Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN. I will withhold it.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue in opposing the Senate Joint Resolution 30. I join him in urging my colleagues to oppose the resolution. The National Mediation Board is an important entity. They have the responsibility to oversee labor-management relations in the rail and aviation industry. On May 11 of this year, they issued a final rule that allowed a majority of voting employees--let me repeat that, a rule that allows a majority of the voting employees--to determine the outcome of union representation elections. I don't understand the controversy. I thought we all agreed that majority rules, as far as what should happen. The rule is common sense. Let me explain the problem. I know it has been said before on the floor. Prior to this regulation, if a person did not show up and did not vote, it was counted as a negative. Suppose we conducted our elections that way. Suppose we were to say that if a majority of people do not show up to vote, you do not have an election. It makes sense that we count the votes that are cast. We don't know, from who does not vote, how they would vote, and to say that is a negative defies the democratic system we hold so dear in this country. Not participating voters were counted as ``no'' votes, and this regulation makes it clear that will no longer be the case. Opponents of this rule change argue the Board does not have the authority to change the rule. That is not true also. The Railway Labor Act gives the NMB discretion on conducting union elections and procedure is not outlined in the statute. U.S. Supreme Court and District Court decisions have confirmed that authority, so they have that authority. Then the opponents say this rule is about the Employee Free Choice Act, an issue that has some controversy among some of my Members. But that is not true. This rule deals with areas where we already have union representation. I was proud to join 38 of my Senate colleagues in signing a letter in December of 2009, encouraging the National Mediation Board to change its outdated union election procedures. That is exactly what they have done. The old procedure is not used in any other union elections. It does not follow the democratic norm for elections that all Americans value and respect. The old procedure does not even make any sense. I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 30. To me, this is a matter of basic fairness. It is a matter of what the values of our Nation are all about. Those who participate get the right to decide. You cannot participate by not participating and that is what the rule makes clear. We will count the votes that are cast, but we are not going to count those votes that are not cast. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the DREAM Act amendment to the 2010 National Defense Administration Act. This is bipartisan legislation that provides sound economic and national security benefits to our Nation. I have long supported the DREAM Act primarily because it provides a pathway forward for young men and women who have played by the rules all of their lives, graduated high school and now want to give back to this country. These are young people who had no say in how or when they came to our country, but somehow, their parents or other relatives brought them here to live a better life. Now, we could spend an infinite amount of time debating what to do with the undocumented adults who have come to the U.S.--and I hope that we do eventually get to that debate--but the focus of this measure is the children. We are talking about the innocent children, who, for the most part, have known no other home than America and deserve a way forward now that they are reaching adulthood. Every year, thousands of undocumented students who live in the United States graduate from high school. Among these students you will find valedictorians, honor roll students, and community leaders who are committed to the United States and their local communities. It is estimated that there are 65,000 such young people who graduate from high school in the United States and find themselves unable to work, go to college, or serve this country in the military. The young people who would be DREAM Act eligible would have graduated high school, passed a background check and be of good moral character. It is why the DREAM Act is supported by the Secretary of the Department of Education, the National Education Association, the Association of American Universities and many others. Leading businesses like Microsoft endorse the DREAM Act because they recognize these young people are talented and can be a benefit to U.S. businesses in this global economy. DREAM Act-eligible young people are exactly the type of individuals we want to be part of our great society. The DREAM Act is a smart, targeted piece of legislation that will only benefit children who were brought to this country before the age of 16 and have been living here for at least 5 years. From an economic perspective, the DREAM Act provides clear fiscal benefits to our local communities and our Nation. State and local taxpayers have invested time and money in these young people through elementary and secondary education expecting that eventually they will become contributing, tax-paying members of our society. With education budgets as tight as they are, why would any community throw away such an investment? Take this for example: a young immigrant who graduates from college will pay $5,300 more in taxes and cost taxpayers $3,900 less in government expenses each year than if he or she dropped out of high school. Additionally, our own Department of Defense recommended in their 2010-2012 strategic plan the passage of the DREAM Act to help the military ``share and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force.'' The former Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, stated ``the DREAM Act will materially expand the pool of individuals qualified, ready and willing to serve their country in uniform.'' The DREAM Act provides a smart and narrow pathway for eligible young people to go on to college or enter our military. Lastly, supporting the DREAM Act is the proper next step toward taking up comprehensive immigration reform. The American people have spoken on this issue. They would like Congress to step up and deal with this issue. According to a recent Fox News poll, 68 percent of voters, including Republicans, Democrats and Independents, say that efforts to secure the border should be combined with reform of Federal immigration laws. I agree, which is why I voted in favor of providing $600 million for 1,500 new border patrol agents, additional monitoring and communications equipment in August. That funding and those resources were an important step to ensure our Nation's borders are secure; just like passing the DREAM Act is an important step to ensure our country has the best and brightest individuals contributing to our economy and society. Additionally, the DREAM Act has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. During this Congress Senator Durbin and Senator Lugar introduced the legislation. But in the 108th Congress the legislation had the support of Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn. During the last Congress, 23 Republican Senators voted in favor of this legislation when it was offered as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration reform bill. There is a strong bipartisan history to this legislation and strong public support. No child should be held accountable for the sins of their parents. This targeted, bipartisan legislation recognizes this fact and shows compassion to the innocent. It provides a pathway forward for young men and women who have played by the rules all of their lives, graduated high school and now want to give back to this country. These are young people who truly deserve a second chance. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about an issue that came up frequently during my townhall meetings in Maryland in August, and that subject dealt with campaign finance reform and what we need to do to restore public confidence in our election system. I must tell you, there wasn't a single person in Maryland who told me that we needed more special interest corporate spending in elections. There wasn't a single person who told me there is too much disclosure of information as to where contributors come from. It was the reverse. People in Maryland believe there is too much special interest money in our campaigns. They believe they have a right to know where all campaign contributions and expenditures come from. They want true campaign finance reform. The interesting thing is that we know how difficult it is to pass campaign finance reform legislation. I was part of the Congress that passed, in 2002, the bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It wasn't easy to get it done, and it was a bipartisan bill. We made strong headway in that legislation to restrict corporate money. I must tell you, I think the public appreciated the efforts that were made, appreciated that it was bipartisan, and knew we did make progress in limiting what corporations can spend in Federal elections. Corporations can participate. They can have their employees work for political action committees. But it is very transparent, open, and it is limited, so that we have some control of the amount of special interest money coming into our Federal elections. Then comes Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that reversed the actions of Congress, that reversed the 2002 bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It was a decision--5-to-4--by the Supreme Court, where the so- called--and I use this term gently--conservative Justices, who, in my view are the most judicial activists, reversed precedent and congressional action and expanded what corporations can do in Federal elections. I was listening to Senator Bennett talk about how unfair it was that a documentary was treated differently. Well, as Justice Stevens said in that case: Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law. There were principled, narrow paths that a court that was serious about judicial restraint could have taken. They could have dealt with the issue Senator Bennett talked about. But, no, instead they opened the door completely for corporations to spend money in Federal elections. Let me quote from Public Citizen Congress Watch. Their research director Taylor Lincoln said: The Supreme Court has completely lifted restrictions on corporate spending on elections. That is moving in the exact opposite direction the people of this Nation want us to move in, dealing with campaign finance reform-- reversing the actions of Congress and indeed their own decisions. This wasn't the first time. I can give you a lot of chapter and verse how the so-called, again, judges who are supposed to be conservative have been judicial activists. They did that in the Lilly Ledbetter case. In that case, they reversed previous precedent and made it virtually impossible for a woman to be able to bring a case based on gender discrimination in the workforce. We took that Supreme Court decision and the Congress did the right thing. We made sure that the intent of Congress was carried out. We passed a bill to give gender equity and opportunity to bring an effective suit if one is discriminated against in the workforce. We need to do the same thing on campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court has acted. I disagree with their decision. Now Congress needs to act in order to restore some confidence with the American people. I applaud Senator Schumer in his efforts to bring forward legislation-- the DISCLOSE Act--and this bill is consistent with the Supreme Court decision. I disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. I don't believe corporations are equal to individuals, as far as spending money and contributing in a campaign. But we will debate that issue on another day. That is not what this bill does. It does something I thought virtually every Member in this Congress agreed on, which is that the public has a right to know who is spending money in a campaign--to disclose where you are spending money, where it is coming from. If you, as a candidate for the Senate, put an ad on television, you have to identify that it is your ad. The public has a right to know who is responsible for the money being spent on the ad being put on television. That is not true under Citizens United. Corporations can now spend money without accepting responsibility for the ad, and without the public knowing the source of the ad. That is plain wrong. We have an opportunity to correct that, consistent with the Supreme Court decision. This is not about trying to reverse the Supreme Court decision. I would like to do that, but that is not what this is about. This is about making sure the public knows who is spending money in a campaign. I thought everybody agreed on this. Let me quote from the leaders of the Republican Party in the House and Senate. Senator McConnell said: Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expected so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate. Our Republican leader was right on that. House Republican Leader Boehner said: I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant. I can quote lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans. Quite frankly, I don't know Members who are against disclosure. Yet some of my colleagues will be voting against it. To me, it is hard to understand why, when this bill is narrowly focused and its principal objective is to make sure voters know who is spending money in an election. Does it do other things? Yes. I didn't think there were objections to the other provisions, such as making sure foreign corporations cannot contribute. Well, you know, I thought that is what we all agreed on. Government contractors--restricting what they can do. It is consistent with the Supreme Court decision, where eight of the nine Justices acknowledged that it would be OK for Congress to enact legislation concerning disclosure. So I come back to our responsibility. We are not on the Supreme Court of the United States. That is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to enact laws. Our responsibility is to respond to the needs of this Nation, to respond to what our constituents want us to do. Quite frankly, our constituents want us to take up campaign finance reform. They want us to do a lot more than just the DISCLOSE Act, when it comes to campaign finance reform. I am one of those who supports public financing of campaigns. I think it would be far better for the people of Maryland and this Nation to have less special interest money financing campaigns. I think it would be better to have some public way in which they can know the candidates running. I think we should require our networks to provide air time for debates. That is not today's debate, but it is whether we can move the ball forward on campaign financing that makes sense. In other words, let's not move backward. Let us do what the Supreme Court told us we can do in regard to corporate spending. Let's do what Members of this body have said we should do, and that is require that we disclose the source not only of those who contribute to our campaigns but those who spend money on behalf of getting us elected or defeated. We have a right, the voter has a right to know that. Those who are responsible for the act should have the courage to disclose the moneys they are spending and take responsibility for the ads they produce. I could go on with additional information that we have--some of these organizations that are organized under the Internal Revenue Code. I can show you that we are not going to be able to have adequate enforcement of that. One thing we can do, which I hope we can agree on, is to pass the DISCLOSE Act so the public has the information to judge who is getting involved in our campaigns, and then I hope that Democrats and Republicans can join to make sure the integrity of our election system is strengthened. Confidence in government depends upon the people of our Nation believing that our elections are open and fair. We spend a lot of time in other countries making sure their election process is right. We need to do a better job here in America. It can start this week by allowing us to debate the DISCLOSE Act. Let's not hide behind the filibuster. Let's bring it forward and have the debate on the floor, and let us respond to our constituents. They have the right to know who is spending money in this election. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I would like to pay special tribute to the Dolle family on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Dolle's Candyland of Ocean City, MD. For the past century, Dolle's has been one of the jewels of Ocean City's famous boardwalk, helping thousands of vacationing families build warm summer memories and providing treats for lucky relatives and co-workers back home. For its entire history, this Eastern Shore landmark has been presided over by men named Rudolph Dolle. The first of the line, the grandfather of the current proprietor, left his home in New York in 1910 to install an old-fashioned hand-made carousel on what was then the small Ocean City boardwalk at the corner of Wicomico Street. Soon after the Dolles built their carousel, the man who sold saltwater taffy next door fell upon hard times and offered to sell his business to Rudolph and his wife Amelia. Sales of salt water taffy quickly became the family's main livelihood and were followed by homemade fudge and caramel popcorn. The original merry-go-round burned to the ground in 1925 but the candy business continued to flourish. In 1910, shop hands cooked the saltwater taffy in small copper kettles before it was cut and wrapped piece by piece by the store's employees. Today, the copper kettles can cook 150 pounds of taffy at once, and the pulling, cutting, and wrapping is now performed by machines that can produce 650 pieces of taffy every minute, allowing Dolle's to sell an average of almost 3,000 pounds of taffy per day during the busy summer season. The flagship store has been enlarged but remains on the original site at Wicomico Street and the boardwalk. A second store further north in Ocean City is now open, and Dolle's now offers other homemade candy treats, including caramels, gummy bears, and seasonal chocolates for the holidays. Four generations of the Dolle family have worked behind the counter and in the kitchen. They take great pride in their customer service and civic engagement and provide free shipping to all orders sent to military addresses. I urge my colleagues to join me today in honoring the Dolle family on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the founding of Dolle's Candyland, and in sending along best wishes for many more generations of the Dolle family who will continue the family business and tradition on the boardwalk in Ocean City, MD.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116, which will celebrate its 75th anniversary on November 6, 2010. The American Legion Department of Maryland has 147 active posts. Reisterstown Post 116 is the largest post and the largest wartime veterans service organization in the State of Maryland. The Reisterstown American Legion Post 116 was formed on November 6, 1935, by a group of 13 charter members. By 1986, the post had expanded to more than 400 members, including a Sons of the American Legion Squadron of 75 members, an American Legion Auxiliary of about 100 members, and an active Legion Riders organization. Part of the Reisterstown American Legion Post 116's success has been its involvement in the northwest Baltimore County community. The post awards scholarships to students, participates in the American Legion Boys and Girls State programs, and assists the Reisterstown Recreation Council. Post 116 also provides volunteers and donations to many charitable organizations, including the Maryland Special Olympics, the Epilepsy Foundation, United Cerebral Palsy, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Post 116 on its 75th anniversary, and to join me in commending the post's leadership, past and present, and in extending our thanks to its members for their service to Reisterstown Post 116, the Baltimore community, and to our country.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time, first, to thank Senator Landrieu for her persistence in bringing forward legislation that is going to help small businesses. We are on the verge, I hope this week, to finally pass in the Senate legislation that will help the small businesses in our country--H.R. 5297 that is now before us. Hopefully we are going to be able to get this legislation through the Senate. What this bill does is create jobs. I am proud to serve on the Small Business Committee. We have been working long and hard, and many of the provisions we have supported in our committee on a strong bipartisan basis are included in the legislation that is now before us. This bill is about helping small businesses so we can create more jobs for our communities. I think my colleagues will all agree and acknowledge that more jobs are created through small companies than through large companies. If we are going to be able to grow our economy, we have to be able to help our small businesses. It is also known that innovation is more likely to come from the opportunities from small companies. So we need to pay attention to and help our small companies help our economy grow. The bill that is before us incorporates many of the provisions that have been voted on in a bipartisan way by the Small Business Committee. But let me tell you this: I traveled the State of Maryland during our August break when we are back in our States. I had a chance to visit all parts of the State of Maryland and visited many small business owners. The No. 1 issue they continued to raise with me is the ability to be able to borrow money, to get credit for their businesses to expand. We spent a lot of time trying to help the Wall Street bankers, but, quite frankly, it has not gotten to the small business owners. They are not able to get the type of loan at an affordable cost so that they can expand their businesses. This bill will help. This bill provides strength to the SBA. I think all of us agree, the Small Business Administration has the tools to help small companies. But we need to give them the tools that can work in the current economy. So this legislation extends the 7(a) loans under the SBA from $2 million to $5 million, the 504 loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, and the micro loans. They may not seem like a lot of money, $35,000 to $50,000, but that could be the key piece of the puzzle necessary for a company to start or expand and create more jobs in our communities. The legislation also extends the SBA guarantees to 90 percent and waives the costs so we can make it affordable. The legislation sets up an intermediary lending program so that we encourage banks to make more loans to small businesses. In all, it is estimated that it will generate $5 billion of credit for small businesses, creating 300,000 jobs. That is quite a step forward, quite an important step forward to help our communities. In addition, the legislation includes help to our States. In the State of Maryland, we have our own program. Governor O'Malley has a program that is aggressively helping small companies in Maryland. The problem is, as you know, State budgets are strapped. This bill provides $1.5 billion more for the programs our States are operating in order to expand those programs. That will be leveraged to far more than $1.5 billion of new credit to small companies. It will provide substantial help in Maryland and all of the States of our Nation. The bill also deals with the continuing problem of contracting. If you are a small company, you are trying to get a contract with the Federal Government--you do not have a lot of contract officers in your business, you are trying to be very efficient, you need help so you can get a fair shake in bidding for a Federal contract. Unfortunately, today there have been abuses known as bundling where agencies have bundled together a lot of small contracts into a large contract, making it very difficult for a small company to get any part of that Federal contract. In addition, there is prime contractor abuse in not paying the subcontractors on time, which are generally more likely to be the smaller companies. This legislation incorporates the work of our committee to make it easier for Federal procurement officers to enter into contracts with small businesses. The proposal is estimated to create another 100,000 jobs in our communities. This is what we need to do. These are not partisan issues. These are bipartisan. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with our efforts to try to help small businesses with more credit or make it easier for them to deal with the Federal Government. One other major part that will create jobs in our communities is to make it easier for small companies to be exporting goods to other countries. We all talk about keeping jobs in America. Let's not outsource. Let's keep the jobs right here in America. Well, again, if you are a small company, and you are trying to get through the bureaucracy of exporting, it can become very difficult. This legislation makes it easier for our small companies to be able to participate in international trade, keeping jobs here in America, creating more jobs, helping our economy, reducing the balance of payment problems we have with other countries. It is a win-win situation for the U.S. economy. In addition, this legislation provides tax relief for small companies. Tax relief. We all talk about that. You get higher deductions for startup costs so small companies can get help from the Federal Government as far as tax relief. It provides tax equity for small companies in the deductions of their health insurance costs, and allows for the continued writeoff of capital expenditures that were included in the Recovery Act. So there are a lot of tools to help small companies grow. But here is the good news: It is done without adding any money to the deficit of the country. It is totally paid for. We all understand we have to energize the growth of jobs in our economy, but we cannot do it at the cost of raising the deficit. This bill provides the tools but makes sure that we do not add to the deficit of the country, again, strengthening the underlying economy so that we get true job growth. I thank all who have been responsible to help bring this bill together. I think it is an important step forward in creating new jobs and helping our economy grow and helping small companies help our country. I am proud to support this legislation and hope we can move it quickly this week and get the tools out there helping our small companies grow, creating more jobs for the people in our communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for START, the nuclear arms reduction treaty pending before the Senate. This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, will convene to vote on this New START Treaty. Since the treaty was signed by the United States and Russia in April, both the Foreign Relations and the Armed Services Committees have conducted more than a dozen hearings, both open and classified, to examine the essential goal of this treaty: to advance the national security of the United States. After hours of testimony from some of the most knowledgeable people in and out of government, as well as public statements of support from countless experts, we can say with great confidence that the Senate's ratification of the START Treaty is in our national interest. Witnesses who testified before the committee come from wide backgrounds of the government, academia, and private industry. Former government officials, both civilian and military, who have held positions of the highest responsibility for our national defense and nuclear security--including former Republican administration officials who had negotiated and implemented previous START treaties--were among those who testified and called for the treaty's speedy ratification. All have been experts, with years, if not decades, of experience in the field of national security and arms control, and all have strongly endorsed ratification of the treaty. In addition to its contribution to America's security, one of the most compelling reasons for the full Senate to ratify this treaty, and move quickly to do so, is to regain our insight into Russia's strategic offensive arms. Since START I expired last December, we have had no comprehensive verification regime in place to help us understand Russia's strategic nuclear forces. We need the transparency to know what Russia is doing to provide confidence and stability, and we need that confidence and stability to contribute to a safer world. We will only regain that transparency by ratifying this treaty, and we are in dangerous territory without it. Previous arms control treaties have been ratified with overwhelming bipartisan support. START I was passed 93 to 6 in 1994, and the Moscow Treaty passed 95 to 0 in 2003. Legislators recognized then that an arms control agreement between Russia and the United States is not just good for the security of our two nations but can lead the way for the rest of the world to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The ratification of this treaty reconfirms U.S. leadership on nuclear arms reduction and nonproliferation. Over the past several months we have had ample time to review the documents and reports related to the treaty. I am sure my colleagues will join me in recognizing the necessity of ratifying New START. Not only will this treaty enhance the national security of the United States, it will serve as a significant step forward in our relationship with Russia, a key partner in the overall U.S. strategy to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. I am glad to offer my support in the Foreign Relations Committee and look forward to the full Senate's ratification of this treaty as soon as possible. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board's final report on its investigation into the fatal June 22, 2009, Metrorail crash on the Red Line near Fort Totten. This report is a call to action for Congress to pass legislation that will help prevent such tragedies on our Nation's public transit systems from ever happening again. Last week, the NTSB presented the findings of its year-long investigation into last year's Metrorail crash that killed eight passengers and the train's conductor nine total. The fatal accident also hospitalized 52 passengers with serious injuries and left approximately 30 others with minor injuries. The investigation concluded: The cause of the crash was a series of faulty track circuits that failed to detect the presence of a stopped train on the right-of-way. The severity of the accident was compounded by the poor crashworthiness of the 30-plus year-old railcars involved in the accident where most of the injuries and fatalities occurred. Lastly, NTSB determined that safety has not been a priority for WMATA. Simply put, Metro lacks a ``Culture of Safety'' throughout its entire organization. NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman aptly put it in her statement regarding the release of its findings: ``Metro was on a collision course long before this accident. The only question was when Metro would have another accident--and of what magnitude.'' The root cause of the crash was a faulty track circuit that failed to detect the presence of a train pulling into Fort Totten Station. As a result, the system did not signal a second approaching train to hold at a safe distance on the track. When working properly, the track circuits are designed to detect and trace the presence of trains on the right-of-way. This effectively prevents two trains from occupying the same stretch of track at the same time. A particularly troubling finding of the NTSB's investigation is that a 2005 ``near accident'' on the Orange and Blue lines' in the Potomac River tunnel coming into the Rosslyn Station was caused by an identical track circuit malfunction to the one that caused the June 22 crash. In other words, Metro knew, from firsthand experience, about the serious risks track circuit failures present. The NTSB concluded that if WMATA had taken a lesson from the 2005 ``near accident'' at Rosslyn and made fixing the track circuit failures throughout the system a priority, the June 22, 2009, tragedy would have been avoided entirely. The second layer of safety meant to prevent a crash in the case of a track circuit failure are automatic alerts sent to Metro Central Command to alert control officers when a track circuit failures occurs. However, ignoring these warnings were part of Metro's operational protocol. The NTSB reported that prior to the Red Line crash, track circuit failures were such a frequent occurrence, that Central Command was receiving an average of 3,000 system alerts a week. Central Command's response to the overwhelming number of alerts was to implement an automatic override program. The override allowed Metro to operate around the alerts, rather than fixing the circuit failures triggering the alerts. The constant barrage of alerts ended up creating a culture of complacency rather than creating a culture of urgency. This negligent managerial approach to solving the warning rather than solving the problem is entirely irresponsible and exemplifies the lack of a Safety Culture at Metro. Because the approaching train was under automatic control it was completely reliant on receiving the correct operations signals from the track circuits. Since the system failed, it was on the train's conductor to stop the train. The investigation concluded that operator Jeanice McMillan, of Fairfax, VA, acted quickly and appropriately to do all she could to stop the train. The curvature of the track, combined with the high speed that the automatic controls had her train travelling at, made it impossible for Ms. McMillan to prevent her train from striking the train ahead. Based on the emergency brake marks on the tracks, Operator McMillan acted as soon as she had visual contact with the train ahead. She made a selfless choice to remain at her post and do everything she could to slow the train, even when she surely must have realized that a collision was inevitable. Operator McMillan gave her life to save her passengers. Ms. McMillan's heroism surely prevented an even greater tragedy and for that we are all grateful. The NTSB pointed to the crashworthiness of the railcars as a major contributing factor in the severity of the accident. These are the first-generation 1000 series cars that are subject to shearing in crash situations. Metro has known about the compromised crashworthiness of its oldest railcars for many years. A relatively low-speed accident at the Woodley Park Station in 2004 demonstrated how dangerous these railcars are in a crash situation. Fortunately, in that accident no one was seriously injured. After the June 22 accident, Metro implemented a plan to place the older 1000 series cars in the center of trains as claiming that this shelters the older, less crashworthy cars in an accident. The NTSB has pointed out that there is no factual basis for this practice, known as ``bellying,'' in creating safer trains. The only way to make for safer trains is to get the old, unsafe railcars off the system. I am happy to report, that WMATA is working to replace the 1000 series cars incrementally with newer, safer cars. In fact, last Monday, Metro announced it has placed the order for the 7000 series cars that will finally replace all of the oldest, most unsafe, railcars on the system. The NTSB's top-line recommendations to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are the following: Expedite the detection and replacement of all faulty track circuits within the System. Expedite the replacement or reinforcement of all of the oldest least crashworthy railcars in operation. Ensure that all new and current railcar cockpits are outfitted with event data recorders. And lastly, management, starting with the board, must establish a culture of safety that pervades the entire organization. The last point is incredibly important because despite Metro's ongoing budget woes, making safety a genuine priority would come at no additional cost to WMATA. The NTSB also had many compelling recommendations for how the Federal Transit Administration should establish better safety guidance. Because of Metro's unique relationship with the Federal Government, the FTA should provide immediate guidance to Metro on improving the safety of its operation. Because the FTA has no actual regulatory authority, Congress must take the NTSB's safety improvement recommendations as a call for legislative action. We must act to ensure that the NTSB's recommendations to FTA can be implemented in a way that achieves results. Senators Dodd, Menendez, Mikulski, and I introduced legislation requiring the Transportation Secretary to establish and implement a comprehensive transit Public Transportation Safety program. With the support of Senator Shelby, this bill was reported out of committee and is awaiting action on the floor. This legislation will give the FTA the ability to take decisive actions such as conducting inspections, investigations, audits, examinations of public transit systems. The Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2010 came about at the request of the President and Transportation Secretary LaHood. I applaud the Obama administration for recognizing the need to give the FTA legal enforcement authority of its standards and rules. This legislation establishes the type of safety enforcement authority for the FTA that currently exists for the Federal Railroad Administration's over commuter rail systems and that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has for commercial trucking. It makes sense for public transit systems that receive federal funding to meet federal safety requirements set by the FTA. These are safety requirements that could have saved the lives lost in last year's Red Line crash and would help make transit systems across the country safer for all users. Just as I believe that the Federal Government has a role in ensuring Metro is safe for its riders and employees, I also believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to help fund the safe operation of the system since Metro provides the Federal Government and its employees a vital transportation service. I was proud to work alongside Senators Mikulski, Webb and former Senator John Warner to include major new funding authorization for Metro in the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act, which was signed into law in 2008. This law authorizes $1.5 billion over 10 years in federal funds for WMATA, and is matched dollar-for-dollar by the local jurisdictions, for capital improvements. This arrangement will finally provide Metro with the dedicated funding the system needs. President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget request to Congress includes $150 million for Metro. This builds on the substantial downpayment Senators Mikulski, Webb, Mark Warner and I were able to secure for Metro last year. I am happy to see that the Appropriations Committee has included this request in the Transportation appropriations bill reported out of Committee. This is an important investment, but it is not nearly enough to fulfill all of Metrorail's obligations. Metro maintains a list of ready-to-go projects totaling about $530 million and $11 billion in capital funding needs over the next decade. When Metro was a relatively new system it was the epitome of safe and reliable public transit. After 34 years of operation, and a managerial focus on system expansion rather than system preservation, the backlog of maintenance needs have taken its toll. I find it unacceptable that the transit system in our Nation's Capital does not have enough resources to improve safety and maintain its aging infrastructure. My deepest sympathies remain with the families and friends whose lives are forever affected having lost someone dear to them in last year's tragedy. I want them to know that you and the loved ones you lost are not forgotten. This tragedy has served as a constant reminder and inspiration for my work to fix the problems that led to the tragedy. I call on my colleagues to honor the memory of those by working to pass the Public Transit Safety Act so that we can prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals Act of 2010 or the SAVINGS Act of 2010. This is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Deborah Halvorson and House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chair Bob Filner. This bill ensures that beneficiaries of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, program receive financial counseling and full disclosure information regarding life insurance payments. Active duty members of the Armed Forces will be given more information as they decide on disbursement options for their beneficiaries. The SAVINGS Act offers specific protections and alternatives to life insurance policy beneficiaries. This bill requires an explanation of how the retained- asset accounts differ from traditional checking accounts and leaves flexibility for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to add more disclosure guidelines as he sees fit. I present this bill to improve the process for our servicemembers and their families. My concern is that what has become a common industry practice, may not be an appropriate solution for every family. The SAVINGS Act addresses this challenge by requiring a greater level of disclosure and financial counseling to beneficiaries. This bill helps families make sound financial decisions during a most difficult time. It will assist Marylanders and other Americans in difficult times. Last week National Public Radio profiled my constituent Cindy Lohman, of Great Mills, MD. Ms. Lohman lost her son Ryan when he was killed in a bombing in Afghanistan in August 2008. She had no idea that the package sent to her from the life insurance company would lead to more difficulty, during an already unbearable time. While a mother grieved, Prudential the company that administers the SGLI policies on behalf of the Veterans Affairs Secretary began to process her survivor's benefits. Understandably too distraught to take immediate action, Ms. Lohman put away the package for 6 months. After looking over the many pages of printed forms and seeing what appeared to be a checkbook, Ms. Lohman assumed the money was in a checking account. There were many details in that packet from the insurance company disclaimers and other specifics about the account. It turns out that this was not a standard, FDIC-insured account, but a retained-asset account managed by the insurance company. As we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our servicemembers and their families must remain steadfast and strong. I am proud to serve in this Congress that has worked to honor our commitment to our nation's veterans and to the families of our fallen heroes. This is a good bill because it shows our commitment to do what is in the best interest of the families of the noble men and women who serve in uniform.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Baucus) submitted the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. S. Res. 611 Whereas President John F. Kennedy set as a national goal the improvement of the health of the members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas President Kennedy, in 1963, issued an Executive order challenging United States Marine officers to finish a 50-mile race in 20 hours, matching a similar challenge issued in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt; Whereas, since that Executive order, thousands of Americans, not just servicemen and women, have taken up the challenge of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon; Whereas, since the inception of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra- Marathon, all members of the Armed Services have been invited to meet the challenge set by Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt over an historic race course; Whereas between 30 and 40 percent of participants in the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon each year are active duty military or veterans; Whereas each of the branches of the United States Armed Forces fields at least 1 team each year in the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon, and the Navy typically fields several teams; Whereas much of the course of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra- Marathon is located on Federal land, including the historic C&O Canal, the Appalachian Trail, and Antietam Battlefield; Whereas the JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon includes the War Correspondents Memorial Arch, a national monument located in Gathland State Park in the State of Maryland; and Whereas following the assassination of President Kennedy, the first JFK 50-Mile Ultra-Marathon was organized as a way to honor President Kennedy, and has been held annually, rain or shine, ever since: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commends and congratulates the past, present, and future participants and organizers of the JFK 50-Mile Ultra- Marathon; and (2) requests the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Cumberland Valley Athletic Club as an expression of the best wishes of the Senate for a glorious year of celebration.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the 45th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation which helped guarantee the right to vote to all Americans. As we approach the upcoming midterm elections, it is important to remember the journey of voting rights in America. Without this right, words and phrases like ``democracy,'' ``land of the free,'' and ``equality'' lack true meaning. The right to vote traveled a long ugly road--a road we must all remember. Edmund Burke once said ``those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it.'' Some would say they are doomed to repeat it. For this reason, on this day and every day, we should remember how Americans, Black and White; young and old; men and women; stood, marched and fought together for equal access to the voting booth. We must ensure that all barriers to voting are removed. There are many people who contributed to the voting rights movement. Today I would like to highlight one woman--Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, a woman who was ``sick and tired of being sick and tired'' when it came to the denial of equal voting rights. Hamer, a great American hero, led a life most people could not imagine today. Despite having polio and only 4 months of schooling, Hamer became a matriarch of the voting rights movement. On August 31, 1962, Hamer decided to exercise her constitutional right to vote by traveling 26 miles in Mississippi to register only to be confronted by the highway patrol and literary test requirements. After being denied her right to vote she didn't just sit down, she stood up and joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and traveled all across the country speaking and registering other people to vote. Hamer also helped organize ``Freedom Summer'' in 1964. She and thousands of civil rights supporters, many of them White college students, traveled to Mississippi and other Southern States to try to end the long time political disenfranchisement of African Americans in the region. Despite these nonviolent efforts for equality, on the very first day of Freedom Summer, three volunteers were brutally murdered. As America continued to march toward equality the Nation and its political leaders began to realize the horrific battle being waged against African Americans seeking equal treatment under the law. As violence and frustration mounted, President Johnson pushed Congress to act and pass voting rights legislation. After research, multiple hearings and the longest filibuster in Senate history, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This bill provided all Americans--regardless of color--with nationwide protections against barriers and access to the voting booth. It contained protections against systematic methods of disenfranchisement by States and localities. Since its enactment, Congress has reauthorized the landmark legislation in an effort to remain vigilant against any forms of disenfranchisement. In 2006, when Congress last took up reauthorization of this legislation, civil rights leader Congressman John Lewis said, ``forty- one years ago I gave a little blood on that bridge. So when I see what's happening in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, it's a beginning of an effort not only to violate the letter but the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And that must not be allowed to happen.'' With overwhelming bipartisan support, the House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 390-33 and the U.S. Senate passed the bill by a vote of 98-0. Despite the bipartisan support and a large array of evidence demonstrating the continuing need for this legislation, some have argued that this legislation is no longer warranted. To those people, I say you are wrong. I have seen examples in my own State that prove how necessary this legislation is today. During my Senate campaign, just 4 years ago--the very same time the Congress was providing near unanimous support for the Voting Rights Act--I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing deceptive practices and tactics used to undermine the constitutional right to vote. Lines were inexplicably longer and slower at polling locations in African-American districts and not simply because there were more people voting. Phone calls were made to minority districts reminding them to vote on Wednesday, not Tuesday; and a fraudulent sample ballot was targeted to confuse minority voters. I remind you that this was in 2006, not 1956. Just two years later, in the 2008 election, substantial barriers were implemented making it difficult for eligible voters to vote. These included the purging of voter rolls, misleading voter information and voter intimidation. Take for example, an election administrator in Mississippi improperly purging approximately 10,000 voters from the rolls from her home computer; or the local prosecutor in Ohio who requested via subpoena personal information for 40 percent of voters who had registered during the same day registration and voting period in the State. These are real examples of incidents occurring today--45 years after we passed the Voting Rights Act. Despite attempts to ignore or chip away at the protections provided to all Americans by the Voting Rights Act, this legislation remains relevant and provides the most significant and essential tool in ensuring continuity and the integrity of our democratic system. Our former colleague Ted Kennedy once said we need to ``seek the reign of justice in which voting rights and equal protection of the law will everywhere be enjoyed.'' On this 45th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, I urge my colleagues to continue their bipartisan support for this critical legislation and for equal access to the voting booth for all.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Securing America's Veterans Insurance Needs and Goals Act of 2010 or the SAVINGS Act of 2010. This is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Deborah Halvorson and House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chair Bob Filner. This bill ensures that beneficiaries of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, program receive financial counseling and full disclosure information regarding life insurance payments. Active duty members of the Armed Forces will be given more information as they decide on disbursement options for their beneficiaries. The SAVINGS Act offers specific protections and alternatives to life insurance policy beneficiaries. This bill requires an explanation of how the retained- asset accounts differ from traditional checking accounts and leaves flexibility for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to add more disclosure guidelines as he sees fit. I present this bill to improve the process for our servicemembers and their families. My concern is that what has become a common industry practice, may not be an appropriate solution for every family. The SAVINGS Act addresses this challenge by requiring a greater level of disclosure and financial counseling to beneficiaries. This bill helps families make sound financial decisions during a most difficult time. It will assist Marylanders and other Americans in difficult times. Last week National Public Radio profiled my constituent Cindy Lohman, of Great Mills, MD. Ms. Lohman lost her son Ryan when he was killed in a bombing in Afghanistan in August 2008. She had no idea that the package sent to her from the life insurance company would lead to more difficulty, during an already unbearable time. While a mother grieved, Prudential the company that administers the SGLI policies on behalf of the Veterans Affairs Secretary began to process her survivor's benefits. Understandably too distraught to take immediate action, Ms. Lohman put away the package for 6 months. After looking over the many pages of printed forms and seeing what appeared to be a checkbook, Ms. Lohman assumed the money was in a checking account. There were many details in that packet from the insurance company disclaimers and other specifics about the account. It turns out that this was not a standard, FDIC-insured account, but a retained-asset account managed by the insurance company. As we send soldiers to fight overseas, our support for our servicemembers and their families must remain steadfast and strong. I am proud to serve in this Congress that has worked to honor our commitment to our nation's veterans and to the families of our fallen heroes. This is a good bill because it shows our commitment to do what is in the best interest of the families of the noble men and women who serve in uniform.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Pigford II settlement pending full action by the U.S. Senate. We all know that farming is a difficult occupation. The hours are long, the weather is unpredictable, and the challenge of competing in a global marketplace is intense. Tens of thousands of Black farmers have had to face all those normal challenges. Tragically, they have also had to deal with a challenge that was unique to them based solely on race. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, was discriminating against them. More than 12 years ago, Black farmers across America brought a class action suit against the USDA for racial discrimination. The history of that discrimination is a sad one, and it is well documented. Farmers, like all businesses, need access to loans. They need to borrow money for expensive equipment and they need funding to help them when droughts strike or when markets collapse. The Congress has recognized this need for decades, and we have established special loan programs in the USDA to support these special needs. But when it came to lending, tens of thousands of Black farmers were the victims of systemic discrimination. During the 1980s and 1990s, the average processing time for a loan application by White farmers was 30 days; the average time for a loan application by Black farmers was 387 days. Black farmers had to wait 12 times as long to receive a loan. This discrimination earned the USDA the regrettable nickname ``the Last Plantation.'' Black farmers finally sought justice through a class action lawsuit in 1997. More than 20,000 farmers initiated claims citing racial discrimination in the USDA farm loan programs. Two years after the action was initiated, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree approving a class action settlement to compensate these farmers for years of racial discrimination by the USDA. Each farmer who could prove discrimination was entitled to damages. Out of the initial 20,000 farmers, 15,000 were meritorious in the claims they brought. As the legal process continued, additional farmers began to join the class action and filed their own claims. Approximately 80,000 farmers eventually brought claims. Unfortunately, many of these farmers did not know about the class action suit, and by the time they learned of its existence, the filing deadline had passed. In 2008, Congress recognizing the injustice of stopping 80 percent or more of the farmers who potentially suffered discrimination by our government--decided to take action and created a new cause of action for farmers previously denied access to justice. In the 2008 farm bill, with bipartisan support, Congress included $100 million for payments and debt relief as a downpayment to satisfy the claims filed by deserving claimants denied participation in the original settlement because of timeliness issues. After years of litigation and negotiation between the Department of Justice, which represented the USDA, and lawyers for the farmers, a settlement was finally reached in February 2010. The Pigford II settlement agreement will provide $1.25 billion, which is contingent on appropriation by Congress, to African-American farmers who can show they suffered racial discrimination in USDA farm loan programs. Once the money is appropriated farmers can pursue their individual claims through the same nonjudicial process used in the first case. To address this funding need, President Obama included $1.15 billion in additional funding for his fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets. Both Chambers of Congress have worked to pass appropriations to fulfill the settlement agreement since February. The House of Representatives has passed funding language for the Pigford case twice; once as part of the war supplemental and the other on a tax extenders bill. But the Senate has not been able to do the same. Despite the majority leader's efforts in finding ways to pay for the legislation and move the legislation for full Senate consideration, we have been unable to proceed to a rollcall vote. This bill has come before the Senate a half dozen times. There are no known objections to the settlement, yet we have failed to pass the funding therefore denying the process for funding to these farmers who were discriminated against by our own government. We must move to appropriate these funds. The settlement that was reached is only valid until August 18, 2010. Failure to appropriate the money by then could cause the agreement to be voided. William Gladstone once said that ``justice delayed is justice denied.'' Let us not be in the business of delaying and denying justice for African-American farmers. Let us be in the business of allowing the justice system to work and provide them with adequate redress. I urge my colleagues to support this funding.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a package that would provide critical relief to school districts across the Nation. The proposed amendment would provide $10 billion in additional support to local school districts to prevent imminent layoffs. It is estimated that this fund will help keep nearly 140,000 educators employed during the upcoming school year. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act has been credited with saving 300,000 education jobs and has mitigated that impact of the recession. As that funding comes to an end, however, massive job cuts once again threaten to stall economic recovery and damage our educational system. Thus far, almost 80 percent of school districts across the Nation have had to lay off educators. My home State of Maryland, which is No. 1 in education according to Education Week for the second year in a row, is not immune. One Maryland county has seen 800 jobs cut, 355 of those classroom positions. These job losses have an economic ripple effect. The Economic Policy Institute projects that every 100,000 education jobs lost causes an additional loss of 30,000 private sector jobs in local communities. This can take a devastating toll on families and on whole communities. As our children prepare to go back to school, let's think for a moment about what these job cuts will mean for them. For some, the bus route has changed since there are fewer drivers so it takes a bit longer to get to school. When students get to class, it will be a little more crowded as the class size grows to accommodate more students and fewer teachers. The lunch lines might be longer because there are fewer cafeteria workers to serve the students. Art, music, and even social studies programs have been cut and teachers dismissed. Get sick at your own risk because a school nurse will no longer be available to assist with treatment. So, the remaining teachers, in addition to performing their traditional roles, now also become nurses, counselors, and custodians to even more students. Larger class sizes, cutting programs, and cutting support personnel such as school nurses, counselors, bus drivers, and custodians, are just a few of the ways school districts are dealing with budgeting shortfalls. Other options include unpaid furlough days and shortened school weeks. All of these are detrimental to the educational experience and fly in the face of what we are trying to achieve with educational reform. There are many theories about education reform. But to put it quite simply, there can be no educational reform if there are no teachers! The $10 billion that this package puts into the States will provide immediate relief to school districts across the Nation. In Maryland, it could mean an estimated allocation of $178 million for Maryland, translating to 2,200 jobs. Yet it does not add 1 cent to the deficit. The education jobs funding is fully offset, including $8.4 billion in rescissions. This is not without sacrifice. I am particularly disappointed by the rescission of $10.7 million in Department of Education innovation and improvement funds for public television's ``Ready to Teach'' program. However, I am respectful of the difficult choices that must be made in these times of economic crisis. We need to make choices about spending. And I choose to support putting teachers to work and giving students the best chance to learn. I urge my colleagues to think of the mixed messages we would send to our children by not making this investment and passing this amendment. We say to our children that they should work hard to get the best out of education but then we are not willing to work to put the best into it? We say that our children are our future but we are not willing to invest in them? We expect teachers to equip our children with the knowledge they need to succeed but are not willing to equip our teachers with the resources they need to succeed? It is time to stand up for our students and teachers. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for education by voting yes on the proposed amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I pay special tribute to Simon ``Cy'' Avara on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of his business, the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology. Cy was born in Baltimore where his parents, Vincent and Mary, were working-class Italian Americans. Cy grew up watching his father work as a neighborhood barber. When Cy was 14 years old his father died in a tragic car accident. He decided to follow in his father's footsteps and, after a period of apprenticeship, he passed the Maryland State Board Barber's exam. At age 16, he opened up his own barbershop, charging 60 cents for a man's haircut. He closed the barber shop for 2 years when he was drafted and served with the U.S. Army in Korea. After the war, Cy returned to Baltimore to establish an upscale salon to showcase his barbering talents. But his real satisfaction came from teaching others how to cut and style hair. He enjoyed helping others develop a skill that they could use throughout their lives to support themselves and their families. In 1960, he opened the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology in his southwest Baltimore neighborhood. His school was so successful that he was able to acquire another school in Dundalk, Baltimore County, 10 years later. Cy has been recognized as a leader in his profession and he has used his knowledge of the industry to advocate for barbers and stylists. He has served in several posts over the course of his career, including secretary-treasurer of the International Barber School Association, national president of Barber Examiners, and founder and chairman of the Maryland Hair Designers Association. But most important, while the southwest Baltimore and Dundalk neighborhoods have fallen on hard times, the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology has remained as a beacon of hope and opportunity. As a child, Cy was raised to appreciate his blessings and to help others who were less fortunate. His father gave haircuts to people who wanted to make a good impression so they could get a job; his mother gave out food to those in need in their neighborhood. Cy never forgot these lessons in generosity. For more than 40 years, he has been deeply involved with St. Vincent's Center for Abused and Neglected Children, regularly sending his barber students to cut the children's hair. He has also been a major contributor to the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation, which was started by one of his former barber students, Sam Lamantia, to honor professional football players who have overcome adversity and contributed to the betterment of their community. On August 29, 2010, Cy will hold a Cut-AThon fundraiser to celebrate his special anniversary. The proceeds from the event will benefit the Ed Block Courage Award Foundation which supports the St. Vincent Center for Abused and Neglected Children. I urge my colleagues to join me today to salute Simon ``Cy'' Avara; his wife Rita; his sons Michael Thomas, and Lawrence; and his daughter Susan in celebration of their achievements as humanitarians and entrepreneurs on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding the Avara International Academy of Hair Design and Technology.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, while speaking in support of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, I quoted from a letter received from former Solicitors General in support of Solicitor General Kagan for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It is dated June 22, 2010, signed by former Solicitors General in support of the confirmation of Elena Kagan. I also spoke about the endorsement received from Miguel Estrada. He wrote an extraordinary letter that speaks to the qualifications of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. It is addressed to the chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, and the ranking member, Jeff Sessions, dated May 14, 2010. I ask unanimous consent these two letters be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me start by first expressing my appreciation to Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions. I have the honor of serving on the Judiciary Committee, and I think our leadership--our chairman, Senator Leahy, and our ranking Republican member, Senator Sessions--conducted the confirmation process in the best tradition of the Senate. We had 4 days of hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Every member of the committee was afforded ample opportunity to question Solicitor General Kagan on a far range of issues, and we got complete responses. We had chances for followup questions. We even had a third round of questioning. We had outside witnesses who were before our committee. We had a chance to ask them questions as third-party validators. We also went through tens of thousands of pages of documents. This was a very thorough confirmation process, a very open confirmation process, and a very fair confirmation process. I do thank Senator Sessions, the ranking Republican member, for the way he cooperated with Senator Leahy to make sure the Senate did its business in getting a full record before voting to confirm Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Solicitor General Elena Kagan has the experience, the intelligence, the integrity, and the temperament to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As to her experience, she was the first woman Solicitor General in the history of our Nation. She was the first woman to be dean at the Harvard Law School. Her intelligence has been acknowledged by all as to her being a person who is very capable to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Previous Solicitor Generals, including Charles Fried, Ken Starr, Ted Olson, and Paul Clement--Democrats and Republicans--stated that Elena Kagan would ``bring to the Supreme Court a breadth of experience and a history of great accomplishment in the law.'' They are Democratic and Republican former Solicitors General. She has the integrity. We have seen third-party validators--Democrats and Republicans--testify to her integrity and legal career. She certainly has the temperament. She put up with the Senators' interrogations with a calm demeanor and good humor, which I think will serve her well on the Supreme Court of the United States. She brings to this position experience from being a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall. I heard his name mentioned many times during this confirmation process. We in Maryland are particularly proud of Thurgood Marshall. He comes from the State of Maryland. He comes from Baltimore. He was one of the great leaders on the Supreme Court, one of the great lawyers of our time. I think we all are very proud of what America is today thanks to Justice Thurgood Marshall. I think it only adds to the qualifications of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to have clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. I heard my colleague talk about her commitment to our military. Let me point this out: This was a very difficult issue for Harvard Law School in regard to their policies. But let me quote, if I might, from a letter from Iraqi war veterans: During her time as dean, she has created an environment that is highly supportive of students who have served in the military. . . .Under her leadership, Harvard Law School has also gone out of its way to highlight our military service. . . . Students have complimented the way she acted as dean to support our veterans. She comes from a military family. In fact, during the time in question, the number of Harvard Law School students who were recruited into military service went up. So I think you have to look at the record. She has been extremely supportive of our veterans, extremely supportive of those who serve our Nation in military service. As a last point, let me quote from Miguel Estrada. I think most people know Miguel Estrada. He was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and considered to be one of the conservative nominees. He said: If such a person, who has demonstrated great intellect, high accomplishments and an upright life, is not easily confirmable, I fear we will have reached a point where no capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial service. So I would hope we all could agree that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is well qualified to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. What we want from an Associate Justice is a judge who will follow legal precedent, giving due deference to Congress, following the best traditions of the Supreme Court in protecting the rights of Americans against the abuses of power. To me, that is judicial restraint, to stay within the mainstream of American values. I believe Solicitor General Kagan represents that best tradition of following legal precedent, giving due deference to Congress, standing for ordinary Americans against the abuse of power. For those reasons, I will vote to confirm her to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. During the confirmation hearings, I used that opportunity to explain to my constituents, indeed, to the people of this Nation, that Supreme Court decisions have real consequences on the lives of our constituents. If you are a woman, if you are a consumer, if you are a worker, if you are a voter, if you care about the air you breathe or the water you drink, you should be very concerned about Supreme Court decisions. It affects your life. I am very concerned, and I think my constituents are concerned, about recent 5-to-4 decisions where the majority, the so-called conservative Justices, legislated from the bench on the side of powerful corporate interests over protecting ordinary citizens. During the confirmation process, I raised these issues and questioned Solicitor General Kagan on these cases in which there were 5-to-4 decisions, which reversed precedents. In my view, they were cases where they were legislating from the bench and they were restricting the rights of ordinary Americans. I mentioned the Ledbetter case. I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with the Ledbetter case, in which a 5-to-4 decision from the Supreme Court effectively told the women of our Nation they would have no effective rights to bring wage discrimination cases based upon gender. The Supreme Court basically said the statute of limitations would run even if you did not have knowledge of the discriminatory act. Lilly Ledbetter was denied her claim as a result of that decision. I think it is going to be healthy for America to have more women on the Supreme Court of the United States. When Elena Kagan is confirmed, she will, for the first time in America's history, be the third woman out of nine on the Supreme Court of the United States. I think that is going to give us more commonsense justice in this Nation and certainly one that reflects the diversity of our country. It was not just the Ledbetter case. There have been other cases in which workers have found the Supreme Court has ruled on the side of special interest corporate America over the rights of ordinary workers. In the Gross case, the Supreme Court reversed precedent, here again by a 5-to-4 decision, and ruled that we would use a different test for age discrimination, effectively denying claims by those who were discriminated against because of their age. This is another example where the so-called conservative Justices on the Supreme Court reversed precedent, reversed the clear intent of Congress, and ruled against workers in favor of corporate America. It is not just limited to worker cases or wage cases. In the Citizens United case--this is a case we have talked about a great deal on the floor--the Supreme Court not only ruled against Congress, because we had legislated the McCain-Feingold bill, but ruled against prior Supreme Court decisions to reverse the rights of ordinary Americans in their election process. What the Citizens United case said is corporate America could spend more on elections--not already spending enough, but they could spend more. Even though Congress had passed bipartisan laws to rein in the amount of special interest corporate money and even though other cases were upheld by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went out of its way, by a 5-to-4 decision, to rule on the side of corporate America against ordinary Americans. Here, if I might, let me quote from Justice Stevens in his dissent. Justice Stevens said: Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law . . . there were principled, narrower paths that a Court that was serious about judicial restraint could have taken. I agree with Justice Stevens. We all talk about wanting to see judicial restraint. We all talk about wanting to see a Supreme Court that will give due respect to the actions of Congress. We talk about following judicial precedent. We talk about following the tradition to protect your constitutional rights. Well, this Supreme Court, too many times, by 5-to-4 decisions by the so-called conservative Justices, has been the most activist Court on ruling on the side of corporate America over ordinary Americans. It is also true in environmental cases--the Rapanos case. I have the honor of chairing the Water Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We work very hard, Congress has worked very hard, to protect our environment. It is not easy to get legislation passed in the Congress. I know all of us are frustrated that we cannot get more legislation passed. But we have gotten some very important bills passed to protect our environment, such as the Clean Water Act, and we have protected our waterways. The courts have upheld our power to do that. But in the Rapanos case, the Court ruled, again, by the narrowest of margins, on the side of corporate America against protecting our environment, against congressional intent, against prior decisions of the Supreme Court, ruling on the side of corporate America over protecting our environment for future generations. That was also true very recently in the Exxon v. Baker case. This was particularly important because it took over a decade for those who were damaged by the Exxon Valdez oilspill, by the episode in Alaska, to be able to get their claims brought through the courts. The Supreme Court, again, by the narrowest margin, reduced the claims of those who were damaged as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill. I know all of us are very concerned about what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. We want to make sure BP is held fully accountable for all the damage it has caused. We in Congress need to do our work to make sure that is done. I expect we will get it done. But we also need the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the power of Congress to pass laws. We are the legislative branch of government, and too often this so-called conservative majority of the Supreme Court has ruled the other way. I believe Solicitor General Elena Kagan will follow in the best traditions of the Supreme Court. She will follow legal precedent, allowing Congress to legislate. I say that, in part, because of her testimony before our committee. I questioned Solicitor General Kagan as to our environmental statutes and the role Congress plays. She replied: Congress certainly has broad authority under the Constitution to enact legislation involving the protection of our environment. When Congress enacts such legislation, the job of the Court is to construe it consistent with Congressional intent. That is the type of Justice I want on the Supreme Court in order to protect our air and protect our water, while yielding to Congress to pass the statutes rather than legislating from the bench. Basically, I want to make sure the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is on the side of ordinary Americans. Once again, let me quote from Solicitor General Kagan from her opening statement to the Judiciary Committee. When she was talking about equal justice under the law she said: It means that everyone who comes before the Court-- regardless of wealth or power or station--receives the same process and protections . . . What it promises is nothing less than a fair shake for every American. That, again, is what I would like to see from the Supreme Court. I want them to be on the side of ordinary Americans, giving them a fair shake, protecting them from the abuses of power, whether those abuses come from the halls of government or from corporate America. In too many cases, this Supreme Court, by narrow margins through the more conservative Justices, has not been on the side of ordinary Americans. I believe Solicitor General Kagan, as Associate Justice Kagan, will give Americans a fair shake and will continue in the best traditions of the Supreme Court in advancing Americans' rights against the abuses of power. For that reason, I intend to vote for the confirmation of Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy diRusso, an APSA legislative fellow in my office from the CIA, be accorded floor privileges during the debate on Elena Kagan to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am pleased today to introduce, together with fellow Senate Commissioners Brownback, Whitehouse and Shaheen, a resolution marking the historic Helsinki Final Act, signed by President Ford and the leaders of thirty-four other nations on August 1, 1975. The Final Act provides a comprehensive framework for advancing security in all its aspects through the military security, economic and human dimensions. For more than three decades, the Final Act and the process it set in motion, have served as an important vehicles for advancing U.S. interests in the expansive OSCE region and beyond. In a very real sense, the Helsinki process was a catalyst that helped usher historic changes in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In his Berlin speech as candidate, President Obama emphasized that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom--a struggle in which freedom eventually prevailed in bringing down the walls of a divided city, country and continent. The years following the fall of the Berlin Wall have witnessed stunning successes as well as serious setbacks, notably the genocidal war that raged through the Balkans, including the massacre at Srebrenica. The principles reflected in the Final Act have withstood the test of time and proven their enduring value as we seek to address lingering and new challenges. A survey of developments in the OSCE, now comprising 56 participating States, is a reminder of the scale of work that remains: from simmering tensions throughout the Caucasus region and so-called frozen conflicts elsewhere to violations of fundamental freedoms. There are a number of troubling trends in the human dimension: from the harassment, persecution and physical attacks on journalists and human rights defenders to the adoption of restrictive laws aimed at reigning in freedom of religion and other fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and assembly. Other longstanding concerns include the plight of national minorities and Roma as well as other manifestations of discrimination and intolerance, particularly anti-Semitism. The OSCE is uniquely positioned to contribute to efforts to address these and other issues in the military security, economic and human dimensions. Indeed, a large body of common commitments has been agreed to over the years, beginning with the Helsinki Final Act. The challenge remains to translate these words on paper into meaningful action. As parliamentarians, we have a unique role to play in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Final Act and security in all of its aspects, including efforts to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was evident at the just concluded OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Norway, where many human rights and other concerns were voiced by the U.S. delegation and others. Among several initiatives we undertook at the Oslo meeting was a resolution on investigative journalists I introduced as a follow up to a recent Helsinki Commission hearing on ``Threats to Free Media in the OSCE Region.'' As one who has been active in the Helsinki Process for many years and as Commission chairman, I want to underscore the vital role played by NGOs in advancing the aims of the Helsinki Accords. For over three decades the Helsinki Commission has worked closely with NGOs focused on a wide-range of human rights concerns. In closing, I recall the remarks by Soviet human rights defender Dr. Andrei Sakharov made while he and his wife were living in internal banishment in the early 1980's as punishment for standing up to the authorities in defense of fundamental freedoms: ``The Helsinki Accords, like detente as a whole, have meaning only if they are observed fully and by all parties. No country should evade a discussion on its own domestic problems. . . . Nor should a country ignore violations in other participating states. The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.'' At the Helsinki Commission we take seriously our mandate to uphold the principles enshrined in the Final Act, especially respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thirty-five years after its signing, the Helsinki Final Act remains an enduring charter for European security in all its aspects. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.