Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I wish to join grand master Gerald E. Piepiora and the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland in welcoming the 2014 Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, which will be convening in Baltimore from Sunday, February 15, to Tuesday, February 18. This annual meeting is the largest gathering of grand masters in the world and the first time they have come to Baltimore. This delegation of grand masters represents 2 million Freemasons from all 50 States; Washington, DC; Puerto Rico; the Provinces of Canada; and the United Mexican States. In addition, a delegation of grand masters representing Freemasons from around the world also will be attending the conference. Throughout their history, Freemasons--the oldest and largest fraternity in the world--have dedicated their lives to cultivating good moral character both within themselves and in their communities. The Masonic fraternity is dedicated to caring for those less fortunate and to giving back to the community, contributing well over three quarters of a billion dollars annually to philanthropic causes in North America alone. Maryland Masons have carried on this tradition since 1787 by serving their communities with local scholarship programs, student assistance, volunteerism, educational support, and other charitable activities. Maryland Masons make important contributions to the quality of life of Marylanders at every stage of life, including the Maryland Child Identification Program that provides free identification and protection against the problem of missing children; free childhood language disorder clinics; transportation to regional Shriners Hospitals for children with orthopedic conditions, burns, spinal cord injuries, and cleft lip and palate; and retirement housing and continuing care for Masons and their families. I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming this distinguished group of international guests to Maryland and in wishing the masons of Maryland continued success in their pursuit of fraternity, brotherly love, relief, and truth.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on Tuesday evening, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, made the point that America must be the land of opportunity for all. He acknowledged, quite frankly, that for many families in this country the American dream is just that, a dream. Many families have lost hope that their children or grandchildren will be able to achieve the American dream. President Obama made the point that if we all work together, the outlook for this country is strong and that we can make not only the American dream something people can continue to believe but it can become a reality for more and more American families. But he also expressed the reality of where we are. The facts indicate that intergenerational mobility, that is, for a child born into poverty, their ability to move up the economic ladder has not changed in the last several decades. The American dream has become just that for too many families. Let me point out some of the income disparity we have seen grow in the United States. Some of this is very understandable. It is understandable that people get paid differently. Some people work a lot harder, some people come up with an incredibly ingenious way of doing something, the American way of developing new technologies, people are willing to take greater risks than others. Yes, the reward will be greater. We do expect and we do appreciate, we do look up to people who can be very successful in our economic system. But what is not understandable is how we have seen a growth in the income disparity among Americans during good times and bad times. Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent in income in America saw their income go up 275 percent, whereas the three middle quintiles--this is what we usually consider to be the middle class, those from 20 percent to 80 percent--saw their income go up only 40 percent. This is in a period of economic growth in this country from 1979. To see your income go up only 40 percent, whereas the wealthiest are going up close to 300 percent, should be of concern to people of this country. As we all know, in 2007 we went through a recession. Since that recession, median income in this country has declined. It went down 31 percent during the recession. But for the wealthiest, it actually went up. It went up 31 percent. The median income went down for most Americans. We have a problem. During good times, we are seeing the income of the wealthiest get larger, in bad times we see wealthy people protected, whereas middle-income families are doing worse. We even have what is known as the birth lottery. If you are born into poverty, we know you have a hard time getting out of poverty today. If you are in certain communities, it is even much more difficult. So President Obama was right to concentrate on America as opportunity for all. How can we get a growing middle class in this country? What can we do to help everyone do better in our country? Many countries are doing much better than we are. This disparity strikes at the heart of who we are as a nation. We believe that if you work hard, you play according to the rules, you should be able to succeed in this country. For too many families, that is not the reality. What can we do to make a difference? I know there has been a lot of talk as to what we can do to help in that regard, what we can do to make it better. It is very important to do that for the values of our country. It is important for the families who are affected. But it is also important for our economy. So, yes, we need to increase opportunity for middle-income families so more people can live the American dream. We need to do that because that is what we stand for as a country. Those are our values. But we also need to do this for our economy. It is very interesting that the companies that are making money today are ready to invest in the growth of our economy. They need consumers. They need people who will buy the automobiles. They need people who will eat in the restaurants. They need people who will go on vacations. They need people who will buy the clothing in the stores. If they do not have the income to do it, they do not buy the products, our economy does not grow. So a growing middle class is critically important to our economy. What steps can we take? First, we have already taken one very important step with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act dealt with health care costs. We have seen a reduction in the rate of health care costs over the past couple of years. It is a major cost among American families. It has been growing and growing every year. We are now starting to see a slowdown in that. Why? Because we are dealing with health delivery. We are trying to make the health care system more efficient by looking at the total care of an individual rather than just looking at a specific episode. We are trying to reduce readmissions. We are dealing with healthy lifestyles. The Affordable Care Act rewards all of those issues. We make quality affordable insurance available to all Americans. Last year, nearly 2 million families had to go through bankruptcy in America because of health care costs. Last year it was estimated that 56 million American families struggled to pay their medical bills. So this is an issue we need to look at from the point of view of helping middle-income families. Alan Krueger, the economist, observed: We helped the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class by lowering the growth of health care costs, by preventing those with pre-existing conditions from being denied health insurance coverage, by creating exchanges for small businesses and lower income families to obtain health insurance at competitive rates, and by providing tax subsidies to small businesses and lower income workers to purchase insurance. The point Mr. Krueger was making is when we eliminate preexisting conditions, when we have health exchanges that allow individuals and small businesses to be able to get competitive rates, we are helping with middle-income growth in America. There is a lot more we need to do in addition to the health care problems we have in this country. The President mentioned during his State of the Union Address that Americans need a pay raise. I could not agree with him more. In 1968--that was 46 years ago--the minimum wage in this country was set at $1.60 per hour. If you adjust that for inflation, the minimum wage would be $10.77. The minimum wage in America is not $10.77, it is $7.25 per hour. The tipped employee minimum wage is $2.13. For a full-time worker at the minimum wage, $7.25 per hour wage, they would be making a little over $15,000 a year. You cannot support your family on $15,000 a year. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has done a study. There is not a single State in the Union where you can afford affordable housing. They defined that as a two-bedroom housing unit on the rental market. There is not a single State in the Nation where the $15,000-a- year income allows you to be able to afford that housing for your family. The American dream is on life support. We need to do more about that. One thing we can easily do in this Congress this year is raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. We also need to adjust it for inflation. What does that mean? We have only adjusted minimum wages maybe three times in the last 30-some years. We need to have the minimum wage keep up with inflation. That way we do not have to deal with abrupt increases. We will have gentle increases, which I think is better for our economy to start off with, but it also keeps the minimum wage at where we want to set it. It does not erode the year after we pass it. I think that makes sense. Let me dispel some of the myths about the minimum wage. I hear frequently: Well, we are only taking about teenagers or those in their early twenties, it is their first job, and it is not so serious. Let's look at the facts. The average age of a person earning minimum wage is 35. The median age is 31; 36 percent are over 40 years of age, 40 years of age or older; 56 percent are women--now only 56 percent of our workforce is women, but at minimum wage it is much more likely to be a woman than a man earning minimum wage; 28 percent of people who are earning the minimum wage have children. These are families trying to live on minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage will help to grow the middle class. It will help our economy. A $10.10 per hour minimum wage will generate about $34 billion in wages into our economy, $34 billion. Do you know what that means for the local businesses that are there? Do you know what that means for our economy? I know our economy is on the right path, but we have to help it along. We don't have enough jobs in America, and $35 billion will allow that local supermarket or that restaurant or that business owner to hire some more people, creating more jobs, helping our economy continue to grow. People who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. Today, with the current minimum wage, and even with the tax credits we have available, most individuals will live in poverty. That is unacceptable. At $10.10 per hour, we will be above the poverty line with the tax credits. That is what we should do. If we play according to the rules, we should be able to succeed; work 40 hours a week, we shouldn't have to live in poverty, not in the United States of America. Americans understand this. Polls have shown over and over that the overwhelming majority of Americans support a reasonable adjustment in the minimum wage. The Gallup poll found that 76 percent of Americans believe Congress should pass an increase in the minimum wage. President Obama has already taken action, and I applaud him for that. He is going to be signing an executive order. So those people who are Federal workers, from a contractor, Federal contract worker, someone who is getting money from the Federal Government and hires people, they are going to have to pay the minimum of a $10.10 minimum wage. We should do the same for all workers in this country, and we have it in our power to do it. There are a lot of other things the President mentioned. There are many other issues that I think we need to deal with for our agenda for a growing middle class. We clearly need to do a much better job in education. Education is the key to opportunity in America. It truly does open doors. We want to open up jobs, but we need people who are trained to be competitive for these jobs, particularly in a global economy. We need people trained. The President is right to say it starts at a very early age, pre-K. In the pre-K through 12, we have to insist on quality education. We have some great schools in America, but not all children have access to those good schools. We need to do a better job at educating our children in all fields--all fields. STEM is very important, but so are the humanities, so are the arts. We have to do a better job in our pre- K through 12. In higher education, we have to make it much more affordable. How do we expect to get a growing middle class when so many families are looking at tens of thousands of dollars of educational bills but they don't have any idea of how they are going to be able to pay for it--or our young workers saddled with these large debts affecting what career they are going to go into. We have to invest in quality education but also affordable higher education. That is why it is important for us to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, to demand that there be value given for the money that we invest in higher education but that we also make it affordable for American families. We need a modern infrastructure, and the President talked about that. Good jobs go to where there are good roads, good bridges, and good transit systems. Any morning today, try to get around this region; we know how important the transit system is in the Washington area. In my own State I know we have three major transit projects that we need to get funded so people don't spend hours in gridlock every morning. We need modern infrastructure in Maryland. In my own State of Maryland we have had tremendous problems with our water infrastructure. We have had roads flooded and homes damaged. We need to rebuild our water infrastructure and assure that people get clean, safe drinking water and that we take care of our water infrastructure in America. We need a modern energy grid in this country, which is critically important for economic growth. As President Obama said, good jobs go to where there is good infrastructure, and we need to do a better job with the infrastructure in America. We will have a chance again in this Congress. We haven't reauthorized the Surface Transportation Act. I hope a WRDA bill will get done with some of our WRDA projects. It is in conference today. Those are things we can do to help grow a middle class. We have to invest in research. I think one of the lines that received the biggest applause in the President's State of the Union Address when he said: We have to restore the cuts we made that we should never have made to the basic research, the National Institutes of Health-- headquartered in my State. They are located in every State, but they are headquartered in Maryland. The work they do is critically important to economic growth in our country. We have to invest in research. We need a progressive tax structure. More and more economists are telling us that to have a growing middle class, we need the revenue. We are going to pay our bills--we don't want the debt--but we have to do it in a way that is fair and rewards the middle class. Middle-class families don't take advantage of these tax breaks, these tax loopholes. At a minimum, we have to close those tax loopholes. I agree with the President in that regard. The President also mentioned in the State of the Union Address that for growing a middle class we want to make sure they have a job, we want to make sure they are trained for that job, we want to make sure they are rewarded for that job with fair wages, and we also want to make sure they have a secure retirement. We are not doing enough to make sure Americans have a secure retirement. We have to save more as a nation. The best way to save is through retirement savings. We can all come together to do more. This is not a partisan issue. We should be able to do this together. Let me end on a quote from a former President, Theodore Roosevelt. He said: ``This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.'' I think that was what President Obama was talking about when he said ``opportunity for all.'' That is what this Nation stands for. We have all the reason to believe we can accomplish this for the people of America, but we need to work together with the President to work to implement commonsense changes so we can have a growing middle class in America. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to offer my best wishes to a dear friend, the Honorable Aaron A. Baer, who will celebrate his 100th birthday on Saturday, January 25. Judge Baer, known to his family as the ``centennial cowboy,'' was born in Baltimore on January 25,1914, on High Street in what is now Little Italy. His father came to the United States from Russia, landing in Baltimore's Fell's Point in approximately 1890. His father became a tailor and worked in a factory making clothing. Judge Baer graduated from Forrest Park High School in 1933. He attended the University of Baltimore Law School and graduated in 1937. He supported himself and paid for law school by repairing and replacing tar roofs. Judge Baer passed the bar in 1937 and practiced real estate law for several years. He then became an assistant Baltimore City solicitor, an assistant attorney general, and a State senator for the 5th District in 1959. He was appointed to the Municipal Court of Baltimore City in 1961 by then-Governor J. Millard Tawes. In 1971 he was appointed to the newly created District Court of Maryland by then-Governor Marvin Mandel. He retired as a district court judge in 1981. Judge Baer married Judy Weinberg in 1941 and has two children. His first child is Susan Reichmister, who is married to Dr. Jerome Reichmister. They happen to be neighbors as well as friends. They have two children: Beth, who is married to Bart Casper, and Jodi, who is married to Craig Kessler. Judge Baer has four great-grandchildren: Nicole, Sloane, Mitchell, and Blair. His second child is the Honorable Barbara Baer Waxman, who is administrative judge of the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. She is married to Dr. Carl. Waxman. No list of family members would be complete without mentioning Judge Baer's ``grand-dog,'' Shayna Waxman. Judge Baer and his beloved wife Judy were married for 66 years before she passed away shortly after their 66th wedding anniversary in 2007. My father Meyer, whose parents were also Russian immigrants, also served on the bench. He and Judge Baer were close friends, which is how I came to know Judge Baer. It has been a great privilege to know Judge Baer, to receive his counsel, and to count him not just as a close friend of my father's but as my close friend too, and not just Judge Baer but the rest of his wonderful family, whom I have just mentioned. Judge Baer has lived an exemplary life devoted to public service, the community, and to his family. Judge Baer lives independently and spends each winter in Florida. He was an avid horseback rider for over 60 years--hence, the cowboy nickname--and only stopped riding this past July. It is an understatement to say that Judge Baer has lived an extraordinary life. He grew up without an indoor bathroom or electric lights. He drove one of the first cars and owned one of the first motorcycles, the venerable Indian Scout. Now, he uses a computer and a cell phone. I am sure all of my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in congratulating Judge Baer on his 100th birthday and sending along our best wishes as he begins his second century.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. If I understand correctly, we are on the nomination of judge Robert Wilkins?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Judge Robert L. Wilkins to be a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I was pleased to introduce Judge Wilkins to the Judiciary Committee in September and the committee favorably reported his nomination in October. He was filibustered in November, and I am pleased we are reconsidering his nomination today. Judge Wilkins currently serves as a Federal District Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. So he is a district court judge today, confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment, and now has been nominated by President Obama to fill the circuit court, which is the court above the judicial court for the District of Columbia. I am happy we are going to get a chance to vote on the merits of this nominee. Judge Wilkins is a native of Muncie, IN. He obtained his B.S. cum laude in chemical engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and his J.D. from Harvard Law School. Following graduation, Judge Wilkins clerked for The Honorable Earl B. Gilliam of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He later served as a staff attorney and as head of special litigation for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. He then practiced as a partner with Venable, specializing in white-collar defense, intellectual property, and complex civil litigation before taking the bench as a district court judge. Besides Judge Wilkins' professional accomplishments as an attorney, he has also played a leading role as a plaintiff in a landmark civil rights case in Maryland involving racial profiling. During his tenure with the Public Defender Service and in private practice, Judge Wilkins served as the lead plaintiff in Wilkins, et al. v. State of Maryland, a civil rights lawsuit against the Maryland State Police for a traffic stop they conducted on Judge Wilkins and his family. Let me give some of the circumstances of what Judge Wilkins went through. In 1992 Judge Wilkins attended his grandfather's funeral in Chicago and then began an all-night trip home with three of his family members. He was due back in Washington, DC, that coming morning for a court appearance as a public defender. A Maryland State Police trooper pulled over their car. The police detained the family and deployed a drug- sniffing dog to check the car, after Judge Wilkins declined to consent to a search of the car, stating there was no reasonable suspicion. The family stood in the rain during the search, which did not uncover any contraband. Judge Wilkins later wrote: It is hard to describe the frustration and pain you feel when people pressure you to be guilty for no good reason, and you know that you are innocent. . . . [W]e fit the profile to a tee. We were traveling on I-68, early in the morning, in a Virginia rental car. And, my cousin and I, the front seat passengers, were young black males. The only problem was that we were not dangerous, armed drug traffickers. It should not be suspicious to travel on the highway early in the morning in a Virginia rental car. And it should not be suspicious to be black. After the traffic stop, Judge Wilkins began reviewing Maryland State Police data and noticed that while a majority of those searched on I-95 were Black, Blacks made up only a minority of the drivers traveling on the highway. Judge Wilkins filed a civil rights lawsuit which resulted in two landmark settlements that were the first to require systematic compilation and publication by a police agency of data for all highway drug and weapons searches, including data recording the race of the motorist involved, the justification of the search and the outcome of the search. The settlements also required the State Police to hire an independent consultant, install video cameras in their vehicles, conduct internal investigations of all citizen complaints of racial profiling, and provide the Maryland NAACP with quarterly reports containing detailed information on the number, nature, location, and disposition of racial profiling complaints. These settlements inspired a June 1999 Executive order by President Clinton, congressional hearings, and legislation that has been enacted in over half of the 50 States. This was a landmark case, and the settlement provided the wherewithal for many States to change their practices on traffic stops and how traffic stops would be conducted. It was an important action Judge Wilkins took as a private citizen in order to advance the rights of all people. I applaud him for that courage, not only to stand for what was right for him but also to be active in changing those practices around the country. As my colleagues know, I have introduced S. 1038, the End Racial Profiling Act--ERPA--which would codify many of the practices now used by the Maryland State Police to root out the use of racial profiling by law enforcement. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ending the use of racial profiling last year, and I am hopeful that with the broader discussion on racial profiling generated by the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, we can come together and move forward on this legislation. Judge Wilkins played a key role in the passage of the Federal statute establishing the National Museum of African American History and Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission, and he served as the chairman of the Site and Building Committee of that Presidential Commission. The work of the Presidential Commission led to the passage of Public Law 108-184, which authorized the creation of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. This museum will be the newest addition to the Smithsonian and is scheduled to open in 2015 between the National Museum of American History and the Washington Monument on the National Mall. I mention that because Judge Wilkins has been involved in our community. He is not only an outstanding jurist, he is a person who has stood for basic rights. He has taken action where things were wronged against him, and he has been very active in our community. He also continues his pro bono work to this day. He currently serves as the court liaison to the Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services of the Judicial Conference of the DC Circuit. He is committed to public service and equal justice. As a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia since 2011, Judge Wilkins has presided over hundreds of civil and criminal cases, including both jury and bench trials. Judge Wilkins already sits on a Federal bench which hears an unusual number of cases of national importance to the Federal Government, including complex election law, voting rights, environmental, securities, and administrative law cases. Indeed, Judge Wilkins has been nominated for the appellate court that would directly hear appeals from the court on which he currently sits. He understands the responsibilities of the court that he has been nominated to by President Obama. The American Bar Association gave Judge Wilkins a rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' to serve as a Federal appellate judge, which is the highest possible rating from the nonpartisan peer review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is also referred to as the Nation's second highest court. The Supreme Court only accepts a handful of cases each year, so the DC Circuit often has the last word and proclaims the final law of the land in a range of critical areas of the law because many of these cases are brought to the DC Circuit. This court handles unusually complex cases in the area of administrative law, including revealing decisions and rulemaking of many Federal agencies in policy areas, such as environment, labor, and financial regulations. Nationally, only about 15 percent of the appeals are administrative in nature--15 percent. That is the national number. In the DC Circuit, that figure is 43 percent. They have a much larger caseload of complex cases. The court also hears a variety of sensitive terrorism cases involving complicated issues, such as enemy combatants and detention policies. Let me quote from former Chief Judge Henry Edwards, who said: [R]eview of large, multiparty, difficult administrative appeals is the staple of judicial work in the DC Circuit. This alone distinguishes the work of the DC Circuit from the work of other circuits. It also explains why it is impossible to compare the work of the DC Circuit with other circuits by simply referring to raw data on case filings. I mention that because there have been some here who say ``the workload of the court.'' The workload of the court requires us to fill this vacancy. Chief Justice Roberts noted that ``about two-thirds of the cases before the DC Circuit involved the Federal Government in some civil capacity, while that figure is less than twenty-five percent nationwide.'' He also described the ``D.C. Circuit's unique character, as a court with special responsibility to review legal challenges to the conduct of the national government.'' He should know. Justice Roberts came from that circuit court. We have a person who is eminently qualified for this position, and that is Judge Wilkins. We have a need to fill this vacancy. The Senate should carry out its responsibility, and we are going to have that chance very shortly. Let me remind my colleagues that the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Wilkins in 2010 for his current position, and he has a distinguished lifelong record of public service. I am pleased that we have moved forward to get an up-or-down vote on this nomination. I ask the Senate and my colleagues to support confirmation of this eminently qualified judge.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Situation in Sudan.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have taken the floor of the Senate--and when I was a Member of the House, the floor of the House--to talk about circumstances that are occurring somewhere in the world where people are being killed, displaced; people are being uprooted simply because of their ethnicity. Ethnic cleansing has occurred around the world. I have taken the opportunity to put a spotlight on it in an effort to say that the civilized world needs to bring an end to those types of crimes against humanity. I have used the opportunity as a member of the Helsinki Commission, and now as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, to point out what America's priority needs to be, and that is to be a leader in the world to prevent ethnic cleansing. Many of us believed, after World War II, that the world would never again allow circumstances wherein people were killed simply because of the ethnic community to which they belong. I have spoken about Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Syria, and now we see the same thing happening again in South Sudan. I just came from a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was convened to discuss the crisis in South Sudan with two witnesses: the Honorable Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs, and the Honorable Nancy E. Lindborg, Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance. These two witnesses were giving an update to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as to the circumstances in South Sudan and what we can do to try to bring about a resolution. I rise today to discuss the deteriorating circumstances in South Sudan. As some of my colleagues may know, ongoing political tensions between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and forces loyal to the former Vice President Riek Machar, coupled with preexisting ethnic tensions, erupted in violence the night of December 15. I join the President and Secretary Kerry in calling for an immediate end to the violence in South Sudan. Currently, it is estimated that nearly 200,000 people have been internally displaced as a result of the conflict, with another 32,000 having fled to neighboring States. The U.N. estimates that thousands of Sudanese people have been killed since December 15. Let me just remind my colleagues that three years ago today the people of South Sudan started a voting process that later that year led to their independence as the youngest new country in the world. Our U.S. Ambassador, Susan Page, has remained in Juba, along with a security detail and minimum key personnel. I thank her; it is very courageous of her to remain in South Sudan so we have our leadership on the ground to try to help the people. I applaud her bravery and sacrifice and those who are with her. The worsening violence has spurred a humanitarian crisis. The President has nominated Ambassador Booth to be our ambassador to that region to try to get a peace process started. He is currently in Ethiopia trying to get the international community to respond to a political solution to South Sudan. The international community has responded rapidly, including by working to significantly expand the size of the U.N. mission in South Sudan, but since the evacuation of foreign aid workers, most humanitarian agencies and the international NGOs are heavily reliant on brave South Sudanese staff who put their lives at risk to help their people. These are large numbers for the country of Sudan--the number of people displaced and the number of people killed. Let me share with my colleagues one of many examples of the crisis and how it has affected people in that region. I recently learned that at the onset of the December clashes, one local staff person from an American NGO was rounded up, along with seven members of his family, and taken to a police station in Juba. He ultimately escaped to the U.N. compound, but his family was killed, along with more than 200 others. He is from the Nuer ethnic group, which now lives in fear of ethnic targeting by members of the country's security forces from another ethnic group, the Dinka. Media reports also suggest that individuals in uniforms have entered the U.N. bases in several locations and forcibly removed civilians taking shelter there. On December 21, two U.N. peacekeepers were killed after a group attacked a U.N. peacekeeping base that was sheltering 20 civilians. There is no safe harbor today in South Sudan. The U.N.'s base can be overrun, and people killed because of their ethnicity. The international community must respond. I remain extremely concerned at the reports out of South Sudan, all of which suggest serious crimes against humanity are occurring in the country. The world cannot stand by and bear witness to another ethnic cleansing as we have seen in so many other places around the world. We must do all we can to ensure a peaceful resolution of the crisis and accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity in South Sudan. Our first priority is to get peace on the ground, to stop the killings, so people can live in peace. We need to work with the international community so humanitarian aid can get to the people who need it--and that is very challenging considering that international NGOs cannot operate today in South Sudan--and we must hold accountable those who have committed crimes against humanity. We have said it over and over, but unless we hold accountable those who have perpetrated these atrocities, we will see it again and again. U.S. leadership is critically important to make sure that we document what has taken place and that we bring to justice those who are responsible for the crimes that have been committed. There is no question that a solution to the crisis in South Sudan must be political and not military. We understand that. South Sudan again is at a crossroads, and after coming so far, it must choose to renounce violence immediately and pursue a path of peaceful reconciliation. I am encouraged that President Kiir and former President Machar have sent negotiators to Ethiopia to participate in mediation talks. While these talks are a good first step, in the interim the violence must end, and both sides must be committed to negotiating in good faith. It is my hope these talks can bring about the bright future so many South Sudanese aspire for. The people of South Sudan deserve to understand the true meaning of safety and security, of peace, and prosperity. The United States stands with the people of South Sudan through these difficult times. We must pledge to continue to support those who seek peace, democracy, human rights, and justice for all of the citizens of the world's newest nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, staff turnover is part of life in the Senate, just as it is in any other institution. But some departures are particularly bittersweet. Today is the last day Helen Eleanor Freeman will be working in my office; she is retiring after more than 23 years of faithful--and joyful service--to me and to former Senator Paul Sarbanes, to the Senate, and to the people of Maryland. Her name is Helen Eleanor Freeman, but throughout the Senate and beyond Capitol Hill, everyone knows her as Nellie. She is an avid volleyball player and her recreational activity led, through another player, to her first job in the Senate, with Senator Sarbanes, in 1989. When Senator Sarbanes retired and I was elected to replace him, he was adamant that I must hire Nellie as I filled out my Senate staff. He told me, ``There is no one quite like Nellie,'' and over the past 7 years I have been fortunate to have Nellie on my staff, I certainly have come to agree with that assessment. Nellie is unique. She is the ``glue'' that holds our office together. While I am happy for her, I am sad she will be leaving the office and I know the rest of my staff shares that assessment. Nellie is an avid fan of the local teams, especially the Baltimore Orioles. So I will use a sports analogy from baseball. Nellie is like the super utility infielder--the person who can play any position well, the consummate team player. Name just about any task or function in the office, and Nellie has performed it--manning the phones, sorting and responding to constituent correspondence, helping to select, train, and supervise the interns--you name it and Nellie has done it. So there are the official duties and there are the unofficial duties. With regard to the unofficial duties, Nellie has been the go-to person when it comes to organizing office parties to celebrate birthdays, afterhours social events, staff book clubs, and so forth. That is the ``glue'' I was talking about a moment ago. The Senate can be a difficult place in which to work, both for Senators and staff. Nellie has played a critical role in helping my staff feel more like a welcoming family and that redounds not only to my benefit, but to the benefit of the Senate. Nellie is unfailingly calm, courteous, solicitous, kind, and happy. Her personality shines through and her cheerfulness is infectious, much appreciated, and an example for all of us. Nellie makes friends with everyone: constituents, colleagues, other Senate staff, Senators. She makes it easier and more pleasant for everyone to work here. That is no small accomplishment. Nellie is retiring today, but she is far from having a ``retiring'' personality so I know she will remain as busy and engaged as ever. She has volleyball and book clubs and volunteer activities and the Orioles. During the season, I didn't need to read the sports page to determine whether the Orioles had won the night before. If they had won, Nellie would be at work in the morning resplendent in black and orange attire. Most of all, Nellie has her beloved husband Bob Ham and the rest of her large family--her parents Bob and Molly Freeman; her siblings David, Mary, Emily, and Teddy; in-laws Jessica, Andy, and Nadia; and her nieces and nephews Rachel, Zach, Francesca, Koby, Saul, Ben, Molly, and Amelie and most of them live in the area. It is a big, raucous family filled with the same love and good cheer Nellie exudes. So to Nellie Freeman on the occasion of her retirement after more than 23 years of serving the people of Maryland and all Americans, thank you for your exemplary service and, above all, thank you for your friendship. Go O's!

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first comment about the National Defense Authorization Act. It is an important bill for us to pass, and I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe for the manner in which they worked on this legislation, bringing it together in the committee. It was a bipartisan bill. As it came to the floor it maintained that focus on helping our troops and helping preserve our national security. As we were starting to consider amendments, I think some cooperation was there. Unfortunately, we lost track of being able to consider amendments in a somewhat normal course. But the bill before us represents a bipartisan effort to make sure we provide the men and women who are defending our Nation the tools they need in order to carry out their mission, and we give them the support they deserve for serving their country. So this bill is a critically important bill, and I am glad that with the earlier vote, we are on track to send this to the President for his signature before the end of the year. It is very important. The bill provides many important provisions for the health care of our troops, many important provisions for their compensation, and it is important we get that done before January 1. The bill also provides the tools they need and the direction they need in terms of foreign policy in our military. I wish to thank the committee. Several of the suggestions I made during the committee process were incorporated in the bill that came to the floor. I have the honor of chairing the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and serving with the distinguished Presiding Officer who also serves on that subcommittee. In that capacity we worked with the committee to deal with some of the issues in that region, provisions dealing with the health care of our military personnel and many of the other issues. I am glad to see the committee did incorporate some of the concerns that had been expressed. Two specific amendments I had noted during the amendment process have been incorporated in the bill that is before us. One deals with health care and the other deals with parity between our civilian workforce for the Department of Defense and our contract workforce. I appreciate that those two amendments have been incorporated into the bill we have before us. Similar to many of my colleagues who have come to the floor, I am disappointed. On any bill that comes forward that is a bipartisan bill there are compromises and there will always be disappointments about not being exactly everything you want it to be. That is understandable. What is very disappointing is that we didn't have a chance to offer many amendments that are not controversial. The only way an amendment could get on after it came through the committee was through a clearing process, and I think there are many other amendments that could have gotten into this bill that would have been important, but I will look for other opportunities. I had three amendments that I will mention now that I will look for other opportunities to advance. One comes directly out of the subcommittee I chair, and that deals with maritime security issues in the China seas. That is a powder keg, where China most recently took steps in regard to airspace that only made that situation even more tense. The maintaining of maritime security is critically important to the United States. It is the major shipping lane for commerce not only in that region but globally, and it is an area that could bring about unfortunate conflicts between many countries in that region which could mushroom into active situations. So maritime security is a very important issue, and the United States has taken a very active position on that to say: Look. These matters have to be talked about directly by the countries involved in a peaceful manner, not in an intimidating manner. The amendment I offered would have furthered the Senate in supporting that position. I was also disappointed not to be able to offer an amendment which dealt with the accountability particularly of Assad in Syria but also of those who have committed war crimes in Syria. The Presiding Officer knows of the testimony we have had in regard to the gross violation of human rights by government officials in Syria and the numbers of people who have been killed and have suffered as a result. The War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague should have the ability to deal with these types of issues, and the amendment I offered asked that the United States work for full accountability for those who have violated international standards in regard to war crimes. A third amendment I had offered that did not get in because of reasons I just mentioned was an effort that many are working on to form a partnership between the United States and Vietnam in regard to education programs--higher education. We have a way to do that. Senator McCain was very helpful to me in trying to advance this, and we will look for another opportunity to get that done because I think it is critically important. Many of us understand we have to improve the relationship between the United States and Vietnam, but Vietnam needs to deal with its human rights violations. It needs to deal with its good governance. One way we can help this is by dealing with institutions that promote democracy, and that is, of course, higher education. So while I am looking forward, with regard to all those areas, to finding other vehicles where we can deal with the issues we were not able to deal with through the amendment process, I would ask our colleagues to get this bill to the President so he can sign it before the end of this year. Thanking Elise Mellinger Mr. President, I would also like to make a few comments about Elise Mellinger. As I mentioned earlier, Elise is a Pearson Foreign Service officer fellow. Let me explain what that means. She is an experienced member of the Department of State's Foreign Service. She served in India, Indonesia, and Singapore. She is a person who has served our country for many years, and she is a career diplomat at the State Department. For the past year, she has been assigned to my Senate office and has acted as a valuable member of my staff. That helps our career diplomats understand the congressional process better, but it also gives us the opportunity to have an experienced individual who truly understands the workings of diplomacy to be in our offices and help us carry out our responsibilities. In Elise's case, that was particularly helpful to me because at the beginning of this year I took on the new responsibility as the chair of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee. Throughout my career in Congress, I have spent a lot of time in Europe. I have chaired the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and I have traveled extensively to Europe, but it was a new venture for me to chair the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee. Elise Mellinger brought me the expertise so we could--the Senate and the Committee on Senate Foreign Relations--carry out our responsibility in regard to congressional oversight and initiatives in regard to that region of the world. As a result of her hard work, we were able to have numerous hearings in 2013 on the rebalance to the Asia initiative President Obama brought forward, and to talk about many of the issues in that region of the world, from the maritime security issues I have already talked about to environmental issues, to dealing with North Korea, a huge problem with not only their nuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, which is unacceptable, but the human rights violations in that country and how the people are being treated as far as economic growth, and the list goes on and on. Vietnam is a major country of interest. We have been able to be involved in that. We had a hearing on the typhoon in the Philippines that Elise Mellinger was critically important in helping us put together in a matter of days so we could become knowledgeable as to what was happening with one of our allies in that region--the Philippines--and what we could do and what the international community and the private sector could do in order to help the people of the Philippines. I traveled to that region, and Elise Mellinger was extremely important in preparing me for that trip. So I just wanted to share with my colleagues this program we have, where we have executive employees, career diplomats who come and work in our offices so we can work together and advance foreign policy in the United States. There should not be a difference between the executive and legislative branches in regard to our objective with foreign policy. Of course, we have oversight; of course, we have separation of powers; and for the entire year Elise Mellinger was in my office she was a 100-percent loyal person among our staff to carry out that responsibility. As I said to her earlier, I hope it does not affect her career when she goes back to the State Department, and I know it will not. I was very fortunate, indeed the Senate and I believe the American people were very fortunate, that Elise spent the year in service to her country through the Senate. She will be leaving very shortly, at the end of this month. So I wish to thank her, her family, her husband, Elliott Wu and her daughter, Eitana Wu for sharing Elise Mellinger with us. We wish her well. We are going to miss her. She is going on to return to the Canadian desk within the State Department before she accepts her next mission that will most likely be outside the United States. On behalf of all my colleagues in the Senate, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to Elise Mellinger. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elise Mellinger, a State Department Foreign Service officer currently serving as a Pearson fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of Senate consideration of H.R. 3304, the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Department of the Interior and Department of Energy Nominations.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 4 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. 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 December 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 2 p.m., to hold a African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Responding to the Humanitarian, Security and Governance Crisis in the Central Africa Republic.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the Rights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses?''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Small Businesses and Promoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the budget agreement that was negotiated by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan and the work they did, but I first wish to relate to my colleagues conversations I had with numerous Marylanders over this past weekend-- people I didn't know who came up to me and said how pleased they were that Congress was on the verge of getting something done--something that will make a difference in our budget over the next 2 years. They were pleased that Democrats and Republicans were actually able to reach a compromise and that we were actually able to get our business done in some regular order. They were hopeful that it would not only make a difference in the budget of our Nation this year and next, but that it was a sign that Democrats and Republicans were prepared to work together to do the people's business. They were pleased this was truly bipartisan--a real compromise--something we haven't seen enough of in this Congress. The American people understand that the Congress is controlled--the House by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. They understand that. What they do not understand is how we have not been able to get together and compromise on our differences in order to move forward on the important issues of our time. They are very encouraged by this action. So I intend to support the final vote on the budget agreement, and I hope my colleagues will support this agreement. It provides the framework for appropriations bills for the next 2 years without sequestration. That is regular order. The appropriations committees can now meet and decide the policy of our country through the appropriations bills as to where we believe priorities should be on Federal resources. It allows us to operate, hopefully, without a continuing resolution. The number of continuing resolutions that we have passed indicate a failure because when we pass a continuing resolution, we do not adopt the priorities for the current time. Instead, we just freeze in prior years' priorities. We now have the opportunity to enact priorities that are important today, recognizing that some of the past spending is not necessary and there are other areas that we need now to adopt, considering the changes in our own communities and considering the international changes. It allows us to operate without the fear of a government shutdown. Before I said a fear of a government shutdown because we thought we would not see a government shutdown, but as we know, in October we saw a government shutdown, and we saw people who were hurt, and we saw our economy that was hurt as a result of that shutdown. Now this budget agreement gives us the opportunity to use regular order so we can pass appropriations bills or an omnibus bill that sets current priorities. It allows us to do that without the fear of closing government, which is inefficient, costly, and harms our economy and people. The framework that was adopted in this budget agreement allows us to protect our Nation's seniors, disabled children, and the disadvantaged. The resources can be made available to deal with our most vulnerable to allow us to move forward as a nation, and it shows we can work together. So I strongly support this budget agreement. I do so but I want to express my disappointments. I am sure that every Member of the Senate will have disappointments. But I am concerned about what is included in this budget agreement and what is not included, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about it. I am disappointed that this is a 2-year agreement, that it does not completely remove sequestration. I think all of us would acknowledge that sequestration is something we do not want to see in effect because it is mindless across-the-board cuts. It does not set priorities. We are responsible to set priorities. If you ran into a problem with your own home budget in your family, if you lost some income, you would not cut every expenditure item identically. You would make decisions. You would make sure your family had a roof over them. You would make sure they had food on the table. Maybe you would postpone a weekend trip. You do not treat every expenditure the same. Sequestration treats every expenditure the same. The good news in this budget agreement--the good news--we do not worry about that for the next 2 years. The bad news: It returns after 2 years. I know Senator Murray has worked very hard to get rid of sequestration. I know she is going to continue to work on that as the chair of the Budget Committee and, as I said earlier, I applaud her greatly for being able to reach an agreement with the Republicans, particularly in the House. But I would hope we could get rid of sequestration once and for all. Unfortunately, this budget agreement does not do it. It is for only 2 years. I would have liked to see a long-term budget agreement. On that, I would like to see us enact a long-term budget agreement. We talk frequently about the fact that one of the most damaging parts to our inaction is uncertainty. When businesses have to make decisions and individuals have to make decisions, the uncertainty of our Federal budget causes them harm, extra costs, anxiety. We need a long-term budget agreement, the so-called grand bargain. Yes, we will get an agreement for these 2 years, but it does not take us beyond that. We all understand we need a responsible budget, one that deals with the investments that are important for job growth, but also reduces the budget deficit. I know Chairman Murray has mentioned this frequently, but let me just repeat this. During the past 2 years, we have reduced the deficit by $2.8 trillion. We have done a good job in reining in the Federal deficit. That is over the period of fiscal years 2014 to 2023, and that is before sequestration. So when you go back to Simpson-Bowles and the amount of deficit reduction we were trying to get, we are about three-fourths of the way there in reducing the deficit. Yes, we have to do more. We have to continue to reduce the deficit. But let us acknowledge that we have done a pretty good job in reining in the Federal deficit, and I applaud the Chair of the Budget Committee for her leadership in that regard. We also must allow for critical investment for job growth. We are in a global economy today. We have to invest in modernization. We need new investments in energy in this country. We need transportation investments, not just in roads and bridges, but in transit systems. We need to invest in education. Education is the great equalizer in America. We are in a global competition. We know we are behind in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and math. We have passed legislation to try to catch up. We have to fund those initiatives. The Federal Government has to be an active partner in education. I can mention many agencies, but I always like to mention the National Institutes of Health, which happens to be headquartered in my State of Maryland. It is very important to New Jersey, the Presiding Officer's State, and very important to every part of our country. Why? Because they do the basic research which is the building block for the type of technology growth which is critically important in America. We have the best trained people here in America. We need to invest in the basic research so we can continue to lead the world. Yes, the budget for NIH has not been as strong as it needs to be. We have to invest more money in that. There are many reasons we need a long-term budget agreement. We need it for predictability, so we do not govern from one manufactured crisis to another manufactured crisis. But we also need it so we can invest in critical investments for job growth in America. That is another reason why I hope we are able to build on this 2-year agreement for a longer-term budget agreement. We also need to protect the safety nets as we do that. We need a balance here, and those who are most vulnerable need to be assured their government is on their side to help them, whether they are our seniors, whether they are people with disabilities, whether it is young people who need an opportunity to be able to take advantage of the opportunities in America. We need to enhance the protection of our environment for future generations and have an energy policy that makes sense not only for America's security and environment but also for our economy. So a balanced agreement for a long-term budget, which is not in this agreement, would give us that predictability, would give us that ability to move forward. To do that we need to deal with mandatory spending. This budget agreement deals with discretionary spending. It does not deal with mandatory spending. We have taken steps to move in this direction. The passage of the Affordable Care Act puts in place a manner in which we can deal with health care costs, by reducing the growth rate of health care expenditures, by dealing with the readmissions to hospitals, by managing complicated illnesses, duplicative tests, getting people out of the emergency room into our clinics and into preventive care, having seniors take advantage of preventive health care because they do not have to pay a copayment that they could not afford. These are ways we improve what we call the delivery system of health care in America, where you bring down the costs of health care. That is the best way to bring down the mandatory spending accounts in Medicare and Medicaid--reduce health care costs. We need to do more of that. We need to reduce the cost of our mandatory spending in this country. We could have done more, and this budget agreement did not deal with that. Then there is the issue of revenue. I am going to talk about revenue because I was proud to be part of the Congress that balanced the Federal budget when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. Do you know what we did back then? We brought in more revenue, we reduced spending, and we balanced the budget. What happened? Our economy took off. We were not only growing jobs, we were growing good-paying jobs, and the standard of living for all Americans went up. We have to get back to that. We are spending too much today, and we do not have enough revenue. Yes, this agreement takes care of reducing some spending, but not all, and does virtually nothing about revenues. We have to get back to that. We can bring in the revenue necessary to balance the Federal budget by reforming our Tax Code. There has been some great work done in the Senate Finance Committee I am privileged to serve on--Democrats and Republicans taking a look at our Code to see ways we can make more sense out of our Tax Code. We can do things about it. Let me just remind my colleagues that we spend more money in the Tax Code than we do through all the appropriations bills. We spend more in our Tax Code. Over $1 trillion a year is spent in our Tax Code. These are tax breaks that go to some but not all taxpayers. So there is no need to raise rates. All we need to do is close loopholes and be more critical of how we spend our money in the Tax Code, as we do on the appropriations side. Every dollar we spend on the appropriations side is scrutinized all the time. We need to do the same on the tax side. Quite frankly, Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch have worked out a way that the members of the Finance Committee can take a look at some of those. I think we can reach some agreements on areas of the Tax Code that are not high priorities that can reduce the revenue hemorrhaging we have. Put another way, if we eliminated all the tax breaks that are in the Tax Code, our rates could be one-half of what they are today--one-half of what they are today. So we not only can bring in the revenue necessary to balance our Federal budget and allow for the types of investments that are important for job growth, we can actually reduce the rates for a large number of Americans. Unfortunately, that is not in this budget agreement. To me, that is a disappointment, that we are not dealing with the balance that is necessary for a long-term budget agreement. Then there is one other area I want to talk about, and it is not going to be a surprise to my colleagues--a couple of areas I want to talk about, one of which is the Federal workforce. This agreement provides for a 1.3-percent increase in retirement contributions for new hires under Federal service. That is on top of an increase that was just done a year ago on the extension of the payroll tax, where we increased the retirement contributions for new hires. We also, in this budget agreement, have a reduction in the COLA increases for military retirees. I think that is regrettable. I do not believe that should have been in this budget agreement. Our civilian workforce has already contributed. When you add up what will be done by retirement contributions, that is going to be over $20 billion. We have had 3 years of a pay freeze. We have a way in our law where we make adjustments to our civilian workforce pay each year that reflects not the cost of living, something less than the cost of living. Our Federal workforce has seen a freeze. They have not gotten that for the last 3 years. That is close to $100 billion in contribution to the deficit. They have already done that. So they have contributed already about $120 billion-plus, and that does not include--does not include--the fact that many of our Federal workforce have had to endure furloughs as a result of sequestration and government shutdowns. So our Federal workforce has contributed. These are predominantly middle class families, a large number of veterans, a large number of women, a large number of minorities. They have contributed more than any other group of working Americans already in dealing with this deficit reduction, and I find it very regrettable that this retirement contribution provision was included in the budget agreement. Let me just quote, if I might, from the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service that commented to Senator Murray and Representative Ryan during the budget negotiations. I quote this for what they say because I think it expresses my view and I hope the view of all the Members of the Senate: As you work to put our federal government on a sustainable fiscal path, we encourage you in the strongest possible terms to treat the federal workforce as the considerable asset that it is, and ensure it is appropriately trained, compensated and resourced to serve the American people with excellence for the long term. The federal civilian service is smaller today on a per capita basis than at almost any time since the Kennedy Administration--yet its responsibilities are greater than ever. Rather than asking how to make the federal workforce smaller or less expensive, Congress should be asking what we need the Federal Government to do, and what it will take to ensure that we have a workforce with the necessary skills in appropriate quantities to execute those responsibilities with maximum effect at a reasonable expense. Proposals to freeze federal pay, change retirement contributions or reduce the workforce through attrition do nothing to improve the capacity and performance of the federal government and those who serve in its civilian workforce. These proposals are easy and expedient, but they miss the opportunity to make real and sustained improvements in how the Federal Government manages its people. I could not agree more with those comments. We have a smaller workforce today, asked to do more extremely important work. These are people who are protecting our food supply. These are the great scientists who are doing the research to give us what we need, new technologies in health care. These are people making sure our seniors get the services they so richly need and deserve. These are people who are on the frontline in so many different ways. Our responsibility is to make sure they have the resources to carry out their mission. Yes, we make value judgments as to what are the priorities, but to put our class of Federal workers through additional cuts, to me, is wrong. I regret that was included in the budget agreement. I also wish to mention I was disappointed that we were not able to use this last train that will reach the finish line before we recess to extend unemployment insurance. Some 1.3 million workers are in danger of losing benefits come January 1. In 2014, as many as 4.7 million workers will not be getting the extended benefit, 83,000 of whom are located in my State of Maryland. Let my point out, I know the unemployment rates are getting lower. We are all working to make sure to get them as low as we can. But they are still substantially higher than they were when we first recognized that we needed to have extended Federal unemployment benefits because of the softness in our economy. Particularly for those who are long-term unemployed, it is extremely difficult to find a job. If you are unemployed and you are looking for work, it is tough out there. So the right thing for us to do is to continue these benefits for people who are actively looking for work and cannot find jobs. This is an insurance program. The moneys have been collected during good times so that we pay during these times. The money is there. We need to make sure those benefits are continued. I was disappointed it was not included in the legislation. It will help our economy grow. There are more and more economic studies that show every dollar we make available in unemployment compensation returns much more to our economy in job growth. So this is hurting ourselves by not extending it, plus we are hurting millions of Americans who are going to be more vulnerable in trying to keep their families together during these very challenging times. Let me conclude by saying that as I said in the beginning, this is an important budget agreement to get approved. I strongly support it. I applaud the leadership of Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan in bringing us to this moment. My constituents believe this is a very important step forward, showing that we can compromise and work together and get our work done. In a few days we will bring the first session of the 113th Congress to a close and leave Washington to spend the holidays with our families and friends. I hope each one of us will use that time to reflect on the extraordinary privilege of being a Member of Congress. I hope each one of us will reflect on the extraordinary challenges our Nation faces. I hope each one of us will come to the conclusion that we can do extraordinary things if we work together. The American people demand and deserve no less. I yield the floor.