Floor Statements

Madam President, I take this time to talk about the budget issues and the debt ceiling vote that is approaching. It is a serious issue that we need to deal with.

First, I think it is important to know how we got here. I say that because we don't want to repeat the mistakes we made in the past. It was just 10 years ago when we had not only a balanced budget, we had a budget that looked like we were going to pay off all of our privately held debt. I was part of the Congress that moved us toward that balanced budget and surplus. It was the Democrats who were prepared to do what was necessary to balance the Federal budget in the 1990s, and we got there. We didn't have a single vote from Republicans, but we balanced the budget in the 1990s. It was the right thing to do for our economy. As a result, our economy picked up and did extremely well.

We also know that the previous administration cut taxes twice, in 2001 and 2003. We also went to war in Iraq--a war that was one of choice--and we went to war in Afghanistan, and we didn't pay for either one of those wars. It was these unpaid-for wars and tax policies that led us from a surplus to a deficit. Our economy then turned, and we now have these large deficits. I say that because we need to pay attention to how we got here to make sure we have a credible plan to get us out of this deficit.

I think it is very important that this country move toward a manageable debt. It is very important for our economy, and for job growth, that we manage our deficit and bring it down.

Let me give you what I think needs to be done in any plan that is presented to us for consideration. I hope we all agree that we need to raise the debt ceiling. That is after the fact. We have already spent the money. Now we have to pay the bill. We also would like to see a plan to bring our deficit under control. To do that, we have to have a credible plan, one that really does

bring us within the realm of a manageable deficit.

Secondly, it has to be fair. I notice that my Republican friends ask our children to give up some of their help for a college education. They want to cut the Head Start Program, and they want seniors to pay more for health care. How about the well off? Should they not be part of the plan? I think we need to have a fair plan in order to accomplish our goal.

Third, we need to allow our Nation to move forward with economic growth. Jobs are critically important to deal with the deficit. As we create more jobs, we help our economy grow, it brings our budget into balance.

I am for a credible plan. To me, a credible plan needs to get the job done. Managing our deficit needs to be fair, including all elements of government spending, and it includes tax expenditures. It has to allow for economic growth. If we are going to get the job done, we have to bring down spending--we all acknowledge that--on the domestic side and the national security side. We can do better in bringing our troops home from Afghanistan and save military dollars.

There are things we can do, and we need to do that. But we also have to deal with the revenue side. Quite frankly, we can't get the job done without dealing with the tax loopholes and shelters that we have in the Tax Code. I am concerned that the Republican leader said we could not consider any revenue. Well, I have heard from a lot of my Republican colleagues who disagree with that. We need to include revenues in a credible plan or it can't get done. We cannot manage the deficit without closing those loopholes and eliminating those shelters.

Yesterday, I talked about one of those--the ethanol subsidy. We have nearly $3 billion that we can save there. The ethanol subsidies are not needed. The market is there. More damaging, it is hurting our economy. I have the honor of representing the people of Maryland and the Delmarva Peninsula. The poultry industry is suffering because of the ethanol subsidies. It is costing more to produce poultry, making the industry less competitive. We can save and create jobs by eliminating the ethanol subsidy, which will help us in balancing the budget.

Today, I want to talk about another tax shelter and loophole that we can deal with, and that is the section 199 manufacturing tax break used by the oil and gas industry. It is very interesting. We have seen gasoline prices rise, and we have seen the negative impact of that on our economy. But guess who is benefitting from the increase in the gasoline prices? You are right; it is the oil and gas industry. Their profits are up, while our economy has been suffering.

In the first 3 months of this year, the gas and oil industry, the five largest companies, had record profits of $35.8 billion. Big Oil benefits from a variety of subsidies, including section 199, that amount to some $4 billion annually. So we are subsidizing the Big Five, who are on course to make a projected $140 billion profit in 2011, with $4 billion in taxpayer contributions. It is not needed. These funds could be used to help reduce our deficit instead.

The worst part is that section 199 came about as a result of our Foreign Sales Act. What was that about? We wanted to put American manufacturers and producers on a level playing field for international competition. We tried to do that with a direct subsidy to help exporters, but the World Trade Organization held that to be illegal. So then we came back with this general manufacturers' credit, section 199, to try to help our exporters.

The gas and oil industry are not manufacturers exporting a product. They should never have qualified for this taxpayer-funded subsidy. I asked that question in the Senate Finance Committee when we had the Big Five oil companies' chief executive officers (CEOs) before us. Not one of the CEOs could justify the fairness of this subsidy going to the oil and gas industry. Their only answer was: Well, everyone else is getting it.

We need to reduce unnecessary government spending, whether it is on the appropriations side or the tax expenditure side. With regard to the oil and gas industry, repealing section 199 and the rest of the $4 billion or so in subsidies these companies receive each year could help us balance the budget.

But the minority leader says we can't even consider that. He says we can't consider any of the revenues. To me, it is not a fair proposal, not a credible proposal, unless we tell the most wealthy and those companies that don't need the subsidies that they are going to be part of the plan to bring our budget into balance.

There are many more provisions in the Tax Code we can look at where we can get the savings. I have just mentioned two. If we are going to have a credible plan that will allow for economic growth and allow us to create jobs--and the best way to deal with the deficit is to create more jobs--then we have to have a fair approach. So I urge my colleagues to get together on this.

Look, I understand it is not going to be the budget the Democrats want, but I will tell you this: it will not be the budget the House Republicans want either. We have to work together, Democrats and Republicans. I think we can find common ground. Earlier this year, I think 62 Senators signed a letter saying, let's use the framework of the debt commission. So I think there was that willingness. Let's get back to that.

Let's get the Democrats and Republicans working together in true compromise. We don't have to compromise our principles. We can get the job done, and that job means let's get our debt into a manageable state, let's do it in a way that is fair, so the well off also are part of a solution that includes revenues, and let's do it in a way that allows America to do what President Obama said we can do--out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build our competitors so we can create the jobs that won't just help us balance our budget but will keep America prosperous, too.

That is our charge. That is what we need to do. Let's get on with the work.

With that, I yield floor.

Mr. President, last night, S. Res. 185, a resolution that was cosponsored by about 90 percent of the Senate, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. I am very grateful to my colleagues for their help in developing this resolution. This resolution expresses the strong support of the United States for our closest ally in the Middle East: Israel. I was joined in this effort by my good friend, Senator Susan Collins from Maine. The two of us worked together to draft this resolution, and we are grateful that so many of our colleagues joined us in the process and that it has now passed the Senate by a unanimous vote.

This resolution first and foremost expresses our strong support for Israel. It recognizes that these are extremely challenging times. It expresses our support for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis and recognizes that the only way we are going to be able to move forward on the peace process is through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is the only way we can resolve these longstanding issues in order to achieve peace in that region.

The resolution also reaffirms our opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in any Palestinian unity government unless it is willing to accept peace with Israel and renounce violence. An entity cannot negotiate with those sworn to bring about its destruction; therefore, Hamas' inclusion in the Palestinian Government is a nonstarter for any possibility for peace.

Any unilateral attempt by the United Nations to establish a Palestinian State is detrimental to any final peace agreement. A permanent and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Any Palestinian effort to gain recognition of a state outside of direct negotiations demonstrates their lack of a good-faith commitment to peace negotiations. The Senate is now firmly on record that this kind of action would be directly counterproductive to peace. If the Palestinians pursue this, it may well have implications for the continued U.S. participation with the Palestinians.

Israel has always been willing to come to the peace table for direct negotiations. Quite frankly, it has been the Palestinians who have been dragging their feet for many months, refusing to have direct negotiations between the parties, which is the only way it can be accomplished. Lasting peace can only come through direct negotiations that settle all outstanding issues to the satisfaction of both sides. Obviously, there is going to be give-and-take. There has to be give- and-take. There has to be mutual respect and security, and that requires active participation in the peace talks.

The two sides can achieve a peace agreement only when they acknowledge each other's right to exist. That is pretty fundamental. This is particularly critical now for the Palestinians and their unity government that includes Hamas. Unless Hamas fully renounces violence and acknowledges Israel's right to exist, it cannot be a partner of peace and their inclusion in the Palestinian Government is a major obstacle.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated so well in his speech before the joint session of Congress in May:

I will accept a Palestinian state. It is time for President

Abbas--

President Abbas, of course, is the head of the Palestinians--

to stand before his people and say: ``I will accept a Jewish

State.''

It is clear it is in the interest of all parties for there to be two states--the Jewish State of Israel and the independent Palestinian State--living side by side with secure borders in peace.

Let me again acknowledge what I think Prime Minister Netanyahu said. Israel is prepared to acknowledge a Palestinian State. It is time for the Palestinians to acknowledge the Jewish State.

Difficult negotiations need to take place. There are critical issues such as security, power, and water concerns, as well as larger issues of historical, religious, and territorial matters still to be decided. That must take place through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is precisely why it is so important to discuss, negotiate, and ultimately resolve these issues rather than taking unilateral action that would leave them unsettled and unsustainable. Real and lasting peace will only occur at the peace table, and I am grateful the Senate has strongly and unanimously gone on record to affirm this approach.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am very pleased that soon we will be voting on Jim Cole to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. This is a person who puts principle over politics, a person who is very important in our war against terror and who will use all lawful tools to keep our Nation safe. So I am proud to take a few moments to urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. I think that is in our national security interests, and I know he will be and already is an incredible asset to this country in keeping us safe and doing so in the best traditions of the U.S. Attorney General's Office.

I would like to talk for a moment on a personal basis because I got to know Jim Cole when I was serving in the House of Representatives. I was on the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee is not a committee, as you know, on which a Member asks to serve; it is something we must do.

We had a very sensitive investigation in the House of Representatives concerning the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and the six of us who served on the Ethics Committee needed to come to a fair, nonpartisan conclusion to this very challenging investigation. To say we thought this would be impossible was an understatement of where we first thought we would be in regard to the investigation. But then we reached out and agreed to bring in an independent counsel to help us in our deliberations. That person was Jim Cole.

Jim Cole worked with all of us to look at the facts and do what was in the best interests of the House of Representatives, the best interests of our country, and to leave our politics aside so that we could come out with a result that was fair and would restore confidence in the legislative process. In fact, we did that. We were able to reach a totally unanimous judgment, one that was agreed to on the floor of the House of Representatives and I think spoke volumes about our ability to get our work done in the best interests of our Nation.

I thought Jim Cole did a fabulous job, a great job in helping us. That was also the view of Porter Goss, who was the Republican leader on the Ethics Committee and chairman of the committee at the time. He said he felt Jim Cole brought professionalism at the highest level to our investigation and allowed us to come forward with a fair nonpartisan conclusion. That is the exact person we need in the Department of Justice. It is the person we need to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General are our Nation's lawyers. They don't represent one party; they represent our country. We need leadership in the Department of Justice who will work in a nonpartisan way, a way that will bring nonpartisan leadership to the Department of Justice. Jim Cole is that type of person. He has the experience, he has the character, and he has the commitment to fill this very important position in our Nation, with 13 years in the Department of Justice and experience in public interest law. His career has been devoted to the public interest in community service.

I was listening to my colleague and friend Senator Grassley talk about his concerns about some of the private law practice of Jim Cole. Here is a person who has devoted his life basically to community and his career in public interest law. He has been a prosecutor. He has been a person who has dealt with white-collar criminals. And, yes, he is an effective attorney. As those of us who are lawyers know, we will represent our clients aggressively, but we don't lose sight of our system. That has been Jim Cole throughout his career. He will bring the expertise he has had in his previous experience to represent our Nation well. These are tough times. We are dealing with threats around the world where we need an Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General who will use all lawful tools in order to protect our country.

It is interesting that Jim Cole enjoys endorsement from both sides of the aisle. When we look at high-ranking Department of Justice former officials, both Democrats and Republicans have endorsed Jim Cole's confirmation to be the Deputy Attorney General.

Let me quote from one Republican source that I think is typical of the endorsements we have received encouraging the confirmation of Jim Cole. We received a letter from Fred Fielding. I think most of you know Fred Fielding. He was White House Counsel for former President George W. Bush. I think most of us had close dealings with and respected him greatly in the service to the Bush administration. This is what Fred Fielding said about Jim Cole:

Mr. Cole combines all the qualities you would want in a

citizen public servant. He understands both sides of the

street and is smart and tenacious, and is a person of

unquestioned honor and integrity.

Well, I agree with Fred Fielding. This is the type of person we need to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

I am pleased we are going to have this vote later on today. I encourage my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. It is important that we have individuals in these key positions who enjoy the full confirmation from the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this nominee.

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 June 28, 2011, at 2:45 p.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Housing Finance Reform: Access to Secondary Market for Small Financial Institutions.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Complexity and the Tax Gap: Making Tax Compliance Easier and Collecting What's Due.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``Libya and War Powers.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The DREAM Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 28, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Status of the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment.''

Mr. President, I rise today to praise the National Labor Relations Board for issuing new proposed rules that will modernize the process that workers use to form a union. These new rules will improve the consistency and efficiency of the election process, protect workers' right to a

timely vote, and limit opportunities for possible coercion by both employers and unions.

America's middle class is struggling. Hard-working families are finding it hard to make ends meet. We are recovering from the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and there are workers who are trying to achieve for their families what we all want: financial stability that keeps our families secure. However, as workers see their benefits, hours, and pay being cut, they feel powerless. Meanwhile, executives can and do negotiate their employment contracts. Where is the fairness?

Unions can level the playing field for workers, but the process for choosing a union is outdated. Current NRLB election procedures produce extensive delays, encourage litigious stall tactics, and provide opportunities for intimidation. Further, the organizational structure of the NLRB has created inconsistencies in the processing of the election petitions. It is time for the NLRB to address these important procedural shortcomings, and I am encouraged by their response.

The new rules do not advantage nor do they disadvantage unions. The rules merely create a uniform process for resolving pre- and post- election disputes. Both sides are given the opportunity to present arguments to allow a fair and well-informed vote. It is also important to note that these streamlining rules apply equally to both elections seeking to certify a union and elections seeking to decertify a union.

Workers deserve the right to choose a union or not to choose a union with a fair, timely, and well-informed up-or-down vote. The right to vote is central to our democracy, and we must continue to ensure that American workers are afforded this right without impediment or fear. Thus, I applaud the NLRB for their actions.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Legal Aid Bureau in Baltimore, MD. Legal Aid was founded in 1911 in Baltimore to provide legal representation for the poor. In 1929, Baltimore attorneys H. Hamilton Hackney and John A. O'Shea took over leadership of Legal Aid. Mr. Hackney believed that justice should not be a matter of charity. He believed that people should be secure in the knowledge ``that their poverty does not necessarily mean that they will be in a position of inequality before the law.'' As a result of Hackney and O'Shea's efforts, Legal Aid evolved from a charity organization to an independent, private, nonprofit corporation.

During the Great Depression, Legal Aid's poverty practice mushroomed. By 1932, it was serving 3,200 clients a year. In 1941, the staff consisted of five lawyers. In 1949, the caseload had grown to 7,000 a year and Legal Aid helped its 100,000th client. In 1953, Baltimore City built its new People's Court Building at Fallsway and Gay streets, with the third floor dedicated to Legal Aid's use.

The 1960s were a period of change. In 1964, Congress passed the Economic Opportunities Act and launched the war on poverty, funneling funds for legal services to the Nation's cities. In 1971, Legal Aid established three offices outside of Baltimore and later in the decade, across the State.

In 1974, one of President Nixon's last acts in office was to sign into law the National Legal Services Corporation Act; the next year the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, was established, and legal services organizations across the country continued a rapid expansion. Starting in the late 1970s, Legal Aid began to champion the cause of migrant farm workers, sued the steel industry to eliminate practices that prevented women and minorities from getting higher paying jobs, and targeted the cause of mentally disabled people.

In the 1980s, President Reagan sought to eliminate LSC, submitting seven straight budgets without an appropriation for the corporation. While some of the funding was restored by a sympathetic Congress, Legal Aid lost $1.2 million in funding in 1982, forcing staffing cuts in most offices. In response to the cuts, under my leadership, the Maryland General Assembly established the Maryland Legal Services Corporation and provided funding through the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts, IOLTA, Program to provide additional funding to Legal Aid and other legal services programs representing the poor.

Under the leadership of Wilhelm H. Joseph, Jr., who took the helm in 1996, Legal Aid has grown to be one of the Nation's largest and most respected legal services organizations. Today, there are more than 250 staff members in 13 offices statewide. Last year, more than 60,000 people from across the State were served, including residents of subsidized and public housing, the elderly, migrant farm workers, and neglected and abused children.

I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Legal Aid for its outstanding achievements and service to the people of Maryland over the past 100 years, reminding us of the importance of the words inscribed over the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice for All.''

Mr. President, I wish to join in the comments of Senator Durbin and Senator Kerry. First--and I think Senator Kerry will agree-- Senator Durbin may be a new member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he is one of the most thoughtful Members of the Senate on foreign policy issues and many other issues. He has been extremely helpful in working our way through what is the proper responsibility of the Senate and the Congress relating to the deployment of our troops.

I concur completely in Senator Durbin's comments about Senator Kerry. We are proud of the work Senator Kerry does. He has traveled around the world representing our Nation and advancing the cause and issues of freedom and democracy, giving hope to so many people. We have seen the universality of democratic aspirations springing up around the world. They look to the United States as a facilitator to make those aspirations real. He has been an incredible voice in their hopes. We thank him for the personal commitment he has made.

I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Durbin for their colloquy on this issue. I join in their view that we have a responsibility to act whenever our military is placed in harm's way, when the President commits our troops. I think we have a responsibility to act under the War Powers Act. I understand there may be different views about this. But I think most of us agree there is a responsibility for us to pass the resolution.

I think the resolution brought forward by Senator Kerry clearly complies with that responsibility, first and foremost, making it clear we are acting under the authority given to us by the War Powers Act.

Second, I appreciate the clarification the Senator made on the record about how this resolution limits the authority of the President, consistent with the current mission, which I think is very important. I agree with Senator Durbin that President Obama did the right thing in calling on our military to join the international community. This was a matter in which there was a clear will internationally to stop the atrocities being committed by Qadhafi on his own innocent people. The U.N. Security Council acted by resolution. Many other countries stepped forward, and NATO was prepared to take the lead. The United States was not going to have to take the lead. It is required of us to give some air support, which we are, in fact, doing.

I think the President did the right thing. We want to make sure our resolution not only complies with the War Powers Act but makes it clear--and it is consistent on the authority given under the U.N. Resolution--that we are limiting our involvement. Senator Kerry has made that point very clear. It is limited in time, limited to the fact that U.S. ground troops cannot be deployed, except for the limited causes Senator Kerry pointed out. It is clear our authorization is consistent with the NATO mission to enforce Security Council Resolution 1973, as requested by the Transitional National Council. We have made it clear it is continuing the current mission, it is limited in time, it is limited in scope, and it is the right and responsible thing for us to do as Members of the Senate.

I thank Senator Kerry and Senator Durbin for taking the time to explain the intent of the legislation. I think we could not be more clear. The President has been very clear, as it relates to the use of ground troops, and the Senate is very clear that ground troops cannot be interjected into this conflict under the authorization we are given.

With that, Mr. President, I yield to Senator Kerry.

Mr. President, 2 years ago today the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority experienced the most tragic metrorail accident the Greater Washington region has ever seen. With time, the wounds of this tragedy's survivors continue to heal, but the loss and pain will never be forgotten. My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives in the tragic collision of two Metro trains on the Red Line at the Fort Totten metrorail station. My deepest sympathies remain with their families and friends whose lives will forever be affected having lost someone dear to them in this tragedy.

Last summer, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, and the Federal Transit Administration, FTA, concluded their investigations into the crash. The investigations revealed many troubling findings with the operation, maintenance, and management of the metrorail system, not the least of which is that the June 22, 2009, crash was entirely preventable and resulted from systemic failures to address ongoing track signal problems and a work culture that ignored safety.

For several years WMATA failed to respond to or take adequate operational safety measures in response to repeated signal failures along the section of track where the accident occurred. During WMATA's efforts to fix the problem, Metro refused to heed warnings from the signal manufacturers about using third-party components to repair failed track signal equipment and in doing so prolonged and exacerbated the signal relay problems on the track.

These findings coupled with an extensive Federal Transit Administration safety audit that revealed several shocking systemwide safety lapses, which include systemic failures to notify train operators about the presence of track maintenance workers on the right- of-way in tunnels throughout the system, helped shed light on the inexcusable and tragic series of accidents that have taken 12 lives and injured more than 80 people in the last year.

I am pleased to say that under new leadership in the general manager and CEO position as well as the placement of several new members of the board of directors that Metro is working hard to resolve the safety issues that were becoming commonplace in the headlines of area newspapers. Metro's new comprehensive safety plan outlines a number of procedures that are being put in place to improve worker training and safety preparedness and a zero tolerance policy for texting and cell phone use by vehicle operators. According to the general manager, every Metro employee, including himself, has gone through the safety training program. Management is clearly making an effort to establish a culture of safety that has been absent at Metro for many years. These are important steps in the right direction but developing safety measures for employees to follow is just one piece of making Metro safer for years to come.

There are, however, encouraging and lasting developments at Metro to improve safety. A year ago, the Metro board of directors announced that it was placing an order for 428 new 7000 Series railcars. These new safer railcars are in the prototype development phase and when the order is fulfilled, all of the remaining 1000 series that have been in use since the system opened in 1976 will finally be replaced. The 1000 series cars have always presented a safety hazard and it is the 1000 series cars that buckled and sheared apart on June 22, 2009, compounding the seriousness and costliness of the Red Line crash. Retiring and replacing

these cars is a major step in the right direction towards improving the safety of the system.

It is also worth noting that for the first time Metrorail cars will be built here in the United States at a rail car manufacturing facility in Lincoln, NE.

Still, funding shortfalls hinder Metro's ability to make lasting infrastructure repairs and replacements throughout the system. I have visited the Shady Grove Station and witnessed firsthand how they literally are using wood planks and iron rods to prop up crumbling station platforms. Metro is forced to make improvised accommodations to keep the system running in the safest way possible on a diminished budget.

Seeing these unaddressed safety issues firsthand, combined with each passing revelation of management missteps and safety lapses, has grown my frustration with how Metro handles safety issues, but has also hardened my resolve to improve Metro safety.

On this somber day of remembrance we as Federal policymakers and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority need to take inspiration from this tragedy and remember our responsibility to work to improve the safety of the transit system that serves Greater Washington area residents, tens of thousands of Federal workers, and members of the staff of nearly every Senator in this body every day.

Last year's Metro tragedy has caused many of us, including the President, to address the safety crisis that looms at transit authorities across the country. I am confident that we will find a way forward through: increased Federal regulatory authority and oversight, as called for by the Federal Transit Administration; and increased openness and transparency at WMATA.

While the FTA has an established national transit safety program and is responsible for setting minimum program safety requirements for the States, the FTA is prohibited by law from establishing enforceable national safety standards, requiring Federal inspections, or dictating operating practices. In response to this lapse in public safety policy, last Congress Senators Dodd, Menendez, Mikulski, and I introduced legislation requiring the Transportation Secretary to establish and implement a comprehensive transit public transportation safety program. Our legislation from last year would have given the FTA the ability to take decisive actions such as conducting inspections, investigations, audits, and examinations of federally funded public transportation systems.

It makes sense for public transit systems that receive Federal funding to meet Federal safety requirements set by the FTA. It makes even more sense to grant FTA a degree of Federal authority to establish safety guidance over WMATA given Metro's unique relationship to the Federal Government.

The Washington metrorail system is the second busiest subway system in America, carrying as many as 1 million passengers a day. It carries the equivalent of the combined subway ridership of BART in San Francisco, MARTA in Atlanta, and SEPTA in Philadelphia each day.

Every workday, Metro provides tens of thousands of Federal employees rides to work. During peak ridership, more than 40 percent of riders on Metro are Federal employees and 10 percent of the overall ridership serves Congress and the Pentagon alone. Metrorail's alignment was designed to serve the Federal Government, with more than half of the system's stations located at or near Federal buildings. GSA has also established guidance that requires all new Federal facilities in the Greater Washington area be metrorail accessible.

Traffic congestion in the DC metropolitan area is tied with Chicago for the worst in the Nation. Some may wonder how, or even if, Washington could function without Metro. Sure enough, in the winter of 2010 we learned that the Federal Government, in fact, cannot function without Metro. The Office of Personnel Management based its decision to shut down the Federal Government on WMATA's inability to operate above ground rail lines during the February snowstorms. This not only points out the Federal Government's reliance on Metro, but also highlights Metro's lack of resources to operate under weather conditions that other city transit systems like Chicago, New York, or Boston manage to do so.

More than three decades after the first trains started running, the system is showing severe signs of its age. Sixty percent of the Metrorail system is more than 20 years old. The costs of operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation are tremendous.

It is not just the responsibility of the local jurisdictions that are served by Metro--Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC--but it is also a Federal responsibility.

Just like I believe that the Federal Government has a role in ensuring the safety of Metro 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 vital transportation service.

I was proud to work alongside Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Jim Webb and former Senator John Warner to pass the Federal Rail Safety Improvement Act, which was signed into law in October 2008. This law authorizes $1.5 billion over 10 years in Federal funds for Metro's governing Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, 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 and 2012 budget requests to Congress included $150 million for Metro. This builds on the substantial down payment Senators Mikulski, Webb, Mark Warner, and I were able to secure for Metro in fiscal year 2010, and with the intrepid support of Chairmen Murray and Inouye we were able to secure this essential funding for Metro again in fiscal year 2011.

While these are important investments, 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.

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff, in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, made special note of the fact that WMATA does not have a dedicated revenue stream, rather it relies heavily on congressional appropriations which can fluctuate from year to year.

Fortunately, Congress has taken an important step forward to remedy this situation. The Senate recently passed a new Metro Compact further advancing the final step in authorizing a 10-year $1.5 billion authorization providing Metro with a dedicated funding stream to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the system.

For years, while Metro was a relatively new transit system, Metro was the epitome of safe, reliable, and modern public transit. After 35 years of operation, the results of placing disproportionate resources towards expanding the system rather than attending to growing repairs and maintenance needs of the existing infrastructure, Metro's age is beginning to take its toll on the safe operation and functionality of the system.

I am hopeful that with the opportunities we have to establish better and more consistent funding for Metro, improved and enforceable Federal safety requirements for transit systems across the country, and the establishment of firm, accountable, and transparent leadership at WMATA we will restore the public standing and reputation of ``America's Subway System'' as one of the safest and most reliable transit systems in the country.

I find it unacceptable that the transit system in our Nation's Capital does not have enough resources to improve safety and upgrade its aging infrastructure.

I would again like to extend my deepest sympathies to all those who were affected by this horrific accident, especially to the families and loved ones of those who have been killed on Metro. I hope my colleagues will join together with me in working to ensure that this body is doing everything it can to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shane Knisley, a Department of Defense detailee, have the privilege of the floor throughout this discussion.

I think all of us understand how valuable our detailees from the Department of Defense are in the work we do. Particularly in this matter, it has been helpful to me to have his sage advice. I appreciate that he is in our office and has been a valuable member of our team on this issue.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein amendment that would eliminate at long last the subsidies for ethanol, corn-based ethanol in America. In a little while, we are going to have a chance to vote, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment.

I thank the leader for making time on the calendar so we can vote on this issue, and I hope a majority will support this amendment. I know we have a 60-vote threshold, and I hope we would be able to express, at long last, that it is time to eliminate this subsidy.

This is an issue that has brought together an unusual and broad-based support among those who are seeking to eliminate this subsidy. We have taxpayer advocates who understand this is a subsidy that taxpayers should not be underwriting. We have hunger and development organizations which recognize the impact on ethanol on the corn crop is affecting the affordability of food not only here, but it is having a major impact around our entire country.

We have agricultural groups, including the Maryland poultry growers and integrators, who support the repeal of the subsidy for ethanol. That is because the poultry industry understands the impact the ethanol subsidies are having on the poultry industry. I will talk a little bit more about that.

We have free market groups that say: Look, let the market work. There is no need for us to interfere with the free market. We have religious organizations. We have environmental groups--and I will talk a little bit more about that--that although the ethanol subsidy was originally put on, we thought, for a positive environmental impact, it is having the reverse impact. Because of the amount of energy that is necessary to produce ethanol, all the good we thought was being done has been lost.

Then we have those who are budget hawks who are saying: Look, we are being asked to do a lot to bring the budget into balance. There are a lot of hard decisions. Why don't we at least eliminate these unnecessary subsidies in an attempt to bring our budget more into balance?

The wide range of interest groups supporting this issue has fostered wide bipartisan support for repealing this credit for ethanol. So we have an opportunity to bring together a lot of different groups, to work across party lines, to start the process, to bring our agricultural programs into better balance, to have a better energy policy, to help create jobs, and also to deal with our budget deficit.

According to the GAO, this credit ``is a wasteful and duplicative'' federally funded support program for an industry that already enjoys a mandated market share under the renewable fuels standard.

Since 2006, the renewable fuels standard has required oil companies to blend increasing amounts of ethanol into our gasoline. So when we repeal this credit, when we repeal the break the ethanol industry receives, it will not impact on the market from the point of view of the amount of ethanol that will be available.

Especially during times of fiscal constraint, it simply does not make sense to continue giving billions of dollars to a robust and thriving industry from which American consumers see little benefit.

We have a huge budget deficit. The Presiding Officer understands that. I understand that. The people of Ohio, the people of Maryland understand that. We need to look at ways we can bring the budget deficit down. Repealing unnecessary subsidies should clearly be at the top of our list.

With more than 40 percent of America's corn crop going into fuel, the increased demand has made feed extraordinarily expensive.

Let me share with you what I have heard from my poultry farmers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The poultry industry is an important part of the economic fiber of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The poultry industry translates into jobs for people who live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. It is extremely important. Yet the single largest cost factor for the poultry industry is the corn feed that goes into producing the poultry--feeding the chickens.

With such a high cost factor, the arbitrary demand factor for corn as a result of ethanol has raised the cost of producing poultry in my State, costing us jobs. The elimination of this subsidy will help us maintain and expand jobs in the State of Maryland and around the region.

While corn-based ethanol may be a homegrown fuel, it is an extremely energy and water resource-intensive process to produce. So where we thought we were producing an energy source that would be favorable to our Nation, it takes so much energy to produce the ethanol that at the end of the day, we have used imported energy to produce our own homegrown energy source, and we do not benefit from the point of view of having energy independence in America.

The energy savings are minimal when you take into consideration how much energy it takes to produce ethanol, not to mention that ethanol burns less efficiently in our engines than regular fuel, and the higher the concentration, the fewer the miles per gallon the driver gets. The result is, we use more energy, when we were trying to save energy. It does not make sense over the long term.

A tax break for ethanol is a gift to the oil companies and the grain producers--a gift that actually harms American consumers and our environment.

Corn is a staple food commodity that is found in millions of American products from food additives to livestock feed. More than one-third of our Nation's corn is now going into the production of ethanol.

So this is causing a problem in our food stock--the amount of corn that goes into ethanol in America. It is time we eliminate this arbitrary subsidy that is causing a disruption, making it more difficult for people to afford their basic products.

The increased demand for corn is raising the price of everything from eggs to milk to soft drinks to chicken to breakfast cereals, and it is the American consumer who is being hit the hardest with these higher food prices.

Using corn to make ethanol also harms our environment. Once corn is harvested, it is a costly and energy-intensive process to turn it into ethanol fuel fit for commercial sale. We need to develop sustainable, renewable biofuels--those that are not derived from a food-based commodity such as corn--to make our Nation less dependent on foreign energy sources.

I support developing the next generation of algae or cellulosic biofuels. I do not support providing billions of dollars for a fuel product that is driving up the cost of food, harming our environment, and doing little to reduce our

consumption of foreign oil. It is time we stop subsidizing Big Oil to produce a fuel they will produce with or without an additional $6 billion a year of subsidy.

I hope my colleagues also support the Feinstein amendment that would eliminate this subsidy so we can eliminate this unnecessary subsidy, help make food more affordable for the people of our Nation, and help us develop an energy policy that does make sense for America, that will help our security and help our economy.

For all of those reasons, I will support the Feinstein amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to engage the Senator from South Dakota in a colloquy to discuss the Reduce Excessive Interest Payments Act, the REIP Act, which is a stand-alone bill that the junior Senator from Georgia and I introduced in March, and which we offered as an amendment, Senate Amendment No. 407, to S. 782, the pending legislation. The REIP Act protects homeowners from paying additional interest on their Federal Housing Administration-backed mortgages once they have repaid the loan's principal.

At present, FHA allows lenders to charge interest on a mortgagor's loan through the end of the month, even if the mortgagor pays the loan off at the beginning of the month, to cover the contractual obligation to pay investors in mortgage backed securities for the full month. Mortgagors with conventional mortgages or with Veterans Administration- backed mortgages stop accruing interest once the principal is repaid, despite there being a similar contractual obligation to pay such investors. I have deep concerns about the impact these excess interest payments have on FHA borrowers, who typically have limited resources, but may end up paying more interest on their loans than other borrowers. While some might argue that this is merely an issue of educating the borrowers to encourage them to repay their principal at the end of the month, I am skeptical about whether the FHA mortgagors, who often repay their loans through selling their homes or refinancing their mortgages, have much ability to choose the day on which their transaction closes and the principal is repaid.

I understand that the Banking Committee and the Department of Housing & Urban Development, HUD, are willing to work with Senator Isakson and me and our staffs to further understand this issue and make sure that FHA policies regarding interest charges protect borrowers to the extent possible. Is that right?

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

Mr. President, with these assurances and commitments from the chairman and from HUD firmly in place, I will withdraw the amendment I offered on behalf of myself and the junior senator from Georgia, Senate Amendment 407, at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 146th anniversary of Juneteenth, the oldest continually celebrated commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States. This significant historical event is appropriately observed as an important part of American history. Though the Emancipation Proclamation officially took effect on January 1, 1863, many slaves did not find freedom until Union troops were able to reach the Southern States to enforce the order. Lincoln's order initially directed the Confederate States to end slavery, but allowed the States that remained in the Union during the Civil War to maintain the peculiar institution of slavery. It wasn't until December of 1865 that the 13th amendment marked the complete abolition of slavery in this country. Juneteenth was an important first step toward inclusion in the greater American dream.

It is a time of reflection, healing and an opportunity for our country to have meaningful discussions about our legacy of slavery and inequality and our ambitions for a more perfect Union.

With the breadth of technology we have today, it is difficult for many to conceive of a time where news traveled over days, months and even years depending on where the communication began and ended. The real-time dissemination of information via mobile phones, BlackBerries and Skype video chat makes it easy to forget a time when things moved at a much slower pace. In the 1860s horses were widely used for carrying mail, although parts of the country were building out railroads--with locomotives powered by steam traveling approximately 15 miles per hour.

On June 19, 1865, Union troops arrived in Galveston, TX, to deliver freedom to slaves still held in bondage. Because of the amorphous period between the Emancipation Proclamation and the official implementation of freedom for America's slaves, Juneteenth is celebrated not only on June 19, but the entire month of June, to represent the slow spread of freedom during the war. The culminating reading of General Order No. 3 on June 19 sparked spontaneous and jubilant celebration, and the spirit of that celebration has thrived in every African-American community from that day forward.

While Juneteenth represents an import phase in our history, it does not represent the end of discrimination and prejudice. African Americans would continue to struggle to establish equality as citizens, in education, professional careers and socioeconomic status because of Jim Crow laws and other forms of insidious discrimination.

In marking this occasion, it is appropriate to reflect on what was responsible for its creation. Millions of Africans, kidnapped by traders or sold into bondage by warring African kings, were ripped from their ancestral homes and carried across the Atlantic Ocean under hellish conditions known as the Middle Passage. While estimates vary, it is likely that as many as 2.5 million Africans died before ever reaching the shores of the ``New World.''

No comfort found them upon their arrival, as they were treated as chattel and sold to merchants and farmers. Their daily lives included intense, back-breaking physical labor for long hours in poor conditions, with no hope of attaining freedom or economic advancement. Maryland was complicit in this bondage, and at one point in the late 16th century, slaves made up approximately a third of the State's population.

Maryland, however, helped to lead the abolitionist movement as well. The underground railroad, vital to the freedom of many slaves, ran through Maryland's Eastern Shore and Chesapeake Bay. Its operation relied on the kindness and secrecy of a vast network of often anonymous citizens, many who lived in Maryland, all equally dedicated to ferrying fleeing slaves to freedom in New York, Massachusetts, and Canada.

Indeed, determined slaves from Maryland would leave an indelible mark on our national landscape. Harriet Tubman, a slave from Dorchester County, MD, went on to guide her family as well as 300 other slaves over 19 trips into the South out of slavery and into the North. During her clandestine daring, she never lost a single ``passenger.''

Frederick Douglass, born in Talbot County, escaped northwards at age 20 and began a long life of fiercely advocating for racial equality not only in the United States but abroad as well. He established the hallmark arguments that abolitionists would echo for years to come, until Emancipation was finally proclaimed.

Emancipation was not the end of the struggle. Explicit laws and implicit associations would continue to create and sustain dire inequalities in the African-American community. Maryland passed 15 Jim Crow laws between 1870 and 1957, laws that would meaningfully segregate almost every area of public life, and would contribute to the man who would later argue the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, Thurgood Marshall, being denied admission to the University of Maryland Law School. Marshall would go on to become the first Black Supreme Court Justice, and would help to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of race.

This Juneteenth, we must recommit ourselves to fighting racial disparity and prejudice. As we look back at the legacy of Juneteenth, and how the slow spread of the news of freedom brought forward a new era in our country's history, we must recommit ourselves to the hard work of ensuring that equal representation, equal opportunity, and equal justice are spread everywhere as well. Though the progress and spread may be slow, it will reach every American if we continue to vigilantly demand equality to access to health care, equal treatment by financial institutions, equal educational opportunities, and adherence to the words of our forefathers that ``all men are created equal.''

We must continue to eliminate inequality so we can truly honor the spirit of Juneteenth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help improve and extend the value of our Nation's highways and bridges. This bill will help ensure that the Federal Government makes better investments of the taxpayer dollars spent on transportation infrastructure. Helping build the roads and bridges of this Nation has been one the best Federal investments our government has made and it is an investment that is worth taking care of to ensure the lasting value, efficiency and safety of our Nation's highways and bridges.

It was during the Thomas Jefferson Administration that the Federal Government developed the concept of a ``Federal-Aid'' Highway. In 1806, Congress authorized federal funding to build the ``National Road.'' Much like the National Highway System of today, the purpose of the National Road was to facilitate interstate commerce between the large commercial centers of the Eastern United States to points west. Construction on the National Road began in 1811 in Cumberland, MD, 200 years, and trillions of dollars, later the United States has one of the world's most expansive highway networks.

The age and expanse of this system underscores the importance of ensuring adequate and consistent investments in our existing transportation infrastructure. The need for performance measures and national state-of-good repair standards are long overdue. Implementing such policies are essential ensuring the quality of the road condition, the economic value of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the wise investment of taxpayer dollars on transportation infrastructure.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, gave our Nation's highways and bridges a grade of ``D-'' in its 2009 ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' These poor road conditions are costing motorists time, money, and in the worst and most unfortunate situations, costing motorists their lives.

A 2011 transportation infrastructure study produced by TRIP, a non- partisan non-profit transportation research organization sponsored by various transportation stakeholder industries, found that 32 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Poor road conditions take a major toll on the repair and operating costs of motorist's vehicles to the tune of $67 billion a year, or approximately $333 per driver. Poor road conditions contribute to 42 percent of America's urban highways being congested. Traffic congestion costs American motorists more than $78 billion in wasted fuel and lost productivity, and more than 4 billion hours of wasted time that drivers could have otherwise spent with family, earning income or engaged in personal activities. Poor road conditions are a ``significant factor'' in approximately one-third of fatal traffic accidents.

It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that Federal transportation dollars are spent wisely to improve the safety and efficiency of our roads. Making repair and maintenance of our existing infrastructure a priority, during these times of fiscal restraint, is a wise approach to Federal transportation infrastructure. Ignoring maintenance and repair needs on Federal-Aid highways, while advancing capacity expansion projects at the expense of neglected existing infrastructure, exacerbates the decline in the state-of-good repair of our country's roads and bridges and exemplifies irresponsible spending of Federal taxpayer dollars.

ASCE put the cost of the maintenance and repair backlog for roads and bridges at $930 billion. Therefore it is important to understand that this is an infrastructure issue will not be achieved of the course of one surface transportation authorization cycle. However, we can change our Federal policies in such a way that improves how Federal dollars are spent on highway and bridge maintenance so that the taxpayer gets a better return on their transportation taxes.

Breaking the cycle of neglected road and bridge maintenance that stems from allowing a highway facility to decline to into poor or very poor condition in the first place is critical to improving the quality of investment of Federal transportation dollars.

Highway investment figures from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: ``Rough Roads Ahead: Fix It Now or Pay for It Later'' demonstrate that neglecting maintenance and instead waiting for the road surface to reach a condition rating of ``very poor'', on average 16 years, before repairing the road cost nearly twice as much, on average, as compared with making biannual investments to maintain a ``very good'' road condition over that same 16-year period. Not to mention the costs in

damage to vehicles that is caused by the years that a road spends in fair, poor, or very poor condition.

My Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act aims to create a culture of sound transportation investment while providing the States improved resources and flexibility to keep their highway facilities in a state of good repair.

The Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act will establish policies that require the Secretary of Transportation to establish ``state of good repair standards'' for the various classes of Federal-Aid highways to serve as benchmarks of achievement for States to reach.

The act will require States to use an ``Asset Management Process'' to develop ``State System Preservation and Renewal Plans'' and ``State System Preservation and Renewal Performance Targets'' to ensure that their Federal-Aid roads are being kept in a state of good repair.

The act will consolidate the Interstate Maintenance program, Highway Bridge program and half of the National Highway System Federal-Aid highway programs funds together to create a flexible System Preservation and Renewal Program Fund for the States to use as they see fit to meet the goals of their System Preservation and Renewal Plans and Performance Targets.

Both the Federal Government and the States are facing enormous challenges to deliver essential services, like well-maintained, safe and efficient roads, for the country. As with any proposal that calls for a change in the way business is done there needs to be adequate time for transition. My bill, while establishing new standards for maintaining the quality of highways and bridges, also takes special care to grant leeway during emergency circumstances, when essential defense infrastructure investments are needed, and gives consideration to States that have planned to use these newly consolidated funds prior to how these funds would be repurposed under this legislation.

The backlog of maintenance and repair on our existing transportation infrastructure can no longer be ignored. In recent years, our country has experienced a number of tragic incidents that resulted in the loss of life as a direct result of the poor condition of transportation infrastructure. These are preventable incidents that are costly in so many ways. We must make transportation system preservation and renewal a priority because it makes good fiscal sense, good safety sense, and good business sense for our country. My bill does this in a collaborative way between the States and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

I urge my colleagues to support my effort to make improved investments in our existing transportation infrastructure so as to ensure its continued excellence for years to come by co-sponsoring the Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help improve and extend the value of our Nation's highways and bridges. This bill will help ensure that the Federal Government makes better investments of the taxpayer dollars spent on transportation infrastructure. Helping build the roads and bridges of this Nation has been one the best Federal investments our government has made and it is an investment that is worth taking care of to ensure the lasting value, efficiency and safety of our Nation's highways and bridges.

It was during the Thomas Jefferson Administration that the Federal Government developed the concept of a ``Federal-Aid'' Highway. In 1806, Congress authorized federal funding to build the ``National Road.'' Much like the National Highway System of today, the purpose of the National Road was to facilitate interstate commerce between the large commercial centers of the Eastern United States to points west. Construction on the National Road began in 1811 in Cumberland, MD, 200 years, and trillions of dollars, later the United States has one of the world's most expansive highway networks.

The age and expanse of this system underscores the importance of ensuring adequate and consistent investments in our existing transportation infrastructure. The need for performance measures and national state-of-good repair standards are long overdue. Implementing such policies are essential ensuring the quality of the road condition, the economic value of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, and the wise investment of taxpayer dollars on transportation infrastructure.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE, gave our Nation's highways and bridges a grade of ``D-'' in its 2009 ``Report Card for America's Infrastructure.'' These poor road conditions are costing motorists time, money, and in the worst and most unfortunate situations, costing motorists their lives.

A 2011 transportation infrastructure study produced by TRIP, a non- partisan non-profit transportation research organization sponsored by various transportation stakeholder industries, found that 32 percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Poor road conditions take a major toll on the repair and operating costs of motorist's vehicles to the tune of $67 billion a year, or approximately $333 per driver. Poor road conditions contribute to 42 percent of America's urban highways being congested. Traffic congestion costs American motorists more than $78 billion in wasted fuel and lost productivity, and more than 4 billion hours of wasted time that drivers could have otherwise spent with family, earning income or engaged in personal activities. Poor road conditions are a ``significant factor'' in approximately one-third of fatal traffic accidents.

It is Congress's responsibility to ensure that Federal transportation dollars are spent wisely to improve the safety and efficiency of our roads. Making repair and maintenance of our existing infrastructure a priority, during these times of fiscal restraint, is a wise approach to Federal transportation infrastructure. Ignoring maintenance and repair needs on Federal-Aid highways, while advancing capacity expansion projects at the expense of neglected existing infrastructure, exacerbates the decline in the state-of-good repair of our country's roads and bridges and exemplifies irresponsible spending of Federal taxpayer dollars.

ASCE put the cost of the maintenance and repair backlog for roads and bridges at $930 billion. Therefore it is important to understand that this is an infrastructure issue will not be achieved of the course of one surface transportation authorization cycle. However, we can change our Federal policies in such a way that improves how Federal dollars are spent on highway and bridge maintenance so that the taxpayer gets a better return on their transportation taxes.

Breaking the cycle of neglected road and bridge maintenance that stems from allowing a highway facility to decline to into poor or very poor condition in the first place is critical to improving the quality of investment of Federal transportation dollars.

Highway investment figures from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: ``Rough Roads Ahead: Fix It Now or Pay for It Later'' demonstrate that neglecting maintenance and instead waiting for the road surface to reach a condition rating of ``very poor'', on average 16 years, before repairing the road cost nearly twice as much, on average, as compared with making biannual investments to maintain a ``very good'' road condition over that same 16-year period. Not to mention the costs in

damage to vehicles that is caused by the years that a road spends in fair, poor, or very poor condition.

My Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act aims to create a culture of sound transportation investment while providing the States improved resources and flexibility to keep their highway facilities in a state of good repair.

The Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act will establish policies that require the Secretary of Transportation to establish ``state of good repair standards'' for the various classes of Federal-Aid highways to serve as benchmarks of achievement for States to reach.

The act will require States to use an ``Asset Management Process'' to develop ``State System Preservation and Renewal Plans'' and ``State System Preservation and Renewal Performance Targets'' to ensure that their Federal-Aid roads are being kept in a state of good repair.

The act will consolidate the Interstate Maintenance program, Highway Bridge program and half of the National Highway System Federal-Aid highway programs funds together to create a flexible System Preservation and Renewal Program Fund for the States to use as they see fit to meet the goals of their System Preservation and Renewal Plans and Performance Targets.

Both the Federal Government and the States are facing enormous challenges to deliver essential services, like well-maintained, safe and efficient roads, for the country. As with any proposal that calls for a change in the way business is done there needs to be adequate time for transition. My bill, while establishing new standards for maintaining the quality of highways and bridges, also takes special care to grant leeway during emergency circumstances, when essential defense infrastructure investments are needed, and gives consideration to States that have planned to use these newly consolidated funds prior to how these funds would be repurposed under this legislation.

The backlog of maintenance and repair on our existing transportation infrastructure can no longer be ignored. In recent years, our country has experienced a number of tragic incidents that resulted in the loss of life as a direct result of the poor condition of transportation infrastructure. These are preventable incidents that are costly in so many ways. We must make transportation system preservation and renewal a priority because it makes good fiscal sense, good safety sense, and good business sense for our country. My bill does this in a collaborative way between the States and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

I urge my colleagues to support my effort to make improved investments in our existing transportation infrastructure so as to ensure its continued excellence for years to come by co-sponsoring the Preservation and Renewal of Federal-Aid Highways Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on May 29 our colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, commemorated Memorial Day with a visit to Flanders Field American Cemetery and Memorial in Waregem, Belgium. The Flanders region, of course, was made famous by Canadian physician and LTC John McCrae, who wrote the poem ``In Flanders Fields'' on May 3, 1915, after he witnessed the death of his friend, LT Alexis Helmer, 22 years old, the day before. While Senator Leahy visited the cemetery, which serves as a resting place for many American soldiers killed during World War I, he made brief but eloquent remarks in honor of those brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and justice. His remarks follow and I commend them to my colleagues and everyone else who reads the Congressional Record as a most fitting Memorial Day tribute:

We are gathered in a cemetery consecrated by the sacrifice

of soldiers of our countries who died in the final days of

what, in their time, was called the ``Great War'' and ``The

War To End All Wars.''

It was a battle so fierce that almost a century later, as

we gaze across their places of rest, we can still feel their

valor and their anguish. These crosses, row on row, carry

remembrance forward, and so does the annual reappearance of

the poppies in these fields.

Like the Vermonters who have fallen in Afghanistan and

Iraq, and their numberless comrades in conflicts before and

after the strife of these nearby battlefields, these brave

soldiers made no appointment with death. We hail these fallen

patriots for braving the violence and tragedy of war.

But more than that, we honor our fallen here because they

sacrificed all for a cause larger than themselves--defending

humanity, freedom, and the ties of family and friendship that

irrevocably bind our countries together.

They were of a generation of Americans, Belgians, British,

and French who fought, shoulder to shoulder, and gave their

all so we and others could live in freedom.

Four of them were sons of the states of Alabama and Iowa,

which two of my Senate colleagues, who are here today,

represent.

I am the second United States senator to speak at this

solemn resting place. The first was Senator Francis Ryan

Duffy of the state of Wisconsin, who came to dedicate the

chapel, 74 years ago.

It is worth recalling what Senator Duffy said here in 1937,

as the spreading shadow of war was once again darkening

Europe:

He said:

``If the boys who are buried out here could sit up in their

graves and speak to us today, it would be to give voice to

the agonizing question--`Cannot some other means be found to

settle international disputes?' ''

Just two years later the world was plunged into the Second

World War, and every generation of Americans since has known

war's brutality.

Across the globe, in the century since then, innocent

civilians increasingly have joined the ranks of those in

uniform as the victims of war.

Over the years, standing with families from Vermont as they

bid farewell to loved ones sent away to fight, I have seen

the terrible costs: wives and children left alone, parents

who must bury a child.

Lives with so much possibility suddenly cut short, as were

those of the soldiers we honor here.

The men who sacrificed everything at Flanders Field--and

who are commemorated so vividly through Colonel John McCrae's

poetic tribute, heard 'round the world--believed that some

things are worth fighting for.

They knew that vanquishing tyranny, and defending the

ideals our countries share, were among them. Of course those

same values are worth pursuing peacefully. Our obligation to

our fallen, and to all of humanity, is to use every peaceful

means at our disposal before committing any of our countrymen

to battle.

We are here today to solemnly affirm that we remember their

sacrifice, and that we will never forget.