Benjamin Cardin

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.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a resolution I have submitted supporting the goals and ideals of National Infant Mortality Awareness Month. I am joined by my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, in drawing attention to this important health issue. Infant mortality is an important indicator of the health of a nation, and since 2000, the infant mortality rate in the United States has remained stagnant, generating concern among researchers and policymakers. The United States ranks 29th among industrialized countries in the rate of infant mortality, with 6.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2007, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The primary reason for the United States' higher infant mortality rate is the higher percentage of preterm births, that is, babies born before 37 weeks of gestation. In 2004, one in eight infants born in the United States was preterm, compared with one in 18 in Ireland and Finland. Among reported European countries, only Austria has a comparable preterm birth rate; the other countries, including England, Sweden, and France, have far lower rates. Preterm infants have much higher rates of death or disability than infants born at full term. In fact, if the United States had the same gestational age distribution of births as Sweden, with fewer preterm births, the U.S. infant mortality rate would decrease by about 30 percent. These data from the National Center for Health Statistics suggest that preterm birth prevention is crucial to lowering the U.S. infant mortality rate. The rate of preterm births in the United States rose by one-third between 1984 and 2006, and in 2004, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that 36.5 percent of all infant deaths in the U.S. were related to premature birth. This accounts for 12.5 percent of babies born in the United States. In addition to contributing to a higher infant mortality rate, this high rate of premature births constitutes a public health concern that costs society more than $26 billion a year, according to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report. There are indications that the situation is improving. Following a long period of steady increase, the U.S. preterm birth rate declined for the second straight year in 2008 to 12.3 percent, from 12.8 percent in 2006, marking the first two-year decline in the preterm birth rate in nearly three decades. We have seen similar trends in my own state of Maryland, where the infant mortality rate decreased by ten percent from 2008 to 2009, improving from 8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births to 7.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that despite these positive trends, significant racial disparities in infant mortality rates persist. In 2006, the infant mortality rate for African-American infants in the U.S. was more than twice the rate for non-Hispanic White infants, at 13.4 deaths per 1,000 live births for African-Americans compared to 5.6 for non-Hispanic Whites. In American Indian and Alaska Native populations, the death rate is 50 percent higher than in non-Hispanic Whites, and the sudden infant death syndrome, SIDS, mortality rate for this population is also twice as high as the SIDS mortality rate for non-Hispanic Whites. The Puerto Rican population also experiences significant disparity in this area, with an infant mortality rate 40 percent higher than that for non- Hispanic Whites. Disparities in prenatal care also contribute to higher infant mortality among minority populations. Nationwide, African-American mothers were 2.5 times more likely than white mothers to receive late or no prenatal care. This trend is also evident in Maryland, where in 2009, the number of babies born to all mothers receiving late or no prenatal care was 4.7 per 1,000 live births, but the number of babies born to African-American mothers lacking prenatal care increased from 6.3 per 1,000 live births in 2008 to 7 in 2009. A lack of prenatal care can contribute to low birth weight and increased risk for birth defects, which can cause higher infant mortality rates. So, despite the progress we are making in reducing infant mortality, evidence of the progress is not being seen equally everywhere. To combat these disparities, the HHS Office of Minority Health, OMH, began the ``A Healthy Baby Begins with You'' campaign in 2007. This is a nationwide effort to raise awareness about infant mortality with an emphasis on African Americans. The goals of this campaign include reaching the college-age Black population with targeted health messages emphasizing preconception health and health care. The campaign trains college students to be health ambassadors and reaches out to historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions. Based on the success of that campaign, OMH developed the Preconception Peer Educators Program, launched in 2008. This program addresses the need to emphasize preconception health as an important factor influencing outcomes for maternal and infant health. The program enlists college students as peer educators on college campuses and in communities to disseminate essential health messages that may seem irrelevant to students who are not seeking to start a family. Because more than 50 percent of pregnancies are unplanned, good preconception health is essential. This program has held trainings across the country over the past year, and there will be a national training for the PPE program this September during National Infant Mortality Awareness Month. I also commend the work of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau at the Health Resources and Services Administration for providing national leadership on the issue of infant mortality. Their efforts provide critical insight into the Nation's progress toward ensuring quality of care, eliminating barriers and health disparities, and improving the health infrastructure and systems of care for women and children. All of these areas influence the infant mortality rate, and the work of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau will help target our resources efficiently to decrease the number of infant deaths nationwide. Although some indications are that the U.S. infant mortality rate is decreasing, there is room for substantial improvement. In some pockets of the country, including Baltimore, Memphis, and Washington, DC, the rate is more than twice the national average, and evidence of racial disparities in this area cannot be ignored. We must continue to research the causes and contributing factors to infant mortality and to support effective education and awareness campaigns so that mothers get the prenatal care that they need to have healthy babies. I thank my colleagues who have agreed to support this resolution drawing attention to National Infant Mortality Awareness Month in September and to support Federal efforts to decrease our national infant mortality rate.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to join me in marking the 100th anniversary of the passing of Joe ``The Old Master'' Gans, a great American who inspired millions with his feats in the boxing ring. At a time of pervasive racial discrimination and inequality, Gans provided the country with a glimpse of the true potential of African Americans by rising to the top of what was then the most popular sport in America. Gans had the humblest of beginnings. He was born in Baltimore, MD, in 1874, and orphaned 4 years later. Then, he was raised by a foster mother in a segregated world in which the future seemed to hold no more for him than the same menial labor he performed at the Baltimore harbor in his teenage years. In an ironic twist of fate, the racist conditions that hemmed in his world eventually lifted him out of it. His incredible talent for boxing was first discovered when he emerged victorious in a Battle Royale, a cruel sporting event in which white gamblers bet on which of 10 black youths thrown together in a ring would be the last standing. In the years that followed, Gans honed his skills and accumulated success after success as a lightweight boxer, becoming famous for his perceptive, impregnable defensive tactics and devastating counterpunch. With an easy one-punch knockout victory in 1902, Gans first earned the world lightweight title, at the time the greatest athletic achievement made by an African American. Four years later, he solidified his hold on the title, which he would keep until 1908, with his victory over Matthew ``Battling'' Nelson on Labor Day, 1906, in Goldfield, NV. The Goldfield fight, held outdoors under a blazing Sun, drew an audience of 8,000 people. The purse was $30,000. Gans's foster mother, Maria Grant, sent him a telegram urging him to ``bring home the bacon,'' a phrase that caught on in the media accounts when Gans won what was dubbed ``the fight of the century'' after 42 grueling rounds. It was the longest gloved championship match recorded under Marquis of Queensbury rules. Despite winning the fight, Gans received much less prize money than his white opponent who lost. But the winnings were enough for Gans to found the Goldfield Hotel, a leading incubator of Black culture where, among others, the great jazz pianist Eubie Blake first attracted notice. Gans' achievements became a beacon of hope for the African- American community. The prominent preacher and civil rights leader Francis J. Grimke once remarked that the great Booker T. Washington had done much for African Americans, but he ``never did one-tenth to place the black man in the front rank as a gentleman as has been done by Joe Gans.'' Gans was one of the first practitioners of scientific gloved boxing, following the era of bare-knuckles fights. Nat Fleischer described his footwork as ``beautiful side-stepping, and legwork'' in ``Black Dynamite.'' The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Gans ``was in and away or inside as it suited him best, with will-o-the-wisp elusiveness.'' Jack Johnson said, ``Joe moved around like he was on wheels.'' All in all, he fought in three divisions--featherweight, lightweight, and welterweight--for 18 years, compiling over 150 career wins and over 100 knockouts. The remarkable life of Joe Gans was cut short at age 34 when he succumbed to tuberculosis. I ask my colleagues to join me, a century after his death, in recognizing the inspiring accomplishments of an American hero whom the great Baltimore writer H.L. Mencken called ``probably the greatest boxer who ever lived.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on May 5, 2009, over 14 months ago, I chaired a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled the Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud. Today we are holding Part II of that hearing. 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 the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. A U.S. passport can be used for many purposes in this country, and it gives an individual the ability to travel internationally, which is an important tool for someone who wants to do us harm, including terrorists, spies, and other criminals. So the integrity and security of the passport issuance process is extremely important 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, has revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud. As a result, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein and Lieberman, the Passport Identity Verification Act. This legislation is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access 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, procedures, and policies 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. But 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 simply cannot issue U.S. passports in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. We have the technology and the information to prevent such issuance. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues who are expressing our frustration on the inability of the Senate to take up for confirmation judges who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. You have heard our colleagues from Colorado, Minnesota and Rhode Island and there are many others who have come down and given similar circumstances about their judges being held up from a final vote. I know next week we will be considering the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States and that will get a lot of attention and rightly so. It should get a lot of attention. Let me point out the facts. The Supreme Court will issue less than 100 opinions in a given year; whereas, our circuit courts of appeals will issue many more opinions that will have a direct impact on the lives of the people of this Nation. Most Americans who have contact with a court are going to have contact with the district court and the circuit court, where the cases are heard, where the juries are convened in trials. So there is a great interest in making sure we have confirmed judges for our intermediate appellate courts and our district courts. Here is the problem. The vacancies in these judgeships today are about 11 percent of the court. More than 1 out of every 10 judicial spots is vacant currently in the United States. My colleagues have told you about the backlog. So let me try to put it in, I hope, terms that those listening to this debate will understand as to why we are so frustrated by the obstructionist tactics being taken by our Republican colleagues. Most nominees for judicial vacancies, once they have cleared the Judiciary Committee, are brought forward under unanimous consent; that is, if they have the support of their home State Senators, if there has not been controversy in their nomination, if the Judiciary Committee has approved them by a bipartisan vote, they will come to the floor of the Senate by unanimous consent and will be handled that way. Well, we are not able to do that because Republican Senators are objecting to that process. So we go to the next level. We say: OK, if we need to have debate on the floor, how much debate time do you need-- 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours? Well, we cannot get consent to the number of hours in order to debate the nominee and then vote on the nominee in an up-or-down vote. The majority leader said we could have that time, but they will not allow us to bring the nomination to the floor. So then the only course the majority leader has will be to file a cloture motion. A cloture motion takes several days, and we have 100 vacancies on our district and appellate courts. Obviously, we do not have enough time. So let me give you an example on the Fourth Circuit: Judge Barbara Keenan. I chaired her confirmation hearing. I chaired that confirmation hearing on October 3 of last year. The Judiciary Committee reported her out by a voice vote on October 29. That was October 29 of last year. It took us until March of this year to be able to get her nomination to the floor, and then it was not by unanimous consent. It was not by a consent as to the amount of time necessary to consider this nominee on the floor and then a vote afterwards. It came to the floor through a cloture motion the majority leader had to file--a cloture motion-- because we could not get consent to bring up her nomination almost 5 months after the committee acted on her nomination. What happened with the cloture motion? It was approved 99 to 0 on the floor of the Senate, and she was ultimately approved as an appellate court judge by a 99-to-0 vote. My point is simple: These were dilatory actions in order to slow down the process of the confirmation of judges which my friends on the Republican side have used. That is why we had these huge numbers. As my colleague from Rhode Island pointed out, the numbers tell the facts. There were twice as many judges confirmed by this time when a Republican controlled the White House than there are today. In other words, we are working at less than one-half the pace than when the tables were turned. That is wrong. My friend from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, talked about two vacancies we want to fill in the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit includes the State of Maryland. The two vacancies we want to fill are the North Carolinian spots, in which the two Senators--one a Democrat, one a Republican--have recommended their confirmation: James Wynn and Albert Diaz. Well, we held that confirmation hearing--and I chaired that also--in December of last year. The committee reported them out in January of 2010. In Mr. Wynn's case, the vote was 18 to 1; and in Mr. Diaz's case, it was 19 to 0. Both of these judicial candidates were considered ``well qualified''--the highest rating by the American Bar Association--and they would add greatly to the diversity on the Fourth Circuit, a circuit that is not known for its diversity. James Wynn would be the third African American to serve on the Fourth Circuit and Albert Diaz would be the first Latino. It is time--well past time--for these nominees to be confirmed by the Senate. I do not think anyone doubts, once this issue is taken up, both these individuals will be confirmed. Look at the votes in committee. For noncontroversial judicial nominations, it has taken, on average, 2 months, after the Judiciary Committee has acted, for a district court nominee to be considered by the full Senate; and over 4 months for a circuit court of appeals nominee. That is not doing the work the Senate should do. There have been dilatory actions in order to slow down the process, and that is not what we should be doing as Members of the Senate. So I urge my colleagues, as my friends who have taken the floor today have done, let's get on with the process of confirming these noncontroversial judicial nominees. Let's give the people what they deserve; that is, a full complement of their judges. We should do better than we have done in the past. I urge us to put aside our partisan differences. This is not a tactic that should be used. It is time we move forward on the confirmation process. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. The credit provisions are critically important. We make permanent the SBA guarantee programs--90 percent guarantees, the cost reductions, the 7(a) limits from $2 million to $5 million, the 504 limits from $1.5 million to $5.5 million, the microloans. We boost lending, by that alone, in the first year by $5 billion. Then, as our chairman has talked about, the State programs are funded as well as the community bank programs. I want to mention one additional point, if I might. I am disappointed the surety bond extension is not in this bill. I will work with the chairman of the Small Business Committee and the Finance Committee to make sure we find a way to include that in the American Recovery Act. We increase that from $2 million to $5 million. It deals with small construction companies. It is very important because for State and Federal contract projects over $100,000, you need to have a surety bond. If you are a small business owner, what you need to pledge in order to get that surety bond can deny you credit in the market. We have to extend that to the $5 million that was included in the Recovery Act, and I feel confident, after talking to the chairman, that we will find a way to get that done. The bottom line is this is a critically important, well-balanced bill that will help small businesses. This is our opportunity to vote for it. In half an hour, we will have a chance to decide whose side we are on. Are we on the side of small business owners, to help this economy recover, or are we just going to continue this partisan division in the Senate? I hope my colleagues will vote on the side of small businesses. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her incredible leadership and work in regard to the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. This is the work of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and the Finance Committee. As Senator Landrieu pointed out, it has been the work of Democrats and Republicans working together on many important provisions to help the small business community. It truly is a bipartisan bill. It is a critically important bill. I, quite frankly, do not understand why there are those who want to oppose us getting this done. It contains many provisions that have been brought to us by the small business community that we need to get done. We all profess and understand that the growth engine of America is in small business. That is where new jobs are created. Sixty-four percent of the net nonfarm new jobs are created by small businesses. Innovation is the way for America to stay on the cutting edge. More patents and more copyrights are created through small businesses per employee than a larger company. This bill is about creating jobs for Americans who desperately need them. This legislation combines many bills reported out of the Small Business Committee. I say congratulations to Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe. These are bills that both of them worked on together that are important for us to get done. Let me just summarize some of the important bills that came out of our committee that are included. We helped small businesses with international trade, leveraging $1 billion of export capital. This alone will affect 40,000 to 50,000 jobs. We deal with government contracting. We have had hearings--I had a hearing in the State of Maryland on behalf of the Small Business Committee--where small business companies pointed out how difficult it is for them to access the government procurement system. So our committee went to work. Thank you, Senator Landrieu; thank you, Senator Snowe. We went to work and reported out a bill that is incorporated that deals with the abuses of bundling. Bundling is when the agency puts together a lot of small contracts into a large contract where a small company can't compete for it. We have taken action to correct that in this bill so that small companies can access government procurement in an easier way. We started to attack what is known as prime contract abuse, where prime contractors don't pay their small contractors on time or abuse their small contractors, which are more likely to be small businesses. That is dealt with in this legislation. We deal with gender equity by investing in the Women's Business Center. As Senator Landrieu has pointed out, working with the Finance Committee, we deal with tax equity. Business owners can deduct the cost of health care for their families in calculating the self-employment tax. This is a matter of fairness for small business owners to be treated equally with larger companies; to be able to increase the amount of startup costs that can be deducted from $5,000 to $10,000. These are all important issues. If you are a small business owner struggling to make payroll or to keep your doors open, this help could be the difference between hiring another employee or not. Lastly, Madam President, it deals with credit. It extends credit to small businesses. We all talk about that.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on May 5, 2009, over 14 months ago, I chaired a Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled the Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud. Today we are holding Part II of that hearing. 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 the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. A U.S. passport can be used for many purposes in this country, and it gives an individual the ability to travel internationally, which is an important tool for someone who wants to do us harm, including terrorists, spies, and other criminals. So the integrity and security of the passport issuance process is extremely important 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, has revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud. As a result, today I am introducing, along with Senators Feinstein and Lieberman, the Passport Identity Verification Act. This legislation is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access 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, procedures, and policies 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. But 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 simply cannot issue U.S. passports in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. We have the technology and the information to prevent such issuance. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to allow us to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act to deal with campaign finance reform. I thank Senator Schumer for his hard work on this issue to bring forward a bill that I hope can enjoy sufficient support so we can continue to advance campaign finance reform. Election campaign finance reform is difficult to pass in this body for many reasons. First, it requires bipartisanship. We know that. We know we need to bring together Democrats and Republicans to say: Our legacy on fair elections is more important than our own individual elections, and we have a responsibility to the American public to deal with a growing problem in American politics; that is, the influence of money, particularly during election time. That is why we celebrated in 2002 with passage of a bipartisan campaign reform act. Under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, we were able to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and advance campaign finance reform to reduce somewhat the influence of special interest corporate money in our political system and to add further disclosures so the American public could know who is trying to influence their vote. That is what campaign finance reform is about, to limit corporate money and provide greater disclosure. Democrats and Republicans came together in 2002 to get that done. The protection of our fair election process has now met a new opponent. That is the Supreme Court or, more specifically, five Justices on the Supreme Court, the so-called conservative Justices. They legislated from the bench, reversing precedent, and ruled on the side of corporate interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans. These were the so- called Justices many of my colleagues look to for judicial restraint. It is not judicial restraint when they legislate from the bench. It is not judicial restraint when they reverse precedent, when they rule on the side of corporate America over ordinary Americans. Let me quote from Justice Stevens in his comments as they reflect on the decision the Court made: [E]ssentially, 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. Justice Stevens goes on to warn, the majority ``threatens to undermine the integrity of the elected institutions across the Nation. The path that is taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.'' Justice Stevens, in his minority opinion, says: At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. We tried to do something about that in 2002. We passed a law that said corporations cannot directly try to influence elections. Then we set up how they can do so through a transparent way, collectively, through political action committees. But we stopped undisclosed direct corporate influence in American elections. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that bipartisan action. So how should we in Congress respond? What options do we have? We could amend the Constitution, but that is a matter that requires a great deal more deliberation. I am concerned about amending provisions in the Constitution. We need to think long and hard before we act. We could do something many of us have talked about for a long time--provide incentives for public financing of campaigns to try to reduce dramatically the amount of private money in our campaigns. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this effort. I am proud to be a cosponsor. That is a matter that should be given serious review. But we don't have the opportunity to do that today. Today we do have an opportunity to act as Senator Schumer has brought forward the DISCLOSE Act which we all profess we support--disclosure. All of us have said we should be serious about giving the public an opportunity to know who is trying to influence their vote. The minority leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, said: I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all money we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. He was, of course, quoting from Justice Brandeis's famous comments in an opinion when he was a Justice on the Supreme Court, about sunshine being the best disinfectant. Shortly we will have an opportunity to proceed with the DISCLOSE Act. We will have an opportunity to vote. I understand some of the concerns of my Republican colleagues. They say: Look, corporations generally side with Republicans. Therefore, if we can get corporations to put more money into the election process, won't that be good for Republicans? Let me counter that by saying we all benefit. Each Member of this body benefits by reducing the influence outside interests have in the independence we can exercise in the Senate. Look at what is going to happen if we don't change this. Karl Rove has indicated he intends to bring forward $52 million to try to influence the 2010 elections by so- called anonymous donors, without disclosing the source of the funds. We know there is the potential of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to influence votes without disclosing where that money is coming from, under the banner of Citizens United and corporate contributions. We can do something about that. Our legacy to protect a free and fair election process from undue influence of corporate special interests is more important than even our own individual elections. We were able to come together in 2002. Let's reconfirm what we did. Let's each do what is right for the integrity of the election process. Let's each do what we said we believe in--full disclosure. We can do that with the motion to proceed. Voting for cloture on this motion does not preclude a Member from offering an amendment. If there is something in the proposal one doesn't like--all of us would wish to see it stronger, or maybe there are other provisions we wish to take a look at--let's proceed to the debate. Let's not be afraid to have the debate on the floor of the Senate, supposedly the greatest debating institution in the world. Let's not be afraid to have the debate on how we can make elections more responsive to the needs of the people, ordinary citizens, so they have a right to know who is trying to influence their vote. Let's have that debate on the floor of the Senate. We will have a chance to do that in a few hours by voting for cloture on the motion to proceed. I urge my colleagues, give the American people this debate they so richly deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Maes, Cory Mack, and Elizabeth Schwab of the office of Senator Bingaman be granted the privileges of the floor for today.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Update on the TARP Program.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on foreign relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Treating Rare and Neglected Pediatric Diseases: Promoting the Developent of New Treatments and Cures'' on July 21, 2010. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Charting a Path Forward: The Homeland Security Department's Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and Bottom- Up Review.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010 at 9 a.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Second Chance Act: Strengthening Safe and Effective Community Reentry.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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