Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the importance of investment in our national infrastructure on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of the National Road.

On May 7, 2011, Americans will gather in Cumberland, MD, to celebrate the bicentennial of the groundbreaking for the construction of this first federally financed road. Congress approved The National Road in 1806 and construction was completed in 1818, connecting Cumberland, MD, with Wheeling, WV, located on the Ohio River. This road would connect East to West, allowing for economic growth and opportunity as a young nation sought to unite a diverse country and facilitate the flow of people, goods, services, information, and Federal authority in new territory.

The National Road's completion created a flow of goods and people to and from the Port of Baltimore, along privately developed turnpikes to Cumberland, and across the mountains to the Ohio River Valley. The road was extended to Vandalia, IL, in the early 1840s. For more than a century, The National Road was this Nation's only federally funded interstate highway, making its importance to commercial and political enterprise unparalleled.

By the 1850s, the lure of trade and migration to the West led to the development of the ``horseless carriage,'' running parallel to the road, connecting the Port of Baltimore to the West right through Cumberland, MD, over the mountains and westward. While The National Road remained important, trains began to transport the bulk of goods and people travelling West. In the 1900s, it was the invention of the automobile that brought The National Road back to popularity as travelers and tourists explored America and the natural beauty of western Maryland and truckers transported goods along with the trains.

I would encourage my colleagues and their constituents to take a journey on The National Road. The National Road has been designated a Maryland Scenic Byway and is marked by signs and historical markers, connecting heritage areas, arts and entertainment districts, and historic landscapes and structures. A National Register of Historic Places Travel Itinerary can be found at www.crnps.gov/nr.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this national achievement, which reminds us of the importance of supporting infrastructure investments that promote trade and commerce, and in thanking the people of Cumberland, MD, for celebrating this national achievement.

Madam President, shortly we are going to be having three votes. One vote will be on the budget for our current fiscal year that began on October 1 and ends on September 30 of this year. I think we have talked about that vote at some length. I took the floor yesterday and explained how the negotiated budget for this year is far better than the Republican-passed budget in the House of Representatives, the original H.R. 1. I pointed out how a budget represents the vision for our future, that it is a policy document. I far prefer the agreement that was reached that preserves America's ability to have a competitive workforce.

I pointed out yesterday, and I will repeat again today, that the budget we will vote on will maintain most of the funding for NIH basic research, which is critically important for innovation in America. That is the basic research that is used by our high-tech companies so America can outinnovate our competitors, whereas the House-passed budget would have cut $1.4 billion from NIH research, or how the agreed-to budget will provide for job training and Job Corps pretty much at the current rates, whereas the Republican-passed House budget would have eliminated most of the funds for job training and 40 percent of the funds for the Job Corps; or, for our students and Pell grants, maintaining the funding so students can continue to receive $5,550 maximum under Pell grants. As I pointed out, college education tuition is going up. The House-passed budget would have cut 15 percent off of that program.

I think perhaps the one that really points to the major difference between where the Republicans were on the budget and what we finally ended up with is the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program has worked very effectively in all of our States. Children who participate in Head Start do much better in life. We know that. The House-passed budget would have cut the number of children in Head Start by 218,000, eliminating 55,000 teachers and assistants from the Head Start Program. I am pleased the agreement reached will maintain all services at Head Start so all of our children can continue in that program.

The list goes on and on about the compromises that were reached. I wish to make clear this was a true compromise. It is not what the Democrats wanted or what the Republicans wanted. It is going to be painful. There is a lot I would like to have seen done differently.

I wish to point out that the GSA budget is going to be reduced by $1 billion. At the White Oak facility in Maryland for the FDA, we are doing some critically important construction work to bring together the different participants for the safety of Americans. That program is going to be severely slowed as a result of the cut to the GSA budget.

I pointed out yesterday that on the environmental front regarding the Endangered Species Act, there is a provision that delists the great wolf. That shouldn't be targeted for congressional action. That is a dangerous precedent for us to set.

I pointed out that the Community Development Block Grants are cut. Even though the EPA budget which would have been cut by 30 percent with the House-passed budget--we bring that down by 50 percent, so it is only a 15-percent cut, but a 15-percent cut is too large of a cut for the Environmental Protection Agency. The good news is we were able to remove those policy riders that would have prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment, protecting our public health. Those were eliminated.

I wish to speak for the next few minutes about the other two votes that will be taking place on the floor in a few moments. They are votes on what are called correcting resolutions. Let me explain this, because I think it might surprise some of the people to learn we are not talking about the amount of dollars that is going to be appropriated in this current year's budget. These are restrictions as to how money can be spent, so it deals with a philosophical agenda, not a budget agenda. This is not about reducing the deficit; this is about trying to impose a philosophical position on the budget for this year. Let me talk about the two correcting resolutions which I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against. One would restrict funds going to Planned Parenthood-- women's health care issues--which I call the war on women. This deals with title X funding.

Title X funding is used for preventive health services such as cervical cancer screenings, breast cancer screenings, immunizations, diabetes and hypertension testing, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, HIV testing and referrals. Not one dime of Federal money can be used for abortions. That is the current law, the current prohibition.

Currently, there are approximately 5 million people who benefit from title X funding with over 4,500 clinics across the Nation. Ninety-one percent of the people who take advantage of these clinics have no health insurance. Less than 25 percent of title X funds go to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood spends approximately 3 percent of its total budget on abortion services, not one dime of which is Federal funds--not one dime of which is Federal funds. So this is not about abortion; this is about whether we are going to be able to provide preventive care to our most vulnerable in America. It is an attack on women, because women are the basic beneficiaries of title X funds. It is going to cost us more money for the use of emergency room services. It makes no sense at all. It is certainly counter to what we all say we want, and that is gender equity in health care in America.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on that correcting resolution.

The second correcting resolution is an attempt to repeal the affordable

care act that we celebrated the anniversary of a few weeks ago. If you are a senior, you should be concerned about this vote, because now you have a wellness exam annually under Medicare that is reimbursed, so you can take care of your own health care needs. That would be put in jeopardy.

If you are one of the 3.2 million Americans who fall within the so- called doughnut hole, or the coverage gap for prescription drug coverage, you should be concerned about the repeal. If you got $250 last year, you are going to get 50 percent of the cost of your brandname prescription drugs covered and, by 2020, we are going to close the doughnut hole altogether. That would be eliminated if this correcting resolution were passed. Seniors should be pleased that at least we were able to extend the solvency of the Medicare Program by 10 years.

Frankly, you should be worried about whatever efforts are being made here to privatize the Medicare system, making seniors pay more for their health care. It starts with this vote later today where we can reject the efforts to turn back the clock on Medicare where seniors would have to pay more.

If you are a small business owner, you should be pleased by the tax credits that are now available and which this correcting resolution would take away, making it more expensive for employers to provide health care for their employees.

If you are a consumer and are now able to cover your child up to age 26--1.2 million Americans--the correcting resolution would turn the clock back on the progress we have made on fighting the abusive practices of private insurance companies in dealing with preexisting conditions. If you have a child with asthma, now you can get full coverage. If we turn the clock back by approving that correcting resolution, you will be at the mercy of private insurance companies to provide coverage, which is very unlikely to happen.

I can talk about emergency room visits where some insurance companies require preauthorization. I don't know how you get preauthorization when you need to go to an emergency room. We corrected that in the affordable care act. Once again, the correcting resolution we are being asked to vote on will turn the clock back on that, putting people at the mercy of private insurance companies as to whether they will cover emergency room visits.

If you are a taxpayer, which is what we are talking about today with the budget, you should be very much concerned about this correcting resolution because by turning back the clock on the affordable care act, it will cost the taxpayers over $1.5 trillion over the next 20 years. So it is tailored to your need. If you have pride, as I do, that America has at long last said that health care is a right, not a privilege, and recognize that we need to do more to improve our health care system, you want us to move forward and talk about the health care issues and try to improve our health care system; you don't want us to turn the clock back.

The large number of people who have no health insurance or have restricted coverage because of the abusive practices of private insurance companies or the inability to cover children after they graduate from college--that has now been corrected. We certainly don't believe a correcting resolution would take that away from us.

We are going to have three votes. I urge my colleagues to vote against both of these correcting resolutions. They are attacks on women's health care issues and attacks on quality health care for all Americans. We need to pass the budget, and these correcting resolutions should be defeated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there has been a lively debate on the floor

concerning our 2011 budget. Now we are starting to talk about the 2012 budget. I think it is important to point out what I hope is the obvious, which is that the budget of our Nation represents our vision for our future. It is a policy document that speaks to what our priorities will be. It provides the financial tools for us to be able to meet those objectives.

I know we are in very difficult fiscal times, but this is not the first time in the history of America. I remind my colleagues that in the 1990s we were confronted with a large budget deficit. I happened to have been in the House of Representatives during that time. We saw, through the leadership of President Clinton, that we were able to bring our budget into balance, and we did that from large deficits. We did it in a way that maintained America's priorities and maintained the priorities for our children and our future because we continued to fund those essential programs that allowed our Nation to grow.

As a result of what we did in the 1990s, we saw unprecedented growth in our economy because we did our budget the right way, speaking to America's future and to our priorities, and doing it in a fiscally responsible way. I think President Obama was correct when he stated in his State of the Union Address that America will meet the challenges of international competition, and we will do that by outeducating, outinnovating, and outbuilding our competitors.

That requires a budget that speaks to those priorities, that speaks to educating our workforce, to provide the type of climate where America can continue to lead the world in research and innovation, that we pay attention to our infrastructure, whether it is transportation, water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, so we have the capacity to be able to compete internationally and that we can create the jobs that will be critically important for America.

We need more jobs and we need good-paying jobs. That is what President Obama's vision is about, and our budget needs to underscore that vision. Yes, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible way but in a way that allows America's future to be secure. That is why I so much opposed the budget that was sent over to us from the House of Representatives, the 2011 budget, H.R. 1, before the ability to reach a compromise. I did that because when you look at what H.R. 1 would have done--particularly in light of the budget agreement we have now reached on the 2011 budget--you cannot help but notice a huge difference between our visions for America. We all agree we have to have a workforce that can compete.

Look at the stark differences between the budget agreement and the House-passed budget. In NIH research--and I take pride in this, since NIH is headquartered in Maryland--most of the funding for basic research, which is critically important for innovation--you cannot get to the applied research unless you have the basic research, and you cannot get good high-tech jobs unless you invest in basic research. Thanks to the budget agreement we reached, most of the funding will be able to be maintained for the basic research at NIH. If the House budget would have become law, it would have been $1.4 billion less. That would have been a huge hit on America's ability to be able to compete in this global marketplace. You also need to have a trained workforce. You need job training and Job Corps programs. Most of the funding has been maintained in this budget agreement for our job training and Job Corps programs; whereas, if you look at the House- passed budget, they eliminated all funds for job training and a 40- percent reduction in the Job Corps program. That was restored under the budget agreement that allows America to have the competitive workforce it needs to meet future challenges.

Perhaps the area that I think people in Maryland and Minnesota may recognize the most is what happens to Pell grants. Most students cannot make it today, unless they have help in higher education. It is too expensive to be able to afford without the help of programs such as Pell grants. You need to have education beyond high school if you are going to be competitive today. Well, the House-passed budget would have reduced Pell grants by 15 percent. I can assure you that tuition isn't going down by 15 percent this year. Tuition at colleges and universities is going up and up.

I am proud we were able to, in the budget agreement, maintain the maximum Pell grants at $5,550. We maintain funding for Race to the Top funds because we want excellence in K-12. The House-passed budget would have zeroed out the Race to the Top funds.

To me, if you talk about a budget that speaks to America's values, to give young children the chance to succeed in school, Head Start has never been a partisan program. It has been supported by Democrats and Republicans because there are proven results in Head Start. People who participate in Head Start will do better. We have those results, so it is in our economic interest.

The Republican-passed budget in the House would have knocked 218,000 children off the Head Start Program. It would have reduced 55,000 teachers and aides from Head Start Programs around our Nation. I am pleased to see that the agreement we will be voting on shortly restores all the funds for the Head Start Program, so our children can get the Head Start they need to succeed in K-12.

The budget speaks to our energy policies and transportation policies. It is interesting to look and see that the agreement reached by our negotiators restores more than $268 million in renewable energy and alternative energy sources. If we are going to be able to be competitive, we need an energy policy that makes sense. If we are going to keep jobs in America, we need an energy policy that makes sense. If we are going to be secure, we have to get ourselves off foreign oil. We need alternative energy sources.

The compromise restores a lot of the funds that were not in the House-passed budget document. I might talk about one issue that is very important to the people living in this region. We made a commitment years ago that the Federal Government would participate with the surrounding jurisdictions in the funding of the Nation's transit system, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit System, which is critical to getting Federal workers to work and to our Nation's Capital. Our government committed $150 billion a year to modernize that system. Taxpayers of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are contributing also to the modernization of a system that is aged and critically important. We live in the second most congested area in the Nation, as far as commutes are concerned. The House of Representatives, in the Republican-passed budget, took out that $150 million--took it out. I am proud the compromise reached restores that $150 million.

Our budget speaks to our health and our environment. The Health Resources Services Administration was severely cut in the Republican- passed budget. It would have affected care in each one of our communities. Our negotiators restored $900 million to that budget. What does that mean? It means the 11,000 community health centers, located in all our States, will be able to continue the services they are currently providing.

I took the floor before and talked about the Greater Baden Center, located just a few miles from here, and how they have expanded service this year to deal with prenatal care. In Maryland and in America, our infant mortality rate is too high. For a wealthy nation and State to have the type of infant mortality rate we have is inexcusable. It is because we have low-birth-weight babies. Some die and others survive and have complications and have a tough time in life and they are very expensive to the health care system. In our health centers, we are doing something about that. At the Greater Baden Center, they are now going to provide prenatal care so pregnant women can get the attention they need and can deliver healthier babies. Under the House-passed budget, they would not have done that.

The math is simple. We invest in the health of Americans. We understand that. That is our budget. The Republican-passed House budget would have cut off those funds. The affordable care act will be able to implement it. We are not going to be stopped by the effort made in the Republican-passed budget.

As far as the environmental protection riders we have talked about, these

are the policy riders. I know this is confusing to people listening to this debate, and they understand that the House-passed budget by the Republicans had a lot of policy issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the budget. They blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. Let me say that again. They blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. They couldn't enforce the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. For the people of Maryland and this region, that means blocking the enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay Program--a program that enjoys broad support from the people not only of our region but the Nation.

Well, I am pleased to say the budget we will be voting on later this week eliminates those restrictions. All of them are out. Thank goodness they are because they should never have been in the budget document to start with.

I will make it clear, Mr. President. I am very disappointed by many of the provisions included in this compromise. It is a true compromise. It is not what the Democrats would have written, I can assure you of that, and it is not what the Republicans would have written. It is a true compromise, and that is what we had to go through, I understand, but I feel compelled to at least let the people of Maryland know the cost of the compromises.

For example, the General Services Administration will have $1 billion less to deal with government construction. What will that mean? Well, at White Oak, MD, we have the FDA's expansion. That will be put on hold. That will not only affect my community, but it will affect our country because we are talking about public health and food safety.

There is a rider that was attached that did survive that deals with the delisting of the great wolf under the Endangered Species Act. That is not how we should be acting. There is a remedy for dealing with the delisting. There is a process we go through. We shouldn't go down a dangerous precedent that starts congressional or political action on delisting species that are included under the Endangered Species Act.

The cuts for the community development block grant are much more than I would like to see. These are programs that are important for our urban centers. During these times, when their budgets are being hit the hardest, I think it is very unfortunate to tell them we are just going to add to their challenges. We should be helping them during these times. We shouldn't be taking resources away from them.

The Federal Transit Administration has a major cut in this budget. I find that regrettable, particularly as it relates to their new start budget. I come from a State that has major new transit projects we want to get moving--the purple line to connect our suburban areas around Washington, the red line in Baltimore, Carter City's transit way to connect the 270 corridor for high-tech jobs. All those depend upon us continuing to move forward with sensible transit projects that, quite frankly, I think are in jeopardy as a result of the compromises that were needed to be made.

Teach for America is eliminated. The Federal participation in that is eliminated. On Monday I had a chance to teach for Teach for America. I was in a high school in Baltimore with some very dedicated young people willing to give up their lives so America can compete in the future. We certainly should have continued the Federal partnership in Teach for America.

I talked about the Environmental Protection Agency, but I didn't point out that the Republican budget in the House cut that agency by 30 percent--30 percent. We restored half of those funds, but the cut is still going to be pretty severe.

So I just wanted my colleagues to know that, whereas I am very pleased that many of the decisions made in this compromise for the 2011 budget will allow us to be able to move forward as a nation for America's vision--being able to out-educate, out-innovate, and out- build our competitors--there are challenges as a result of the compromise that have to be faced. Mr. President, these discussions will continue now to the 2012 budget.

We are already seeing that happen. In the House they are already starting to act on what is known as the Ryan budget, which we think is pretty much inspired by the tea party. It is pretty extreme. It is pretty radical. It is not a credible plan, in my view. It is not a credible plan to reduce the Federal deficit.

Now, why do I say that? Well, the Ryan budget concentrates on domestic spending. It doesn't touch military spending, and it doesn't touch our revenues. Let me correct that. It does deal with our revenues, but it deals with it in the wrong way. It not only extends every tax break that is currently available, providing tax relief for millionaires, but it provides additional tax relief. It lowers the highest rates.

Now, how is that going to be paid for? Well, they are expecting they are going to take more out of middle-income families. That is bad for middle-income families, but my guess is they will not even be able to reach those targets, and we will have huge deficits as far as the eye can see. It is not a credible plan.

The deficit commission taught us if we are to have a credible plan to deal with the deficit, we have to deal with domestic spending. We have to deal with military spending. We have to deal with mandatory spending. And we have to deal with revenues. We have to deal with all of them. The Ryan budget does not.

It is going to be hard for middle-income families, it protects America's wealthiest, and it attacks our seniors--attacks our seniors. The Ryan budget would turn Medicare into a voucher program.

Now, I can tell you what that means in dollars and cents. It means our seniors, who currently have--currently have--the largest out-of- pocket costs for health care than any other age group of Americans, will see their health care costs go up dramatically--double. Some of us remember how it was for seniors to get health care before we had Medicare. We had to fight with private insurance companies. Private insurance companies are not interested in insuring people who make a lot of claims. Guess what. As you get older, you make a lot of claims.

What the Republican budget would do is tell our seniors: We are going to give you a voucher. It is a limited amount of money. Now you go find a private insurance plan out there. Whatever it costs, you are going to have to fill up the difference. We know it is going to cost a lot more than the voucher we are giving you.

That is what they are doing. They are making it more expensive for our seniors to afford health care where they are asking us to reduce their costs, not make it more expensive.

Then the Ryan budget goes further by block-granting the Medicaid Program. That means, quite frankly, Medicaid will not survive. We can talk about the hardships it will have on providing health care in our community, how it will have more and more people using the emergency rooms rather than using preventive care or seeing doctors, and that is all going to absolutely happen if we ever block-grant Medicaid.

Let me follow up on our seniors. Many of our seniors depend upon the Medicaid system, and their families depend upon it for long-term care-- nursing care. That will not survive if we block-grant that to our States. So the Ryan budget not only is not credible as it relates to dealing with the deficit, it also is very punitive against our seniors.

What I find probably the most disappointing is where I started this discussion, saying our budget is our vision for our future, that it speaks to our priorities for our future. The Ryan budget leaves our children behind. If we are going to succeed, we have to take care of our children. They are our future. We have to deal with their education and with their health care. The Ryan budget puts them in severe jeopardy. It is a philosophical document that I don't think represents the values of America. I think our values are in our children and in our future and in our ability to meet those economic challenges.

I think there is a better way. President Obama is calling for a comprehensive progrowth economic strategy that will invest in winning the future. I would hope all of us could embrace that. Don't we want a comprehensive progrowth economic strategy that invests in winning in the future, that invests in our children, that invests in education and in innovation?

As President Obama says, he wants to meet our values for the dignity of our retirees. Think about that for one moment. How we treat our retirees speaks to what we are as a nation--the dignity of our retirees. Think about a retiree trying to find an insurance company that will take care of their insurance needs because we dumped the Medicare system. We can't let that happen. We can't let that happen.

There is a better way. Sixty-four of us in the Senate have said there is a better way. We have said: Look, it is time for us to be serious about a credible plan for our deficit, and we are prepared--64 of us: 32 Democrats, 32 Republicans--to not only cut our domestic spending, but we will look at bringing down mandatory spending, and we will look at military, and we will look at revenues. There is a better way to do this. I think we can represent the best of America's future in our budget by providing education, innovation, job growth, health and environment policies that make sense, and we can do it with fiscal responsibility. That is our mission.

So I know a lot of my colleagues come down to say we have to take care of the deficit--do the deficit--and I agree with that. But, remember, our budget document is our statement about America's future. It is our policy document, and America needs to stand up for quality education, for the best health care in the world, and for encouraging innovation that will give us the jobs of the future so that America can continue to lead the world. I think America deserves nothing less, and I intend to continue to fight for that type of vision for America.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fulfilling Our Commitment to Support Victims of Crime.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 13, 2011, at 3 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial and Executive Nominations.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, well, we are less than 6 hours away from a potential government shutdown. I take this time to sort of bring people up to date in Maryland as to where we are. I say that because in Maryland we have about 150,000 civilian active Federal employees. Obviously, they are directly affected if we have a government shutdown. They will not get a paycheck. Whether they work or not, they will not be getting their paychecks. I just want everyone to think about what that means. If you have a car payment that is due and you do not have a paycheck or a full paycheck, you still have to make that car payment. You might not have the money to do it. If you have certain responsibilities on a student loan, you may not be able to come up with the money to deal with it. So it is going to cause real problems for those Federal workers who had nothing at all to do with the problems we are confronting in passing a budget. They are not at fault. But yet they will be the first ones who will be suffering as a result of a government shutdown.

But it does not end with the Federal workforce because the Federal workforce, with their salaries, buys goods and services. Literally thousands of small businesses in Maryland are going to be adversely affected, and many around the country, because of the impact of the Federal workforce being on furlough, not getting their checks, the impact that is going to have on our businesses and on our economy.

But it does not end there. Federal contractors who depend upon the Federal contracts, whether to help us with national security or homeland security or to deal with health care issues, are going to be affected also because these contracts are not going to go forward.

So I really want to continue to underscore that a government shutdown will have a major negative impact, not just on our Federal workforce, not just on the businesses that are going to be hurt as a result of it, but on our entire economy. All of us will suffer.

But I really take this time to try to bring people up to date on where we are on the negotiations because I have heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Gee, if we could only balance the budget, if we could only bring up a short-term CR. That is not the problem. It is not the problem we are confronting right now because, quite frankly, the negotiators have agreed on the dollar amount of a budget from now to the end of the year. That number has been agreed to. So this is not about the Federal deficit any longer. It is about whether we can reach an agreement on a budget for the remainder of this year--not the dollar amount.

We are now tied up on what we call the policy riders. But we are not even talking about all the policy riders; we are talking about one policy rider which my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, I think outlined very clearly.

I wish to take this time on behalf of my wife, on behalf of my daughter, on behalf of my two little granddaughters, because it is about women's health care issues. That is what we are talking about, and we are talking about whether we are going to be able to allow those programs to move forward during the next 6 months. It does not affect the dollars, the types of programs that we allow. So to make it clear, we are talking about women's health care issues that deal principally with preventive health care--the cancer screenings to keep women healthy. Not one dollar of those funds can be used for abortions. So let's make that clear from the beginning. This is not part of the abortion debate. This is talking about whether we should allow this type of policy rider to be on this bill. It is not appropriate. I think all of us understand it is not appropriate.

But I even go further than that. I am not even sure it is about that. It appears to many of us that you have an element in the House of Representatives on the Republican side that really wants to see a government shutdown. They have said that. They applauded the Speaker when the Speaker said: Let's get prepared for a government shutdown. They gave him a standing ovation. They said, over and over again, maybe a government shutdown will be good. Well, a government shutdown will not be good. I think we all can agree on that. If this is about the budget, as it should be, a government shutdown costs more money.

Then I hear a lot of my colleagues come to the floor and say: Look, we have to get rid of all this red ink and all these deficits. We could go back to the fact that we did balance the budget in the 1990s. We did it without a single Republican vote. We took a deficit and we balanced the budget.

When George W. Bush became President, he had a large surplus--only to see the policies of that administration, which went to war and did not pay for it, and we ended up with large deficits and an economy that was losing 700,000 jobs a month when Barack Obama became President.

We could go back and start talking about how we got here, but the question is, How are we going to get the budget back into balance? There, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We need to do that. But remember, the debate tonight on preventing the government from shutting down has nothing to do with that. The dollar amounts are in agreement. It is the policy issues concerning women's health care or whether, in fact, there is a group on the other side that represents the tea party that does not want to enter into an agreement. Remember, they said: Don't compromise at all. ``No compromise'' was their position, where they controlled the day.

But I must tell you, we have to come together and deal with the budget deficit. There are 64 of us--32 Democrats, 32 Republicans--who have signed a letter saying we are prepared to consider all the issues of balancing the budget, whether it is domestic spending, military spending, mandatory spending, or revenues. That is what we are going to have to do. We are going to have to get together and put the Nation's interests first. I believe we can do that. I believe we can get this budget into balance.

But it starts with a little good-faith effort here tonight, a good- faith effort. When we have already reached the agreement on the dollar amount, let's not let a minority in the House of Representatives prevent us from keeping the government operating--that is

what it comes down to--so the Federal worker in Maryland or that person who happens to be in Rhode Island tonight, and tomorrow recognizes he needs his passport renewed in order to take a trip, can find the passport office open or whether it is that potential homeowner who is going to need an FHA loan and is told that if there is a government shutdown, that loan cannot go forward or whether it is that family who was planning to come to the Nation's Capital and enjoy the Smithsonian and is going to be told the Smithsonian is now going to be closed. Let's not use those individuals as a target for the extreme actions in the other body.

I am convinced we still have time to get this done. We know offers have been made in good faith. We know we have the dollar amounts. So I hope that within the next couple hours we can prevent a government shutdown because it absolutely makes no sense.

My constituents are angry about this, and so am I. I hope we will see reason prevail, and then we can move on and deal with the real budget problems of this country. We cannot deal with it in only 12 percent of the budget, and that is all we are talking about here in this budget for the rest of this year. Hopefully, we will be able to get together and figure out how we can move forward. But it starts with keeping government functioning. It starts with honoring the types of commitments we have all talked about here to negotiate in good faith.

I have said this many times: It is not going to be the budget the Democrats want. It will not be the budget the Republicans want. That is what negotiations are about. But when you have some on the other side who say: Look, it is going to be our way or no way, that is not the way the process works.

I hope the majority in the House of Representatives is listening to this debate and listening to the American people and will act in the best interests of the American people and allow the process to move forward so we can keep government functioning.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the lives lost in last year's plane crash near Smolensk that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife Maria, and 94 others who represented the political, cultural, and religious leadership of Poland. Words alone offer little solace before such awesome tragedy, which is one of the reasons people must gather together before monuments and flowers to add a tangible dimension to our shapeless grief. While eloquent remarks can move the heart, we all know a smile, a gaze, or an embrace can often do more to bring comfort to the sorrowful.

Katyn has become a tragedy in three acts--the crime, the coverup, and now the crash. Surely it is fitting for us to meet, comfort each other, and remember those who died. But what lies beyond our tears? Can good come from this evil?

For the loved ones of those 96 souls who perished nearly a year ago, they

must take comfort in knowing that the final act of their beloved was a noble one--that of remembering those martyrs whom Stalin and his henchmen sought to erase from Poland and, indeed, from history.

As Stanislaw Kot, Poland's wartime Ambassador to Moscow, said, ``People are not like steam; they cannot evaporate.'' He was right and it is written, ``Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!'' In a haunting twist of fate, a hungry wolf in the Russian winter would scratch at the snow and uncover the hastily buried bones of Poland's best and brightest. And the truth about this unspeakable crime would one day be known.

We have come a long way--a very long way--from the time when this atrocity was falsely presented as a Nazi crime and from the time when the names of the dead could only be circulated in communist Poland in the form of samizdat publications and whispered around kitchen tables.

Nevertheless, there is still more that must be done to set the record straight. This involves insuring that all the evidence relating to the execution sites, the executioners' identities, the motives for the crime, and the fate of so many Polish families who vanished on the Siberian steppe are publicly available. We must ensure that the fullness of the truth is uncovered and shared for its own sake and for closure. To that end, I welcome recent news of the Kremlin's release of still more documents relating to the massacre.

Further, I believe that finally coming to terms with Katyn is a necessary precondition for a durable Polish-Russian rapprochement, which is itself good insurance for maintaining a Europe, whole, free, and at peace.

Next week Presidents Komorowski and Medvedev will meet before the mass graves at Katyn and, I trust, will continue a dialogue of healing between two great nations that have suffered so much from the elevation of an ideology over a people. I wish them well in their talks and ongoing mission of reconciliation and believe that the only lasting balm for this wound lies in the heart and not in a courtroom or even a legislature.

This is not to say that charges or claims should not be pursued, but to recognize that, in many cases, such actions will fall short and offer little by way of consolation.

It would be most unfortunate for the memory of Katyn to be debased by ideologues of any ilk who would usurp this sacred memory for partisan projects. For too long the truth about Katyn was denied by those on the left who turned a blind eye to the reality of communism and many on the right seemed to view Katyn as just another issue to be exploited in the struggle of ideologies. People and their memory are an end, in and of themselves, and must never be used as a means to advance even a just cause. The only decent relationship to them is that of love and remembrance--our dignity and theirs demands nothing less.

My sincere hope is that Poland and Russia can do better than some countries that have fought bitter diplomatic battles and enacted laws to force or deny recognition of historic crimes. By honestly evaluating a shared past of suffering, Poles and Russians have a real opportunity to build a shared future of friendship and prosperity.

Poland is now free and her traditions support the forgiveness that offers a path out of the valley of this shadow of death. In so many ways, Poland is, and must remain, a light to those nearby who still live in the darkness of oppression and lies.

As we continue to ponder the devastation of last year's catastrophe, I would like to close by putting a couple faces on our sadness; those of Mariusz Handzlik and Andrzej Przewoznik, who both died in last year's crash.

Mariusz was a diplomat and father of three. He was well known and well liked in Washington from the years he spent assigned to the Embassy of Poland. In 2000, he played a fateful game of chess with Polish war hero and Righteous Gentile Jan Karski who narrowly escaped ``liquidation'' at Katyn. Karski would die in a Washington hospital and Handzlik in a gloomy Russian forest.

Andrzej was a historian, a husband, and father of two. He was the principle organizer behind the conference I cohosted as Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission last year at the Library of Congress to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Forest Massacre. Andrzej hoped to spend time at our National Archives sifting through the papers of the Madden Committee and other relevant U.S. Government documents on Katyn.

The memories of Mariusz, Andrzej, and so many other truly exceptional people on that doomed flight offer much by way of virtue and accomplishment that will inspire Poles for generations to come. Let us take comfort in the truth that is, at last, known and bask in the warmth of heroic memories and do this together with our Polish friends who are second to no one in their love of freedom.

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

Mr. President, I take this time because we are now only literally hours away from a potential shutdown of government. I must tell you that my constituents are angry about this, and I join them in saying this should never happen. There is no reason why we should have a government shutdown.

We know the financial issues, and there have been good-faith negotiations. It is my understanding we have pretty much resolved the financial issues. And, remember, we are dealing with 12 percent of the Federal budget. We need to get to the 2012 budget and get a credible plan to deal with the deficit. We all understand that. We are talking about the 2011 budget--the budget that started on October 1 of last year and will end on September 30 of this year. We are over halfway through that budget year.

There are differences between where the Democrats were and where the Republicans were. Everyone understood it couldn't be what the Republicans wanted or the Democrats wanted; that we needed to have good-faith negotiations. Those negotiations have taken place, and it is my understanding we have pretty much agreed on the dollar amounts and we are prepared to move forward.

But let me talk a little about what will happen at midnight tomorrow night. I have the honor of representing the people of the State of Maryland. There are almost 150,000 active civilian--civilian--Federal employees who live in the State of Maryland. I happened to bump into one of those Federal employees today who asked me a question. She asked me: What am I supposed to do if we have a government shutdown and I don't get a paycheck? I don't have any savings. How am I going to pay for my mortgage?

We already have too many people whose mortgages are in jeopardy because of the weakness of our economy, and now 150,000 Marylanders are in jeopardy of losing their paycheck as a result of the inability to resolve this year's budget.

I also happened to talk to people who run our Metro system here, and they told me if we have a government shutdown it will mean $1 million less in the fare box, possibly every day, because of the number of people who won't be taking the Metro because they are not going to be going to work. A lot of Federal workers are not going to be going to work.

Guess what. They are not going to stop at the coffee shop to buy coffee or buy that lunch. They won't be patronizing the shops. It is going to hurt the small business owners who depend upon that business; depend upon the people who use their paychecks to do their cleaning or go to the different shops. It is going to hurt our economy. It is going to hurt innocent small business owners, just at a time that our economy is starting to recover.

I will give another example. A person contacted me today, one of my constituents in Maryland who happens to have an issue concerning the need for a passport to be issued. It needs to be issued rather quickly. We are going to try to accommodate that person to get it done by tomorrow. But suppose that call would have come in next week after there is a government shutdown and that person has travel plans that now may be disrupted because we cannot issue that passport. The list goes on and on of people who are going to be

hurt as a result of a government shutdown.

We know a government shutdown will actually cost the taxpayers more money. A shutdown costs taxpayers money, More money than the differences in our negotiations in the last couple of days will be lost. So don't tell the taxpayers of this country that we are having a government shutdown to save money. It will not save taxpayer money, it will cost them additional moneys. It will jeopardize our recovery, and individual people will get hurt as a result of the government shutdown.

What is the issue? We have already said the money issues--this is a budget debate--have been pretty well resolved. It is not the dollars. It is not the differences you heard--and the differences, frankly, were quite small compared to the size of our budget deficit and the gap between spending and revenues. The issue that is now being raised by the Republicans has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with their social policies. It has to do with family planning. It has to do with the Environmental Protection Agency being able to enforce our environmental laws, the Clean Air Act. Does that sound familiar? It should because we debated those issues on the floor of the Senate yesterday, and we took votes on these environmental issues yesterday on the floor of the Senate, as we should do, debating these issues on their own individual merits.

It should not be included in the budget resolution for the remainder of this year. That is not the appropriate place for it. We are not here to debate the social agenda. Those issues should be done on the bills, the substantive bills that come forward.

You sort of get a little suspicious as these issues are being raised as to whether, in fact, those who are negotiating on the Republican side are sincere in trying to reach an agreement to prevent a government shutdown or whether they continuously move the goalposts and change the rules in order to bring about a government shutdown.

I must tell you, I was disappointed, as I heard Republican after Republican in the last couple of weeks talk about a shutdown might be good for the country; if we have a shutdown, so be it. Let's do it. Even some Republicans calling for a shutdown.

I understand there is a problem the Speaker of the House has in dealing with the members of the Republican caucus who belong to the tea party, and they are insisting he not compromise; they don't want to see any compromise. I understand that, but those Members do not control the process. We have a majority of the Members of the House and a majority of the Members of the Senate who are prepared to move forward with this compromise that will not only keep government functioning but will allow us to get on to the real issues of dealing with the deficit of this country by looking at the 2012 budget. There we will be considering more than just the discretionary domestic spending cuts, we also can take a look at the other programs, including military and mandatory spending and revenues, and get a credible plan to deal with the deficit.

We have enough votes among the Democrats and Republicans to pass this compromise. We do not have to yield to the extremists on the Republican side in the House who do not want to see any compromise whatsoever, but what worries me is that perhaps the design is to close the government; that is what the Republicans want. I know Speaker Boehner got a standing ovation when he informed his caucus to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.

These are serious issues--like that Marylander I talked to today who may, in fact, lose her home if there is a government shutdown or that constituent who had planned a trip and found out that because their passport will expire shortly, they need to get it renewed before they are permitted to enter a foreign country and will need to get that passport tended to or lose the opportunity to travel, perhaps, for a family event or perhaps for business or the taxpayers of this country who are scratching their heads saying: What are you doing adding to the cost of government when I thought this was a debate about reducing the cost of government.

It is not about the dollars. If we have a shutdown of government--and I really hope we do not have a shutdown of government, but if we have a shutdown of government, it is not the dollar difference, it is the social agenda that the Republicans are trying to push through this document, that should not even be on this document, that they are now using as a reason to deny a compromise. It is the extreme elements within the Republican caucus who are saying let's have this government shutdown who will be getting their way.

There is still time remaining. I hope common sense will prevail. I hope people understand how serious a government shutdown is to our country, to our image internationally, to our ability to conduct business internationally, as well as our ability to provide the services to the people of this Nation who expect those services. We still have time. This is a democracy. Let the majority rule. I think we have the majority of Democrats and Republicans alike who want to bring this issue to conclusion, who know that we have a good compromise done right now that compromises the differences between what the Democrats would want and what the Republicans would want. That is how the process should work.

Yes, I am here--representing the people of Maryland, including a large number who work for the Federal Government and a large number who depend upon those who work for the Federal Government and a large number who depend upon the services of the Federal Government--to say let's get this done, not yield to the few on the Republican side in the House. Let's get this job done for the people of Maryland and for the people of this Nation.

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

Madam President, I will take 30 seconds and yield to my friend Senator Inhofe.

For the reasons we already said about public health or the protection of our Clean Air Act, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Rockefeller amendment.

Let me add one other point. The American renewable energy industry has written to us and told us that the uncertainty of a 2-year delay is more than 2 years. It causes American renewable energy companies to be at a disadvantage with foreign energy companies, costing Americans jobs. Uncertainty adds to job loss in America.

For the sake of the public health of Americans, for the sake of our economy, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rockefeller amendment.

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

Mr. President, I wish to spend a moment or two talking about how devastating it would be for our country and for the people of our country if, in fact, we have a government shutdown.

I represent Maryland, and there are a lot of Federal workers in Maryland. They are very concerned because it will affect them. A government shutdown will affect everyone in this country. It will affect people who depend upon their government being there to serve them.

If you are depending upon a timely IRS refund check and the government is shut down and you need that money and are counting on it--it is your money--you may find out, if the government is shut down, there is no one to talk to and that check will be delayed.

If you are a person who is entitled to Social Security disability payments and you have a case that is pending, there will not be people there to resolve that case and you will have to wait. That could also very well affect your ability to literally pay your bills.

If you are doing research at NIH--cutting-edge research--which depends upon the continuity of the work in order to discover the answers to many of the problems we face in health care, that will be disrupted if we have a shutdown of the government.

The bottom line is, everyone loses if we have a shutdown of our governmental body. The taxpayers lose. Study after study shows that a shutdown of the government will actually cost the taxpayers more money. It makes no sense at all. Yet there are some in the House who say: Look, bring on a shutdown. They are not negotiating in good faith. They are saying it is our way or the highway. Basically, they want to shut down the government.

We need to negotiate in good faith. It is not going to be what the Democrats or the Republicans want. That is how the system works. You have to negotiate in good faith. I know our leaders are doing that. I urge all of us to understand the consequences of a shutdown and make sure we take steps to negotiate in good faith and have a budget agreement completed by Friday of this week.

I want my colleagues to understand why people in my State should be very concerned about the budget that passed the House of Representatives--the Republican budget. It would hurt children

on Head Start. In Maryland, 1,795 children who are on Head Start would lose their ability to go to that program. You know how important that is. For students in Maryland, they would find that their Pell grants would be reduced by almost $700. Women would be hurt by the loss of essential preventive health services. Families would be at risk with the lack of enforcement of our regulatory bills that protect us on public health issues. The list goes on.

It has been estimated that 700,000 jobs would be lost if the House budget became real. That would jeopardize our recovery. As you know, we are just starting to see job growth. We certainly don't want to take counterproductive steps in that recovery.

As we pointed out many times, the budget the House sent over is concentrating on 12 percent of Federal spending. We need to broaden this discussion, and we all understand that. It starts with allowing the political system to work and for us to get together and reach an agreement for the budget that is already 6 months--we are talking about the last 6 month's budget.

In Maryland, if the House budget were to pass, Metro would lose $150 million. This is the Nation's transit system. People would find that if the transit system can't operate, the roads will be more congested and it will take a lot longer to commute.

My point is this: The House budget--the Republican budget--is not going to become law. It is not what the Republicans want or what the Democrats want. We have to come together, and we are doing that. But let's not allow a minority in the House to tell us we are not going to let the system work for the best interests of the American people.

I think, though, we should be very concerned about whether this is part of a plan with the Republicans, when we look at their budget for next year, the 2012 budget, which was released this week. There are disturbing signs as to what their intentions are. We saw it with the budget for this year and now we see that continued for their budget for next year. They literally want to turn the Medicare system into a voucher program, where seniors have to rely on private insurance companies. We tried that before Medicare. In the early 1960s, the number of seniors who could not get health care insurance was staggering. Why? Because private insurance companies are not interested in insuring people who make claims. The older you are, the more you will make claims on our health care system. If seniors are at the mercy of private insurance companies, it will be much more expensive for them, and they will not get adequate protection.

We should all be concerned about the budget that was brought out this week. The Medicaid system that protects our most vulnerable, our seniors, who rely, in large part, on the Medicare system to deal with long-term care and nursing care--the Republican budget would transfer that to the States with a block grant, making it unlikely to see the continuation of the program that is critically important, not just to people who are vulnerable, but if they have to rely on the use of emergency rooms to get care, it will be more expensive for all of us.

These short-term so-called budget savings will turn into long-term costs for our country. The Republican budget continues to do these domestic discretionary cuts--well beyond what we need as a nation to grow--taking, again, our most vulnerable, those who depend on government, making a college education more expensive and denying young people the opportunities they need.

Guess what is missing in the Republican budget. There is no effort to deal with the revenue problems of America. I say there is a better way to do this, and there are 64 Senators who have come together and said: Look, we have to deal with our national debt with a credible budget plan--a credible budget plan that starts with discretionary spending cuts, and we all agree to that. We have to reduce military spending and deal with mandatory spending, but we have to also deal with the revenue side. Thirty-two Democrats and 32 Republican Senators said that.

The Republican budget in the House doesn't take us down that path. It is not a credible plan for dealing with the budget deficit that can pass and be enacted and give confidence not only to the financial markets in America but around the world and tell the American people it puts their interests first.

I want my colleagues to understand we don't want to jeopardize the recovery. We want to get our budget into balance, and we have to get this year's budget behind us. We have to deal with that. President Obama is right when he said in the State of the Union Address that we have to beat our competition. We have to outeducate, outinnovate and outbuild them and we have to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We can do that now if we work together and deal with the budget we are currently in, which ends September 30 of this year, in a fiscally responsible way. Let's get this done and move on and work together for the sake of our Nation.

I am convinced that if we work together, we can have a responsible plan and we certainly should not allow a minority in the House to block a budget resolution for this year, causing the government shutdown. That is the worst case for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to continue to work together so we can keep the government operating, reduce the deficit, and allow America to grow and compete and meet the challenges of the future.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for her extraordinary work and patience. She gives us credit. We give her credit for patience in the manner this legislation has been considered.

This bill is very important not just to the small business community but to our economy. We are talking about providing the wherewithal for innovation in America. Small businesses will produce the largest amount of innovation in this country and the largest job growth. This bill gives them some degree of predictability on getting the types of resources so they can innovate.

I do applaud the Senator. I am proud to be part of the committee. This has been a very bipartisan bill. I thank her. I thank her for accommodating the amendment that she was helpful in getting passed initially, along with Senator Snowe, that increases the size of surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, which makes a difference for a small construction company getting government procurement. It is critically important. It has worked much more successfully than we thought when we first put the increase into effect. We actually had a lot more contracts than we thought when we originally suggested this.

I am pleased to tell the chairman that it has no scores as far as cost. There is no taxpayer cost involved. This is a win-win situation to help small businesses get construction work, adding to our economy and job growth.

I look forward to talking about this amendment tomorrow. Hopefully, we will be able to get a vote. I again thank the Senator for her attention.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this weekend I know that Marylanders will be taking advantage of Passport Day this Saturday, April 9. During these weekend hours at our passport acceptance facilities in Maryland, my constituents will have the ability to renew their passports or apply for a new passport, as we get ready for the summer travel season.

When Marylanders apply for and ultimately receive their passports, I want them to continue to have confidence that the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. It certifies

an individual's identity and U.S. citizenship, and allows the passport holder to travel in and out of the United States and to foreign countries. It allows the passport holder to obtain further identification documents, and to set up bank accounts.

The U.S. Government simply cannot allow U.S. passports to be issued in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. Unfortunately, hearings that I have chaired in the last Congress have convinced me that we have serious vulnerabilities in our passport issuance process that need to be closed quickly.

Nearly two years ago, on May 5, 2009, I chaired a Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled ``The Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud.'' During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light.

Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States.

A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, also revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud. A Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing that I chaired in July of 2010 revealed that the State Department issued five additional passports on the basis of fraudulent identity documents that had been submitted by undercover GAO agents.

As a result, today I am reintroducing the Passport Identity Verification Act, or PIVA. This legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Feinstein, Lieberman, and Kerry. It is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access relevant information contained in federal, state, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. My legislation would not lengthen the average amount of time it takes U.S. citizens to obtain passports. We have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

We already have much of the technology and the information to prevent such issuance of genuine U.S. passports based on fraudulent documents or information. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud, and strengthen the integrity of every American's passport.

Mr. President, this weekend I know that Marylanders will be taking advantage of Passport Day this Saturday, April 9. During these weekend hours at our passport acceptance facilities in Maryland, my constituents will have the ability to renew their passports or apply for a new passport, as we get ready for the summer travel season.

When Marylanders apply for and ultimately receive their passports, I want them to continue to have confidence that the U.S. passport is the gold standard for identification. It certifies

an individual's identity and U.S. citizenship, and allows the passport holder to travel in and out of the United States and to foreign countries. It allows the passport holder to obtain further identification documents, and to set up bank accounts.

The U.S. Government simply cannot allow U.S. passports to be issued in this country on the basis of fraudulent documents. There is too much at stake. Unfortunately, hearings that I have chaired in the last Congress have convinced me that we have serious vulnerabilities in our passport issuance process that need to be closed quickly.

Nearly two years ago, on May 5, 2009, I chaired a Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing entitled ``The Passport Issuance Process: Closing the Door to Fraud.'' During the hearing last year, we learned about a Government Accountability Office, GAO, undercover investigation that had been requested by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to test the effectiveness of the passport issuance process, and to determine whether malicious individuals such as terrorists, spies, or other criminals could use counterfeit documents to obtain a genuine U.S. passport. What we learned from GAO was that ``terrorists or criminals could steal an American citizen's identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to create fraudulent documents for that identity, and obtain a genuine U.S. passport.'' But that 2009 GAO report was not the first time that problems with the passport issuance process were identified. In 2005 and 2007, GAO also brought these issues to light.

Vulnerabilities in the passport issuance process are very serious because it can have a profound impact on the national security of the United States.

A new GAO undercover investigation that I requested, along with Senators Kyl, Feinstein, Lieberman and Collins, also revealed that while some improvements have been made by the State Department, the passport issuance process is still susceptible to fraud. A Judiciary Terrorism Subcommittee hearing that I chaired in July of 2010 revealed that the State Department issued five additional passports on the basis of fraudulent identity documents that had been submitted by undercover GAO agents.

As a result, today I am reintroducing the Passport Identity Verification Act, or PIVA. This legislation is co-sponsored by Senators Feinstein, Lieberman, and Kerry. It is a common-sense solution that will give the State Department the legal authorities that it needs to access relevant information contained in federal, state, and other databases that can be used to verify the identity of every passport applicant, and to detect passport fraud, without extending the time that the State Department takes to approve passports. The legislation also requires the State Department to promulgate regulations to limit access to this information, and to ensure that personnel involved in the passport issuance process only access this information for authorized purposes. These are very important privacy and security protections in this legislation.

The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to conduct a formal study examining whether biometric information and technology can be used to enhance the ability to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

I understand that the American people can become concerned when their travel plans, whether for leisure or business, are linked to their ability to obtain a passport in a timely fashion. My legislation would not lengthen the average amount of time it takes U.S. citizens to obtain passports. We have got to get this right, and it is not simply a question of process, techniques, and training. We need to make sure that the agencies that are responsible for processing passport application documents are concerned about national security as well as customer service, and we need to make sure they have the legal authorities, the resources, and the technology they need to verify the identity of a passport applicant and to detect passport fraud.

We already have much of the technology and the information to prevent such issuance of genuine U.S. passports based on fraudulent documents or information. The Passport Identity Verification Act will dramatically improve the State Department's ability to detect passport fraud, and strengthen the integrity of every American's passport.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Jimmie Reyna to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. I had recommended that Mr. Reyna be nominated.

Mr. Reyna comes to the Senate with 23 years of experience in international trade law. Mr. Reyna currently is a partner in the Washington, DC, office of Williams Mullen. Mr. Reyna directs the firm's Trade and Customs Practice Group, as well as the firm's Latin America Task Force, and has also served for several years on his firm's board of directors, where he currently serves as vice president.

In his practice, Mr. Reyna handles matters before the various federal agencies, and represents clients before the Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and foreign governmental, administrative, and judicial bodies. He also serves on the roster of dispute settlement panelists for trade disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism.

Mr. Reyna has also authored several articles and two books on international trade issues, and his third book on the subject is due to be published this spring. His experience in trade law would bring important expertise to the Federal circuit, a unique court with nationwide jurisdiction that deals with many trade law issues and yet currently lacks a trade specialist.

Mr. Reyna was admitted to the New Mexico Bar in 1979 and the District of Columbia bar in 1994. He received his J.D. from University of New Mexico School of Law and his BA from University of Rochester. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluated Mr. Reyna's nomination and rated him unanimously well qualified, the highest possible rating.

Mr. Reyna's personal history is compelling. Born in New Mexico to a modest family, his missionary parents instilled in him a belief that all people are equal, a principle he has exemplified in his work to ensure that all people are treated fairly in our legal system. After law school, he worked as a litigator at a firm in Albuquerque and later established his own practice dealing with domestic relations, civil rights, tort, and criminal defense matters. In his practice, he often represented clients pro bono, devoting a large portion of his time to providing advice and representing individuals who could not afford legal assistance.

A few years later, Mr. Reyna moved with his family to the Washington, DC metro area, where he built his well-regarded career in international trade.

Mr. Reyna has continually proven that he is an outstanding and civic- minded person. Mr. Reyna is a well-known national leader in U.S. Hispanic affairs. He has held various leadership positions in the Hispanic National Bar Association, HNBA, including national president, vice president of regional affairs, regional president, and chair of the International Law Committee. During his term as national president of HNBA, Mr. Reyna launched the association's first-ever community outreach program called ``The Promise in the Law,'' which was designed to instill trust and confidence in the U.S. legal system by the Hispanic communities. Mr. Reyna also created ``The HNBA Journal of Law and Policy,'' the HNBA's first law journal, which addresses policy and legal issues affecting the Hispanic community. Currently, he serves on the board of directors of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, an organization that includes the country's 29 largest leading Hispanic organizations.

Mr. Reyna is also a founder and a member of the board of directors of the U.S.-Mexico Law Institute. He has received multiple awards for his service to the Hispanic community, including the 2009 Ohtli Medal Award, Mexico's highest award for a non-Mexican citizen. Through his work, Mr. Reyna has strived to ensure that members of disadvantaged communities are informed about the law, that the legal community is prepared to handle the legal challenges facing the growing Latino community, and that the judiciary remains strongly independent, impartial, and accessible to all.

Mr. Reyna's civil service is not limited to his work for the Hispanic community. He has been recognized by the Court of International Trade for his extensive pro bono work before that court. He also serves on the board of directors of the Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children Foundation.

Mr. Reyna's nomination would also bring much-needed diversity to the Federal circuit. Throughout his career, Mr. Reyna has shown a strong commitment to diversity and racial equality, not only through his service to the Hispanic community, but also through his service on the ABA Presidential Commission on Diversity in the Legal Profession, and as chair of the Williams Mullen Diversity Committee. If Mr. Reyna is confirmed, he would be the first Latino to serve on the Federal circuit in its history. With the nomination of Mr. Reyna, the Senate has another opportunity to further increase the diversity of the Federal bench.

Because of his vast qualifications, Mr. Reyna's nomination has received support from various organizations and individuals, including the HNBA and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Additionally, seven former chairs of the American Bar Association Section on International Law wrote a letter of endorsement for Mr. Reyna, affirming that Mr. Reyna has ``the professional credentials, the experience and skills, the appropriate temperament, and the fair and sound judgment'' to serve on the Federal circuit.

And, last but certainly not least, Mr. Reyna is a resident of Silver Spring, MD, and a constituent of mine.

In conclusion I urge the Senate to confirm Mr. Reyna's nomination to be a U.S. circuit judge for court of appeals for the Federal circuit.

Mr. President, sometime today we are going to get back to the SBIR bill, the bill that deals with helping our small businesses with innovation and growth so we can create more jobs and continue to lead the world in innovation, so we can win that international competition the President talks about. We need to do that by outeducating and outinnovating and outbuilding our competitors. Part of that is helping our small business community with innovation. The bill that is on the floor--the authorization of the SBIR program--helps small, innovative companies in order to create jobs and help America grow.

I take this time, though, to urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments that may be offered that would take away from the Environmental Protection Agency their ability to enforce our Clean Air Act. I say that because I truly believe--I think most people believe; and it has been proven over history--we can have a clean environment and we can grow our economy. In fact, I think if we do not have a clean environment, it is going to be more difficult for us to grow our economy.

We need to do what is right for the people of this Nation as it relates to their public health. The Clean Air Act has been one of the most important bills to protect the public health of the people of this Nation.

Carbon emissions are pollution. They are polluting our environment. They are causing respiratory ailments. They are making it more difficult for people who have respiratory illness to be able to breathe. We have children with asthma who are directly affected by the quality of the air they breathe.

It is our responsibility to take care of our children. It is our responsibility to make sure they have clean air. The Clean Air Act has helped us deal with those needs. We want the enforcement of the Clean Air Act to be based upon science, not the political whims here in Washington. We want the scientists to tell us what we can do to protect our public health. That is what the Clean Air Act and its enforcement is about, and it is being done in a way that allows our economy to grow.

There are some here who say: Well, some of these amendments are a temporary holdback from what EPA can do to enforce our laws by putting a moratorium on enforcement. Well, we all know what happens with moratoriums. We do not know whether we will ever get beyond those short-term delays. We do not want to go down that path.

What do you do if you are a business and you are trying to do what is right with the investments of your company to comply with the Clean Air Act and now you are being told, well, maybe those rules will change? How do you make the necessary investments in your company without knowing the ground rules are the ground rules? Let's not go down that path. That would be the wrong way to go.

Let me give an example in my own State of Maryland where we have seen that a clean environment is good for our economy.

In 2007, the Maryland legislature passed the Healthy Air Act. Let me tell you something, Mr. President. Since the creation of that bill, it created thousands of jobs. It created more opportunity for the people of Maryland. Constellation Energy invested $1 billion in compliance with the 2007 Healthy Air Act, reducing its SO2, SOX emissions by 85 percent and mercury by 80 percent. We have seen in our State of Maryland that the Healthy Air Act created jobs and has provided healthier air for the people of Maryland.

Let me tell you something, air knows no boundary. We have helped our surrounding States. The problem is, the people of Maryland are downwind from other States we wish were making the same type of commitments we are making in Maryland.

Let's at least maintain the standards of the Clean Air Act. This is the wrong bill to consider this issue anyway. Remember, I started by saying we will be taking up the small business bill to help our small business communities with innovation--SBIR: innovation and research. That is the bill we are on. Yet my colleagues want to attach to this bill amendments that would restrict the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its responsibility on behalf of the public to protect our clean air.

Let me give you by way of example--we tried this. The EPA is the cop on the beat to make sure the polluters do not pollute our air. We at one time had a cop on the beat for the financial markets, and we sort of eased that up because we said we needed to do that for business. What happened is, we had a financial meltdown.

We do not want to go down the same path on protecting the public health of the people of this Nation by removing the cop on the beat. That would be the wrong thing to do. I urge my colleagues to reject those types of amendments.

Let me tell you something: The public gets this. Seven out of ten Americans want us to enforce our Clean Air Act against the polluters. Seven out of ten Americans do not want us to weaken the laws of this country that protect the public health of the people of America.

We cannot afford to turn the clock back on our clean air policies and we cannot turn the clock back on the health of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to reject each and every one of these amendments that may be offered that would restrict the enforcement of the Clean Air Act against the polluters of America.

Let's speak out for our children, let's speak out for clean air, let's speak out for our future, and let's speak out for our economic growth which very much depends upon a clean environment.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.