It has been an unquestioned success--the higher limits. One other point: There have been absolutely no losses under the surety bond program, zero. That is why the Congressional Budget Office has given us an informal estimate that this amendment would have no direct impact on spending or revenue. This is a no-cost amendment that is strongly supported by the small business community because they know it is critically important for them to be able to compete fairly on construction contracts. It has bipartisan support. What the amendment does is extend the limits we put in law in 2009 that expired at the end of 2010. That is the amendment. Mr. President, I do want to make a unanimous consent request, but I understand we are under an agreement now that we cannot ask that. I am getting word from my chairman. But let me go on record to say I would request that there be an opportunity for this amendment to be offered or included. I do not believe it is controversial. It does not cost, as I said, any expenditures. It is very important for the small business community. It has bipartisan support, and I hope I will be given the opportunity to be able to offer that amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I applaud the President in declaring March 2011 Irish-American Heritage Month, and I speak in celebration of the rich Irish history, culture, and customs still alive today in the hearts and minds of Irish Americans everywhere. The association of our two nations began early in our country's history. Irish immigrants arrived in the early colonial days as indentured servants, which was often the only affordable method of passage to the ``New World.'' Close to a quarter of a million Irish immigrated during the colonial era, and many of them to Maryland. Upon their arrival, they set immediately upon the heady things of the time: independence, and the building of a nation. Irish immigrants took up their new national identity with fervor, especially in Maryland, and helped to found lasting institutions. Charles Carroll, his family descendants from the O Cearbhaill lords of Eile, was a member of the second Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. His cousin, John Carroll, born in Upper Marlboro, was elected the first bishop of Baltimore, and was elevated to the first Archbishop of the United States when Pope Pius VII made Baltimore the first American Catholic archdiocese. James Calhoun, of Irish descent, was the first mayor of Baltimore City, and held a commission with the Baltimore militia. From these auspicious beginnings, those reporting Irish ancestry in Maryland have today grown to over 700,000, according to the 2006 American Community Survey. These sons and daughters of Eire did not grow without tribulation. As famine and hunger gripped the Emerald Isle, nearly 3.5 million Irish immigrants fled to America between 1820 and 1880, engendering discriminatory reactions that often strayed into violence. Signs of ``No Irish Need Apply'' appeared in business windows, and young Irishmen were often drummed into service on the quayside to fight for the Union Army. Indeed, in my own home town of Baltimore, the mayoral elections of 1856, 1857 and 1858 were marred by violence, political intimidation and well-founded accusations of ballot-box stuffing, fomented by nativist political organizations, such as the Know-Nothing Party. Irish Americans pushed past these shortsighted prejudices, time and again, and put their shoulders to the wheel of industry in America. They helped settle and farm the breadbasket of America, they took up arms in the defense of freedom and liberty, and they helped build an ever strengthening bond with the island nation of Ireland. They built strong communities around the values of hard work, perseverance, faith, and a shared remembrance of an ancestral home across the sea. Irish Americans have ever understood that great joy is only earned with great hardship, and our 35th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, showed this ethic. In service to our country, he faced down the threat of worldwide nuclear annihilation, and pushed our Nation to do the impossible: to claim the Moon as the province of man. Irish Americans proudly continue this tradition of service, and serve at every level of public office, including in the Governor's Mansion in Annapolis, MD, where Maryland's favorite Irish-American son, Governor Martin O'Malley, resides. The millions of Irish that immigrated to the United States, escaping hunger and religious persecution, chasing the elusive American dream, forever knitted Ireland and America together. It is right that we honor this bond, and take this occasion to reflect on the deeply inlaid threads of American history and tradition that sound, look, feel, and are distinctly Irish.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to reflect with my colleagues and say that we celebrate today the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and to reflect how much happened to improve health care in America since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We have reason to celebrate. If you are a senior in the Medicare Program, and you now know that you can see your primary care doctor every year for an annual wellness exam, and that wellness exam will now be covered under Medicare, and you will have an opportunity to meet with your doctor and take charge of your own health, you have a reason to celebrate passage of the Affordable Care Act. If you are a senior who happens to fall within the coverage gap under the prescription drug benefits in Medicare, the so-called doughnut hole, and you have been forced at times to leave prescriptions on the counter of a drugstore because you could not afford to pay the cost of the prescription, and you now know that there is coverage in Medicare if you fall within that gap--for last year, 3.2 million seniors who fell within the gap received a $250 check. This year, the seniors who fall within this coverage gap will receive a 50-percent discount on their brandname drugs. Next year, their benefit will be worth as much as $2,400 and, by 2020, we will close the gap entirely, all as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. So you have reason to celebrate that Congress finally got the job done. If you are an American family, like many, and you celebrate your child's graduation from college, only to find that your child could no longer be covered under your health insurance policy because of the age restriction, and now you learn that Congress has changed that age to 26, so you can keep your youngster under your family insurance program, and that child now has health insurance, and you are one of 1.2 million people who benefit from this provision that was in the Affordable Care Act, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act. If you are a small business owner who can now afford to cover your employees because of the small business tax credit that was included in the Affordable Care Act--4 million eligible institutions will be eligible for that tax credit, and soon you will be able to get competitive rates. Small businesses today pay 20 percent more for the same coverage large companies have. Congress took action last year to eliminate that disparity. If you are one of those small business owners now benefiting from that tax credit or who will benefit from more competitive rates and better choice, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act. If you happen to be a consumer of health insurance, as almost all of us are, and you want value for your premium dollar, you now know that with passage of the Affordable Care Act, the lion's share of your health premiums must go for health benefits, reining in the excessive administrative costs of private insurance companies, and you know now that Congress has taken action to prevent the abusive practices of private insurance companies, you have reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act. If you happen to be the woman in Maryland, who was hiking in the mountains of West Virginia and fell off a cliff, was unconscious, and was flown to the closest emergency room to receive care and was denied coverage because she did not call ahead for preauthorization, you have a reason to celebrate the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Yes, insurance companies have denied coverage for emergency care because of requirements for preauthorization or have denied coverage because the ultimate diagnosis did not meet their standard for reimbursement, even though your symptoms indicated you should seek emergency care. I started working on that issue in 1995, known as the prudent layperson's standards for requiring insurance companies to reimburse their policyholders for visits to emergency rooms, where their symptoms indicated they should go to the emergency room. In 1997, Medicare and Medicaid were changed in order to provide for the prudent layperson's standard for reimbursement. Now all insurance companies must comply with that standard because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. If you are a parent who has a child who has asthma or you have been told that the insurance company won't provide full coverage because of your child's preexisting condition, and now you can get full coverage for your child, you too have a reason to celebrate the passage of the Affordable Care Act. If you are an adult and have been told you cannot get insurance because of a preexisting condition, such as high blood pressure, or you happen to be like a couple from Montgomery County, MD, who had to get two separate insurance policies because of preexisting conditions, paying two separate premiums and two separate deductibles, and now you know you can get one insurance plan that will cover your family, you have a reason to celebrate, because that too was corrected by the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress 1 year ago. If you happen to be a taxpayer who is concerned about the fiscal soundness of Medicare or the budget deficit, you too have a reason to celebrate enactment of the Affordable Care Act, because the Affordable Care Act extended the solvency of the Medicare system by 12 years, putting it on a safer basis, making it less vulnerable for our budget. The enactment of the Affordable Care Act reduced the Federal budget deficit by over $100 billion during the first 10 years, and over $1.5 trillion during the first 20 years. This is because, quite frankly, this bill manages illness much more cost effectively. It uses health information technology more effectively and it invests in wellness, and it brings down the cost. That is not what this Senator is saying has been established; it is what the CBO has told us will bring in savings on our budget deficit. Taxpayers have a reason to celebrate the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. There is one other reason to celebrate the year's anniversary of the enactment of this legislation. Let me give one more example. A couple of weeks ago I was at the Greater Baden Health Center located about 7 or 8 miles from where we are today. They are doing something about the infant mortality rate in our community. We have too high of an infant mortality rate because of low birth weight babies. Some do not survive and become part of our infant mortality numbers in America where we are much higher than we should be. Others survive and have complications that need to be addressed by our health care system, making it challenging for the infant and expensive for our society. At the Greater Baden Health Center, they are doing something about that situation. They are expanding their qualified health center to include prenatal care so pregnant women can get the type of attention they need to have healthy babies. That money comes from the Affordable Care Act because of the expansion of our qualified health centers. We all celebrate what we are able to accomplish. It will keep our children healthier and save us money and have less use of the emergency rooms by expanding care at our qualified centers. Madam President, if you are concerned about health disparities in America--and you have reason to be--minorities are two times more likely to suffer from diabetes and 33 percent more likely to die from heart disease. In the African-American community, the infant mortality rate is 2.3 times higher than the White community. When we look at the number of people who have access to health care and health insurance, the minority population represents one-third. Yet they are one-half of the people who do not have health insurance. I think we all agree that we need to do something about that situation. That is not right in our sense of fairness. But let me give one more reason it will save us money. A study done at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland points out that we can save $260 billion in excess direct medical care costs if we can deal with the minority health disparities. We had done something about that in the Affordable Care Act. An amendment that I was proud to offer established the Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health. We have developed minority health and disparity offices in each of our agencies that deal with health care to do something about health disparities in America. We can all celebrate that we are able to move that forward in the Affordable Care Act. We should all take pride that America at long last, after decades of unsuccessful attempts, has acted. Health care is a right, not a privilege. As our dear friend, the late Senator Kennedy, said: We no longer have a sick care system. We have taken action to include all under health care in America. I understand the Republicans in the House want to repeal each and every one of these improvements and accomplishments. They offer no hope of taking up these issues in a serious manner during this Congress. Speaking on behalf of our seniors, speaking on behalf of our small business owners, speaking on behalf of the consumers of health insurance in America, speaking on behalf of what is right, as far as covering and making sure everyone has access to affordable care, we do not want to see that happen. We do not want to move backwards. We have reason to celebrate the accomplishments of moving forward with health care. We want to move forward, not back, and continue to build on an American health care system that provides affordable quality care to all Americans. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.