Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, we have just a few hours, absent some last-minute agreements on the continuing resolution, to a government shutdown. This is a manufactured crisis that we are imposing upon our country. Make no mistake about it, it will cause harm. People will be hurt by a government shutdown. I am honored to represent the people of Maryland. We have one of the largest number of Federal workers on a per capita basis of any State in the Nation and I am proud of the work they do every day keeping our country safe, doing the important research into incredible life sciences, protecting our food supply, making sure people get their Social Security checks--the list goes on and on. These are men and women who are on the front lines of public service. At midnight they will be asked to have another sacrifice added to their public service. These public workers have gone through a lot: 3 years of a pay freeze, fewer Federal workers to do more work, furloughs as a result of sequestration--in other words, they are not getting their full pay today. Now what will happen after midnight? Some will be asked to work and not be clear whether they will get a paycheck or when they will get their paycheck. Others will be furloughed not knowing if they will ever get paid for the time they are off. This is unfair to our Federal workers once again. Our Federal workers want to show up at work, do their work, and get fair pay for what they do on behalf of their country. That is what each one of us wants. Yet once more they are going to be the victims of the fight we see taking place here on Capitol Hill, particularly among our Republican colleagues in the House. This is going to hurt people of this country such as small business owners trying to get an SBA loan, finding out there is no one there to help them process that loan. That person's business cannot wait. Yet a government shutdown will jeopardize that person's ability to get badly needed capital for their business. It will affect people who are now entitled to get Medicare benefits or Social Security benefits or they may have some questions about it or veterans trying to get their veterans' benefits worked out. Those issues will be delayed as a result of a government shutdown. Individuals who depend upon the basic research which will be done by government--slowed down or in some cases stopped as a result of a government shutdown. People will get hurt as a result of a government shutdown. This is going to be wasteful for the taxpayers of this country. It will cost the country valuable resources which should be used to provide services to the people of this country. This is wasteful. It will hurt our economy. When people do not get a paycheck, they do not go to the local shops as they would otherwise; they do not travel as much. Our whole economy will suffer. From a logical point of view, it is hard to understand why we have reached this point. Let me explain. This body passed what is known as a continuing resolution. That continuing resolution would keep government open until the middle of November. It did not represent one party or the other's view as to what that level should be. If anything, it represents the Republican view because the number we picked for continuing government is the number the Republicans thought was the right number. We did not take the number that was in the Senate-passed budget bill. So we have already made an accommodation in an effort to make sure we do not get into that budget fight as we keep government operating. We passed that resolution, known as a clean CR, and sent it over to the House. We are told--you listen to the comments of Members on both sides of the aisle--it looks as though we have the votes to pass that on the House side. Yet the Speaker will not bring it up for a vote. He refuses to do that. Talk about democracy. We passed it here, looks like the votes are on the other side to pass it, the President is prepared to sign it, and government will not shut down in 7 hours, but there is no indication that the majority will prevail in the House of Representatives. Instead, a minority, with extreme views, is saying we are going to use this shutdown of government to try to advance our extreme agenda. It gets us to what we have seen in other parts of history. This is not much different than some of the tactics that were deployed to try to prevent Medicare from coming into law, or Social Security from coming into law. The Republicans in the House who are trying to block ObamaCare are saying they do not want to see this happen. They say they are afraid of what will happen when ObamaCare becomes a reality. They are not afraid it will fail; they are afraid it will succeed. President Obama observed--and I happen to agree with him--regarding the naysayers on ObamaCare, the one thing he knows is in a few years when this program is successful, they will not call it ObamaCare. I can talk about the merits or I can talk about the process. The merits of the Affordable Care Act--I am proud at last the United States, the wealthiest Nation in the world, is moving toward universal coverage so we can at long last say health care is a right, not a privilege. We are the only industrial Nation in the world that has yet to move in that direction. I am proud we improved Medicare under the Affordable Care Act. Our seniors are seeing that coverage gap in Medicare prescription drugs closed. They are seeing preventive health care services now available without copayments. By the way, they are also seeing a Medicare trust fund that is solvent. The future looks much brighter than it did before the Affordable Care Act. American families are happy they can keep their adult children on their insurance policies to age 26, and they are getting value for the dollar. I hear these negative comments about ObamaCare. They are talking about how our health care system used to be. Talk to American families who saw every year their coverage erode and their premiums go up before we passed the Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, we see you are getting value for your dollar. The insurance company has to return 80 to 85 percent of your premium dollars in benefits. If not, you get a rebate. Millions of Americans have seen rebates because the insurance companies charged too much. They are getting money back. They are getting value for their dollar. For affordability, of the people who will be able to enter the exchanges starting tomorrow--tomorrow they can enroll in the exchanges--three out of every four who are eligible to enroll in the exchanges will be entitled to some help. This is affordable coverage and it is good coverage--no lifetime caps; no preexisting conditions. You are getting solid insurance coverage for an affordable rate. That is what the Affordable Care Act is all about. Small businesses, I have heard a lot about small businesses. If you have under 50 employees, there are no new mandates and at last you are able to get competitive products, insurance programs with a little variety. You can pick the plan that is best for you rather than being told by the insurance company this is all you can get, and there are larger pools so you don't have to worry about one of your employees getting sick and all of a sudden the premiums go up. That is the situation that is changing. I can talk about the merits of what we are trying to do but that is not where we are. This is a process issue. There is a time and place to talk about how we can improve our health care system in this country, but in a few hours we are talking about whether government is going to stay open. I can make a very strong argument that the reason we do not have a budget that starts October 1 is because of the obstructionist policies of the Republicans, particularly in the House. We have tried to go to conference. We passed our budget. They said we could not. We did. We passed a budget in the Senate. The House passed a budget. They were different. Would you think you go to conference? Republicans refused to go to conference. They refuse to go to conference. They refuse to negotiate a budget agreement. We are now up to October 1 and they will not agree to keep government open. I acknowledge it is not the majority, but there is an extreme element, particularly on the other side, that wants to see government shut down. They want to see government closed. That is what we are confronting, which is terribly irresponsible. It is affecting families, it is affecting our economy. New York Magazine got this right. I don't normally quote from them: The Republican party has spent 30 years careening ever more deeply into ideological extremism, but one of the novel developments of the Obama years is its embrace of procedural extremism. The Republican fringe has evolved from being politically shrewd proponents of radical policy changes to a gang of saboteurs who would rather stop government from functioning at all. That is what we are up against. I think most Members of this body know that I believe in pragmatism. I believe we need to work together. I believe Democrats and Republicans need to come together and forge agreements to move the process forward. That is what I think the Framers of our Constitution envisioned, sitting around a table working out our differences. We have had divided government before. It is not new. We have gotten through those days. We have gotten through those days by listening to each other, sitting around the table and working out our problems. But there are three things that are happening right now that need to end. No. 1, we have to keep government open; No. 2, we have to pay our bills and not be threatened in 2 weeks with the inability to pay our bills; No. 3, we have to get rid of these senseless, across-the-board, mindless cuts known as sequestration. We have to get rid of those three. Yes, we do need a budget. That budget will not be what the Democrats want or the Republicans want. It has to be negotiated. It will contain, I hope, the best of what both parties can offer in dealing with the future needs of our country. That is what we should do, put America first. If we do that, we will help the people of our country. I know we are just a few hours away from the shutdown of government. I still hold out hope that we will put the country's business first and stop playing this extremism politics of trying to say it is my way or no way. Let's keep government open. Let's pay our bills. Let's get rid of sequestration. Then let's negotiate a budget that allows this country to grow and unleashes our potential so that all Americans can enjoy the opportunity of this great land. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, the fatal shooting at the Washington Navy Yard last week is a senseless tragedy. I mourn the loss of life and offer my prayers to all who have been affected by this heinous act, especially the families of the victims. Our Navy and their civilian colleagues work day and night to protect the American public. An attack on the people tasked with keeping this Nation safe is unacceptable. I thank our Federal, State and local first responders and law enforcement for swiftly and dutifully responding to this appalling attack despite the personal dangers. I thank our dedicated doctors, nurses, and staff at the MedStar trauma center who helped care for the injured that day. Today I want to remember the six Marylanders who died in this terrible tragedy, and to express my condolences to their family and friends. Sylvia Frasier was 53 years old and lived in Waldorf, MD, in Charles County. She was a computer expert and served as the enterprise information assurance manager at Naval Sea Systems Command. And she worked a second job as well, working several evenings a week as a customer service manager at the Wal-Mart in Waldorf. The assistant manager at the store said she often gave co-workers rides home, and he once asked her, ``How come you work a second job?'' She just said, `I love it. I like working with people.' '' Her co-worker said that Sylvia could talk to customers and turn negatives into positives, and that they will miss seeing her smile and gold-colored hair at the store. She leaves behind her two parents and six siblings. John Roger Johnson was 73 years old and lived in Derwood, MD, in Montgomery County. He was a civilian contractor and performed environmental assessments of systems used to located mines. He also provided support to the NAVSEA's Command Information Officer. He often greeted colleagues with a ``How ya doin', buddy?'' He leaves behind a wife and four daughters, and his 11th grandchild is due in November. Frank Kohler was 50 years old and lived in Tall Timbers, MD, in St. Mary's County. He was a computer systems specialist. Frank had been the president of the Rotary Club. He had earned the nickname of ``King Oyster'' for his service, and received a crown and robe, leading the national oyster shucking competition. He leaves behind a wife and two daughters. Vishnu Pandit was 61 years old and lived in North Potomac, MD, in Montgomery County. He was born in Bombay, India, and moved to the United States in his early 20's. His family said in a statement that ``He took great pride in being employed by the United States Navy, which he very proudly served in various capacities as a civilian for over 25 years. He felt extremely privileged to have contributed to the superiority of the U.S. Navy and the country that he served.'' He leaves behind a wife and two sons. Kenneth Bernard Proctor was 46 years old and lived in Waldorf, MD, in Charles County. He worked as a civilian utilities foreman, and had worked for the Federal Government for over two decades. His oldest son recently enlisted in the Army. He leaves behind his ex-wife and two sons. Richard Michael Ridgell was 52 years old and lived in Westminster, MD, in Carroll County. He was a Maryland State Police Trooper for nearly two decades, and spent 3 years working in Iraq, helping train civilian in local policing. He was known to text his children several times a day to check up on them and tell them he loved them, and coached his daughters' softball teams. He was an avid photographer and loved taking pictures of his family. He leaves behind his wife and three daughters. Mr. President, the tragedy of every recent mass shooting in America has underscored the importance of Congress passing sensible, Federal gun safety legislation. We know that we won't be able to stop every tragedy, but we absolutely can save lives. Earlier this year, some 4 months after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, there was a glimmer of hope that the Senate was finally working together on a bipartisan basis to pass reasonable background checks for all gun purchases. This effort was fleeting, but it must be revived. We must use common sense and act responsibly. I am sympathetic to the interests of legitimate hunters and collectors, but we should follow the lead of states like Maryland and reinstate the Federal ban on assault weapons and prohibit high-capacity ammunition clips. We should enact universal background checks. We must take steps to strengthen our mental health system so that individuals who need help with mental illness can get appropriate help and not have access to hand guns or other weapons. I know that we can protect our communities while still protecting the Constitutional rights of legitimate hunters and existing gun owners.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. By the way, it was not paid for. It was estimated to cost $400 billion, and there was no offset of cost. So we were worried it would have an impact on the affordability of the Federal Government to pay the bill. So we all voted against it. Many of us did.

Mr. CARDIN. And it became law. Senator Boxer is absolutely right: When that bill passed, we came together and said: Let's make it better. We lost the battle on the floor. It became the law. Let's try to make it work. And we did that, Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. CARDIN. We are now into 3 years under the Affordable Care Act, and all we get from the Republicans is repeal after repeal after repeal--no effort to deal with legitimate problems of implementation that we would like to work together to do.

Mr. CARDIN. It was all private insurance. They did not pool the total purchasing power to reduce the cost of prescription drugs--another matter that we felt very strongly that we were overpaying. And we are overpaying for prescription drugs, as a result of that change.

Mr. CARDIN. What a difference. Instead, they are using the process of holding hostage the Federal Government from being in operation in order to advance their extreme agenda. It has been nearly 20 years ago when the Government shut down because the Republicans decided it would be better to close government to prove their point. Well, they were wrong then. We recognized the cost of a government shutdown and the inconvenience to the American people and the damage to our economy. Yet Monday night we run the risk of another government shutdown because the Republicans are holding hostage the continuation of government to try to move forward their extreme agenda. Let me talk a little bit about this. Let me talk about what it would mean if we were, in fact, to pass the continuing resolution that was passed by the House. We are not going to do that. We are not going to pass that. Everybody knows we are not going to pass that. But I think the American people need know what would happen if that did pass and we did defund the Affordable Care Act. I could talk a lot about provisions that have already taken effect. I could talk about the fact that in my State of Maryland, 46,000 families have taken advantage of putting their children on their health insurance policies to age 26. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, those 46,000 families will have to find another way to take care of the health insurance for their children. I could talk about the fact that come January, we will eliminate lifetime caps on health insurance. How many families have had to go through bankruptcy because they cannot afford health coverage? They may have insurance, but their caps put them into bankruptcy. Well, that is gone. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, we are back to the arbitrary limits. How many families have told us about preexisting condition restrictions that are in their health insurance policies? We have already corrected that for children. That is already the law. Come January, there will be no further preexisting conditions. Women will not be discriminated against in health premiums. Pregnancies will no longer be considered a preexisting condition. Being a victim of domestic violence will no longer be considered a preexisting condition. I could cite, and I am sure the Presiding Officer could too, examples in our own States where people have not been able to get full coverage. I have a family in Montgomery County that had to take out two insurance policies and pay two separate premiums for the family because of preexisting condition restrictions. That is history. If you pass the resolution that came over from the House, that is all gone, we are back to how it used to be. I know we talk a lot about affordability. I want to talk a moment about that. Because before we passed the Affordable Care Act, we got letter after letter from individuals and businesses about their premiums going up. They had to cut back coverage, and they required the employee to pay more. The benefits were less, and the premiums were higher. We were seeing double-digit cost increases in health care. Well, now we have a quality product, a guarantee that essential benefits are going to be in there. We have protection that at least 80 to 85 percent of the premium dollar must actually go to benefits. If it does not go to benefits, you get a rebate, you get a refund. In my State of Maryland, 44,000 Marylanders are getting rebates because their premiums were too high. The average rebate is $143 a family--$13 million in rebates. With the House-passed continuing resolution, that is gone. Those protections are no longer in the law. We are back to how it used to be: no guaranteed coverage, no guaranteed benefits, no guaranteed value. There is another aspect to this, one that I am very proud of. The United States will at last join the industrialized nations in the world and say that we are going to make affordable health care available to every person, every American in our country. I think that is an important point. I have 800,000 people in my State of Maryland who do not have health coverage today--800,000. Now, come October 1, next Tuesday, they are going to be able to go to the Maryland Health Connection and get health coverage. But guess what. They are going to have a variety of plans they can choose from. They can make their decision. But a large number, over 85 percent--87 percent--of the people who will be going to the Maryland Health Connection, it has been estimated, are going to be entitled for help in paying for those premiums--87 percent. We talked about the individual mandates. What we provided was an affordable option so everyone can be in the system. We want universal coverage because we think it is the right policy. Everybody should be covered. We want universal coverage because we think it is wrong for someone who has health insurance to pay for someone who does not have health insurance because they use the health facility and do not pay for it, and we pay more as a result of that. Hospital costs are more, physician costs are more. We think everybody should pay their fair share. But we make it affordable. Eighty-seven percent will be entitled to help. Those who go through the Maryland Health Connection and are enrolled in Medicaid obviously are going to get their help. We have expanded that coverage. Those who go into the exchanges--and Maryland is one of those States that the State will be operating the exchanges. The overwhelming majority will be entitled to some help in the payment of those premiums. If the House-passed resolution were to become law, and it is not going to become law--the purpose for sending it over here was to make it hostage in the closing of our government. If it became law, that help would be gone. These uninsured have no prospect of getting health coverage, and the inefficiencies of our system continue, the use of emergency rooms, the lack of preventive care continues. The Senator from California Mrs. Boxer talked about the Medicare system. Let me take a moment about the Medicare system, because this is very important. The so-called doughnut hole, that prescription drug gap of coverage, is being closed as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. How many seniors fell into that doughnut hole and literally could not afford their prescription drugs? We closed that in the Affordable Care Act. In my State of Maryland, 50,000 seniors benefited from that--50,000 seniors. If we pass the bill that came over from the House, those 50,000 seniors would be calling our office every day finding out what happened to that coverage they lost. You better believe our phones would be ringing about why are we taking away their benefits. It is even more who are benefiting from the preventive health care services. They do not have to pay copayments. About half a million Marylanders are eligible for that benefit--who are taking advantage, 34 million nationwide. They would lose that preventive health care service that they have today as a result of the passage of Affordable Care Act. That is gone if the House-passed resolution were to become law. Probably even more serious than that, and Senator Boxer alluded to it, the passage of the Affordable Care Act improved the solvency of the Medicare system for a decade. You repeal the Affordable Care Act, you are back with whether Medicare itself will be a solvent program. I could go on and on. We have provisions in the Affordable Care Act that are working to prevent fraud within the Medicare system, saving taxpayers dollars. That is gone. We help to make sure that the Medicare Advantage plans are properly paid. That is gone. All of that is repealed if the House resolution were passed, which it will not be. I will make it clear. It was sent over to us with a strategy to put the government operations in jeopardy. There are many on the other side who believe it is a good idea to close the government. That is their objective. Even the Republicans admitted this strategy would not work to actually defund the Affordable Care Act. I think we should at least talk about what impact it would have. I hear my colleagues talk frequently about small business. I have had a lot of forums with small businesses in Maryland. I must tell you, yes, small businesses are concerned about whether they can afford the cost of their employees and health benefits. They are concerned about it. That is a legitimate issue. But let's talk about what are the circumstances without the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Well, they are on their own. They do not have large markets. They have to pay more than large companies have to pay. They do not have a lot of options. Under the exchanges, under Maryland Health Connection, they will get different opportunities that they did not have before, more affordable coverage that they did not have before. There are credits available to help them pay for their health insurance. If you have less than 50 employees, there is not a single new mandate in this law for a small business. So this is good news for small companies. That is gone if the resolution that passed the House were to become law. It is not going to become law. My Republican colleagues know it is not going to become law. I think it is important to point that out. What happens if we do not get to an agreement by Monday night? That is possible. That is possible. We are going to send back a continuing resolution to the House. We do not know whether they are going to accept it. What happens? Well, I can tell you this. I represent the State of Maryland. I represent a lot of Federal workers. I tell you something, they have been through furloughs, they have been through pay freezes, they have been put to the test. They have been asked to do a lot more work with less workers. We have less per capita workers than we have had in modern times on a per capita basis of Federal workers. They have been asked to do more with less. They have already contributed greatly to reducing the deficit. Once again, come Tuesday morning, they are going to be asked in some cases to show up for work not knowing whether they will get paid, in other cases, to stay home not getting paid, trying to figure out again how they are going to pay their bills. They have rent payments and mortgage payments and food payments. Guess what. That is going to have a major impact on our economy. Make no mistake about it, it will hurt our economy. We have been through this. We have seen this movie before. It hurts our economy. It hurts our country. This is a self-inflicted crisis. This is totally avoidable. If that happens, yes, people will be terribly inconvenienced. You ask the 10,000 people a day who elect to enroll in Medicare and there is no one there to enroll them in Medicare. What are they going to do? You ask the person who needs a passport and cannot get a passport, what are they going to do? I can go through a whole host of things. In 1995 and 1996, I think it was estimated 9 million people who had planned to go to national parks did not go to national parks. It is a cumulative effect. Why are we doing this? To advance our agenda? No, it is not going to pass. Why are we not using regular order? This is costly to our economy, it is costly to American families. It is causing a slowdown in the recovery of our economy. An even greater concern is that in a couple of weeks, middle of October, we are talking about going through this again perhaps on whether we will pay our bills. The limit that we have deals with whether we can pay the expenses that have already been incurred. This is not about new spending. This is about money that has already been spent, will we pay the bill when the bill is received? In the House-passed resolution, they said: Well, we will prioritize. We will pay some but not all. I do not know how you can do that. Administratively, I do not know how you can do that. You certainly are going to make it much more difficult to deal with those that are not in the priority category. So we become a selective deadbeat? We say we are not going to pay contractors, we are not going to pay doctors, we are not going to pay workers? I mean, who are we not going to pay? They have already done the work. They have already provided the services. They have responsibilities. They expect us to pay our bills. It does not work. We have been through this before in the last Congress. We saw. It hurt America's reputation. We came close. We did not go over the cliff. But just coming close presented a huge problem for this country. If we actually go over the cliff and do not pay our bills, it will be very costly to the American taxpayers. Interest rates will go up on our national debt. It will go up. That will cost the taxpayers more money. For what? Another self-inflicted crisis by the Republicans to advance their extreme agenda. We have the votes here to pass what we call a clean CR, a clean extension of paying our bills. We have the votes here. There is a majority of us prepared to vote for that. We have said that. We have shown that. But, instead, it is being held hostage to an extreme agenda and trying to shortcut the regular process. What is the regular process? The regular process is we do our work, they do their work, the House, the Senate go to conference, work it out. Yes, there is a Republican-controlled House. Yes, there is a Democratic-controlled Senate. We do not have 60 votes but we have a majority. In the White House is President Obama. So that is what the voters gave us. Our responsibility is to work with that. We did. The House passed a budget. I did not like the budget. I did not like their budget. But that is a democracy. They passed their budget. We passed a budget here. Our Republican friends said we probably will not do it. We did it. We did not pass that last week, we passed that months ago. And what we said is, okay, let's go to conference, work out the difference. It will not be everything I want, it will not be everything the Republicans want. That is how the process works. Republicans will not sit down and talk with us. They will not let us go to conference. They will not let us work out a budget. So when you look at why we have not been able to reach a budget by October 1, it starts with the fact that we have not been able to sit around a table to work out our differences because the Republicans will not let us go to conference. That is a fact. So we have got to get to conference. We have got to get that done. In the meantime, do not hold the government hostage, or paying our bills hostage, because all that does is create additional costs, hurts America's reputation, hurts our economic recovery. It does not at all advance a final resolution of an orderly process in which we work out the problems of this country. I urge my colleagues to put America's interests first, stop the games we are playing and threats we are making. We are coming too close. Too many people we are again telling: We do not know whether you are going to get a paycheck next week. What do you do if you are a worker or contractor and you do not know if you are going to get a paycheck next week? You are already cutting back on your commitments. This is already hurting our economy. Every day we wait it hurts our economy. That is why a host of us are upset that we had to waste yesterday. It would have been nice to be able to use yesterday to resolve this issue. Every day we wait costs our economy, it costs our country. Let's pass the necessary legislation to keep government operating and pay our bills. Let's sit down as we should and work out the budget problems in a way that is befitting the tradition of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Boxer for putting into the Record the history of how we fought for Medicare, how we went through a lot of the health care fights, and what we have stood for in protecting the American public for affordable, quality health care. I applaud her and agree with the comments she has made. I think it is very interesting to point out the contrast to the passage of the Affordable Care Act that has been law now since March 23, 2010. It went through hearing after days of hearings in the House and in the Senate. It went through days of markups in the committee, where hundreds of amendments were offered in both the House and the Senate. We had a long debate on the floor of the Senate and the floor of the House. We reconciled the differences between the two Houses. It went through the regular process. We spent as much time on that bill, I think, as we have spent on any major bill. And yet there were differences. The bill was passed and signed into law. When we expanded Medicare--and I was in the House at the time on Medicare Part D. I also voted against it. Most Democrats voted against it. We voted against it for the reason the Senator just said--the coverage gap, the doughnut hole, that we knew seniors would still not be able to afford coverage. There was no public option, as the Senator remembers.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I wish to commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their hard work in bringing a bipartisan bill to the floor that will boost energy efficiency in government, in industry, and in commercial and residential buildings. This bill will help increase our economic competitiveness, enhance our national security, and combat global climate change. Energy efficiency improvements are a smart, cost-effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our manufacturers, and put people back to work in the building trades. We don't have an energy problem in this country; we have a waste problem. Last October the Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore National Labs calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy produced--57 percent. We are becoming more energy efficient, but we have a long way to go, which is why the Shaheen-Portman bill is so important. I wish to speak about two changes I would like to see in the Tax Code that would help us achieve our goals of energy efficiency. I have worked on two bills in this regard and I will be speaking about them as we go through this session of Congress. I have noted amendments, but as I think the Presiding Officer is well aware, to try to put a tax provision on a bill that originates in the Senate causes what is known as the blue slip when the bill is taken to the House, since all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I will be looking for opportunities to advance these two energy-related bills but will not have the opportunity on the legislation that is before us. Energy efficiency is as important as renewables, nuclear, and fossil fuels in an ``all of the above'' strategy to meet the Nation's energy demands. In fact, the cheapest, cleanest ``energy'' we have is the energy we don't need because of energy efficiency improvements. Our Tax Code in turn can be an effective tool in promoting energy efficiency. Consider that buildings account for more than 40 percent of our energy consumption in the United States. So by encouraging businesses to make energy-efficient upgrades in their buildings, we can reach substantial energy savings. A recent study by McKinsey & Company backs me up. The study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for homes and commercial buildings could help our country reduce energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020 and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 gigatons annually. This is the equivalent of taking all passenger cars and light trucks off the road for a year. Making buildings more efficient is more cost-effective than developing new energy sources. Current building codes are already making new construction significantly more efficient, but a boost is needed for older structures. Up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050, so encouraging the retrofitting of existing buildings needs to be a priority. Even buildings that are fairly new can benefit from retrofitting. For example, Bush Stadium, home of the St. Louis Cardinals, was built in 2006, but energy improvements in 2011 reduced energy consumption by 23 percent. We could see more successful projects such as this proliferate across the Nation, but our current tax policies have not yet proved to be meaningful incentives for making energy-efficient upgrades to existing buildings. For example, the landmark upgrade of the Empire State Building, which is under contract to lower energy consumption by almost 40 percent, could not qualify for a 179D deduction under the law's current structure. Senator Feinstein and I are working on legislation that would make commonsense reforms to the existing section 179D tax deduction. Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provides a tax deduction that allows cost recovery of energy-efficient windows, roofs, lighting, and heating and cooling systems that meet certain energy savings targets. Section 179D allows for an accelerated depreciation that encourages real estate owners to make the significant front-end investments in energy-efficient upgrades. The deduction is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. By extending, modifying, and simplifying this important provision, we can encourage energy savings, create thousands of retrofitting jobs in the construction industry, and reduce energy bills for all consumers--a win-win-win situation. Our legislation would make this critical incentive more accessible and effective for existing buildings that are currently using inefficient lighting systems, antiquated heating and cooling systems, and poor insulation. Upgrading and improving the 179D deduction will make thousands of businesses more competitive and create good-paying jobs right here in the United States. In addition to commercial properties, our bill will also help promote energy efficiency in private residences. Homes consume more than 20 percent of our Nation's energy, so we need to give American homeowners a helping hand to increase the energy efficiency of their properties. Our legislation does this by establishing a section 25E tax credit for homeowners. Homeowners would receive a 30-percent tax credit of up to $5,000 for making an investment in energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption and costs. Simply put, it is an incentive that encourages homeowners to choose the most inexpensive option for saving energy. At a time of Federal budget constraints, we must prioritize tax policies so they promote the most cost-effective methods of bolstering our energy security. Performance- based energy efficiency improvements can transform America's homes and lower energy bills for the families who live in them. Finally, our legislation targets the sector with the largest potential for increasing energy efficiency in our country--the industrial sector. Our bill offers focused, short-term incentives in four areas to help manufacturers make the efficiency investments necessary to innovate and compete. These critical areas include water reuse and replacing old chillers that harm the atmosphere. I have a letter dated September 17, 2013, from a large coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups supporting the Cardin- Feinstein approach to the reform of section 179D. The Real Estate Roundtable spearheaded the letter, but 50 different organizations have signed on. I want to quote one part of that letter. This is a quote from the letter that was sent in support of the legislation: The Section 179D deduction is a key incentive to leverage significant amounts of private sector investment capital in buildings. It will help spur construction and manufacturing jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars in fuel bills as buildings become more energy efficient, place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions. I think that is exactly what we should be doing. These are the types of incentives we should be working for. If you look at the groups that have signed on to this letter, these are groups that understand how to create jobs and that Congress can help in that regard. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. Senator Crapo and I will be introducing legislation that will fix a problem that is keeping energy-efficient roofing materials from being deployed. This is a separate bill that I think could help us create jobs, save energy, and help our environment. The current Tax Code acts as an obstacle to retrofitting old roofs with energy-efficient ones because, generally speaking, commercial roofs are depreciated over 39 years. Our bill would shorten the depreciation schedule to 20 years for roofs that meet certain energy efficiency standards and that are put in place over the next 2 years. By shortening the depreciation schedule, we are lowering the amount of tax businesses would otherwise have to pay. They get the advantage of their savings in the early years. This change will create more jobs by encouraging the construction of new roofs and by putting more cash into the hands of businesses. It is good tax policy because the average lifespan of a typical commercial roof is only 17 years. So this legislation corrects an inequity in the Tax Code by aligning the depreciation period closer to the lifespan of commercial roofs. Securing America's energy and economic future requires a renewed focus on energy efficiency. I hope we can pass the legislation that is before us and send it to the House. I hope the House will send us a tax bill that can serve as the basis for using the Tax Code to promote energy efficiency. Energy efficiency gains are a win-win for families, businesses, job seekers, taxpayers, our human health, and the environment. We can create jobs, we can help our economy, we can become more competitive, and we can have a cleaner environment if we do the right thing with the legislation before us and are able to improve our Tax Code to help achieve those goals. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today--September 18--marks the Air Force's 66th birthday. For 66 years, our Nation has entrusted the Air Force with preserving peace and freedom, and defending our democracy. Since its beginnings on July 26, 1947, when President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 on board the presidential aircraft, the Sacred Cow, and set the creation of the United States Air Force in motion, to its instrumental role in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force has always served America admirably and I have every confidence that it will continue in this proud tradition. The Air Force tracks its origins back to 1907, when the Wright Brothers conducted the world's first airplane flight over the sands of Kitty Hawk, NC. Just like the Wright Brothers whose innovation spurred aviation, the vast success and numerous achievements of the Air Force would not be possible without the talented Airmen who fuel innovation today, enabling the Air Force to fly faster, further, and utilize technology that the Wright Brothers could not have imagined over 100 year ago. Today, the United States Air Force is the largest, most capable, and most technologically advanced air force in the world, with about 5,300 manned aircraft in service, 246 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, and 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Air Force prides itself on five core missions; Air and Space Superiority; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Rapid Global Mobility; Global Strike; and Command and Control. The Air Force's commitment to core missions illustrates its vast capability and has remained steadfast since the Air Force's establishment as a separate service 66 years ago. Our amazing Airmen today are constantly adapting and improving to meet the challenges of a fast-paced security environment and an ever-evolving battlespace across the globe. The United States Air Force is, and will continue to be, the United States' key asymmetric advantage across the spectrum of conflict. Whether responding to a national security threat, a natural disaster, or crisis engagements, the Air Force provides Global Vigilance, Global Reach and Global Power to ensure that the U.S. is capable of responding to events around the world. Without the Air Force's supremacy in air, space and cyberspace, the U.S. would not be able to move troops and equipment to war zones, send relief to countries devastated by natural disasters, provide air support to troops on the ground, or gather crucial intelligence through electronic warfare and stealth technology. But let us not forget the true power behind the Air Force is its Airmen. The Air Force comprises over 330,000 personnel on active duty, 185,000 civilian personnel, and 180,000 in the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves. These flexible, adaptable, and innovative Airmen employ unmatched air, space, and cyberspace capabilities. Our Airmen today are driven by the ideals of the Warrior Ethos and commit themselves to succeed in any mission our Nation asks of them. Our Airmen believe that our Constitution and the freedom it guarantees are worth fighting for. They sacrifice their personal comfort and safety to answer a higher calling: service in the cause of freedom, both here at home and abroad. I am awed by our servicemen and women's ability to adapt and succeed in a total force mission that at various stages has called upon them to be scholars, teachers, policemen, farmers, bankers, engineers, social workers, and, of course, warriors--often all at the same time. Above all, I am perpetually thankful for their willingness to serve, and I have the greatest faith in their ability to face the difficult and dangerous missions that lie ahead. These patriots have always been the strength of our Nation. The unwavering dedication to duty, to our country, and to all Americans is embodied in the Air Force vision, ``The World's Greatest Air Force--Powered by Airmen, fueled by innovation.'' For 66 years, our Air Force has been on a mission to protect the skies so that our society may be free. Let us remember our Air Force Airmen for this achievement today, and wish them a happy 66th birthday.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, our existing water infrastructure is crumbling. The longer we ignore the problem, the more it costs us. The truth is that we are in a crisis that can be averted. There is no need to lose revenue from disrupted business and flooded streets. Our water infrastructure may be buried and out of sight and out of mind; but today we must elevate these systems to the priority level they deserve. Each year within my home State of Maryland I witness stark reminders of what cities across the Nation are facing. In July of this year, Prince George's County, MD, experienced a breakdown of its most essential public infrastructure when a water main serving 100,000 people began to fail. Mandatory water restrictions were instituted, limiting access to water for homes and businesses during an intense heat wave that saw the heat index repeatedly reach the triple digits. At the National Harbor, one hotel evacuated 3,000 guests and was forced to cancel upcoming reservations. Included in the affected area is Joint Base Andrews, which publicized plans to shut down a long list of services, including appointments at its medical center. There are incidents like this happening all across America. The reports are startling. They confirm what every water utility professional knows: we need massive reinvestment in our water infrastructure now and over the coming decades. The Nation's drinking water infrastructure--especially the underground pipes that deliver safe drinking water to America's homes and businesses--is aging. Like many of the roads, bridges, and other public assets on which the country relies, most of our buried drinking water infrastructure was built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era of rapid demographic change and economic growth. Some of our systems are even older; in Baltimore, where I live, many of the pipes were installed in the 1800s. We need investment to deal with changing population needs and changing hydrological conditions. We have no other choice but to elevate it to a public safety priority and to take action now. The Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act aims to help local communities meet the challenges of upgrading water infrastructure systems to meet the hydrological changes we are seeing today. The bill directs the EPA to establish a Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability program. Grants will be awarded to eligible water systems to make the necessary upgrades. Communities across the country will be able to compete for Federal matching funds, which in turn will help finance projects to help communities overcome these threats. Improving water conservation, adjustments to current infrastructure systems, and funding programs to stabilize communities' existing water supply are all projects WIRS grants will fund. WIRS will never grant more than 50 percent of any project's cost, ensuring cooperation between local communities and the Federal government. The EPA will try to award funds that use new and innovative ideas as often as possible. It's estimated that by 2020, the forecasted deficit for sustaining water delivery and wastewater treatment infrastructure, will trigger a $206 billion increase in costs for businesses. In a worst case scenario, a lack of water infrastructure investment will cause the United States to lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020. A healthy water infrastructure system is as important to America's economy as paved roads and sturdy bridges. Water and wastewater investment has been shown to spur economic growth. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has found that for every dollar invested in water infrastructure, the Gross Domestic Product is increased to more than $6. The Department of Commerce has found that that same dollar yields close to $3 worth of economic output in other industries. Every job created in local water and sewer industries creates close to four jobs elsewhere in the national economy. We know that a reactive mode causes us to lose billions in revenue in the short-term. Let us instead take a proactive approach, making strategic investments in innovative projects designed to meet the current and future needs of our water systems. That is the purpose of the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, our existing water infrastructure is crumbling. The longer we ignore the problem, the more it costs us. The truth is that we are in a crisis that can be averted. There is no need to lose revenue from disrupted business and flooded streets. Our water infrastructure may be buried and out of sight and out of mind; but today we must elevate these systems to the priority level they deserve. Each year within my home State of Maryland I witness stark reminders of what cities across the Nation are facing. In July of this year, Prince George's County, MD, experienced a breakdown of its most essential public infrastructure when a water main serving 100,000 people began to fail. Mandatory water restrictions were instituted, limiting access to water for homes and businesses during an intense heat wave that saw the heat index repeatedly reach the triple digits. At the National Harbor, one hotel evacuated 3,000 guests and was forced to cancel upcoming reservations. Included in the affected area is Joint Base Andrews, which publicized plans to shut down a long list of services, including appointments at its medical center. There are incidents like this happening all across America. The reports are startling. They confirm what every water utility professional knows: we need massive reinvestment in our water infrastructure now and over the coming decades. The Nation's drinking water infrastructure--especially the underground pipes that deliver safe drinking water to America's homes and businesses--is aging. Like many of the roads, bridges, and other public assets on which the country relies, most of our buried drinking water infrastructure was built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era of rapid demographic change and economic growth. Some of our systems are even older; in Baltimore, where I live, many of the pipes were installed in the 1800s. We need investment to deal with changing population needs and changing hydrological conditions. We have no other choice but to elevate it to a public safety priority and to take action now. The Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act aims to help local communities meet the challenges of upgrading water infrastructure systems to meet the hydrological changes we are seeing today. The bill directs the EPA to establish a Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability program. Grants will be awarded to eligible water systems to make the necessary upgrades. Communities across the country will be able to compete for Federal matching funds, which in turn will help finance projects to help communities overcome these threats. Improving water conservation, adjustments to current infrastructure systems, and funding programs to stabilize communities' existing water supply are all projects WIRS grants will fund. WIRS will never grant more than 50 percent of any project's cost, ensuring cooperation between local communities and the Federal government. The EPA will try to award funds that use new and innovative ideas as often as possible. It's estimated that by 2020, the forecasted deficit for sustaining water delivery and wastewater treatment infrastructure, will trigger a $206 billion increase in costs for businesses. In a worst case scenario, a lack of water infrastructure investment will cause the United States to lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020. A healthy water infrastructure system is as important to America's economy as paved roads and sturdy bridges. Water and wastewater investment has been shown to spur economic growth. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has found that for every dollar invested in water infrastructure, the Gross Domestic Product is increased to more than $6. The Department of Commerce has found that that same dollar yields close to $3 worth of economic output in other industries. Every job created in local water and sewer industries creates close to four jobs elsewhere in the national economy. We know that a reactive mode causes us to lose billions in revenue in the short-term. Let us instead take a proactive approach, making strategic investments in innovative projects designed to meet the current and future needs of our water systems. That is the purpose of the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Twelve years ago America was dealt a blow, but in the years since, we have continued to rebuke the message of hate that was brought to our doorstep. What is more is that we affirm our core American values that were magnified in the days following those attacks. We are still `` one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' We are still a diverse nation of many races, religions, and ideas united under the same flag. Maybe most important, we are still at our best when we come together. Every year we are reminded that though we are a strong and determined nation, we are still healing from the wounds we suffered that day 12 years ago. No amount of time can rationalize the senseless violence or bring back a loved one. It is important to note that we have brought many of the terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, to justice, and we have made great strides in ensuring that those who wish to do us harm like they did on 9/11 will be unable to do so. Our men and women in uniform, the intelligence community, Foreign Service officers, and the people entrusted with safeguarding our borders, bridges, air and seaports and key infrastructure, have made great sacrifices to ensure our continued safety in a post-9/11 world and we owe so much to these men and women, and the families who support them. Today, we join together to show the world that our Nation is united and firmly resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard our liberty against any enemy. We also take time to remember those Americans who perished on 9/11 and to remember them and their families with a special prayer. We reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers, medical workers, city officials, and ordinary citizens who gave their own lives trying to save others. Who could ever forget the images of firefighters and other first responders going up the stairs of the World Trade Center as everyone else was heading to safety? Each of us has been affected by 9/11. It is a day seared into the national memory. We cannot forget 9/11 because the virtues that carried us though the days, weeks, and years have been with us since the beginning: 9/11 did not teach firefighters and police to sacrifice, nor did it teach unity among neighbors. It did not teach empathy toward strangers or compassion toward friends. Rather, these quintessential American virtues were with us all along; 9/11 just put them under a spotlight for all to see. On 9/11 we showed the world a brand of resilience, compassion, and strength that could only be ``made in America''. And so, 12 years after the most heinous attacks in our Nation's history, we stand tall. We stand tall, not weighed down by the gravity of 9/11 but made stronger by it. We remain united in our diversity like no other nation on Earth, `` one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on August 8, Nicolae Gheorghe, one of the leading figures of the Romani civil rights movement, passed away. He was devoted to improving the situation of Roma, ultimately playing a pivotal role on the international stage and especially within the OSCE. Gheorghe lived an extraordinary life and will be long remembered for his singular contribution to the advancement of human rights. Nicolae Gheorghe was born in 1946 in Romania during the aftermath of the fascist regime led by Marshall Ion Atonescu. His mother had narrowly escaped the mass deportations of 25,000 Roma planned and implemented by the Antonescu regime. Members of the Helsinki Commission first met Nicolae Gheorghe when Senator Dennis DeConcini and Representative Steny Hoyer, then-Chairman and Cochairman, led a delegation to Romania in April 1990. At that time, Gheorghe was emerging as one of the clearest and most compelling voices sounding the alarm about the deplorable situation of Roma. Although the fall of communism in Central Europe ushered in an era of democratization, it also gave free rein to old bigotry against Roma. In fact, only a few months after that visit, police efforts to remove demonstrators from Bucharest degenerated into brutal attacks on the offices of opposition papers, opposition leaders' homes, and members of the Romani minority. At almost the same time, the OSCE participating States were meeting in Copenhagen negotiating what would become one of the most ambitious agreements of the Helsinki process: the seminal 1990 Copenhagen Document. I was part of a delegation Representative Hoyer led to that historic meeting where we raised our concerns about religious and ethnic minorities directly with the delegation from Romania. It was also in Copenhagen where Nicolae Gheorghe pressed-- successfully--for the adoption of the first reference in any international human rights agreement to the specific problems faced by Roma. The U.S. delegation to that meeting, headed by the late Ambassador Max Kamplemen, helped secure the inclusion of that text in the final document. But in the context of post-Communist economic and political transition, Roma became targets of ethnically motivated attacks. In Romania, dozens of pogroms against Roma were carried out between 1990 and 1997, prompting Gheorghe and others to found Romani CRISS in 1993. The name is a Romanian acronym for Center for Social Intervention and Studies but also a play on the Romani word ``kris,'' which is a kind of council of elders. In the 1990s, he worked with the New Jersey-based Project on Ethnic Relations and served on the board of the European Roma Rights Center. He also brought his concerns to the United States. In 1994, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights, chaired by Representative Tom Lantos, convened the first hearing before Congress on the situation of Roma. Gheorghe, joined by Romani activists Ian Hancock, Andrzej Mirga, and Klara Orgovanova, testified, along with Livia Plaks of the Project on Ethnic Relations. Gheorghe argued that anti-Roma attitudes and behaviors could serve as a barometer to gauge the success of countries building democratic institutions, the rule of law, and ``the consolidation of civil movements and associations and societies and states deeply distorted by the decades of pro-fascist, authoritarian and communist totalitarian regimes.'' He presciently surveyed the scope and implications of anti-Roma manifestations including in Bosnia, Germany, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Romania. ``[T]he most important assistance which can be brought to or sent to our region is the rule of law, the breeding of democratic institutions, and careful implementation of individual human rights.'' Gheorghe testified at Helsinki Commission briefings and hearings in 2002 and 2006. Nicolae Gheorghe also became a fixture at OSCE human rights meetings--first in his capacity as an NGO, then as the first senior adviser on Romani issues for the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In whatever capacity he worked, he was a relentless advocate for the human rights of Romani people. His appointment coincided with the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo, the NATO air campaign against Milosevic's Serbia, and the subsequent deployment of a large OSCE mission to Kosovo. As a consequence of developments in the Balkans, he became immediately engaged on issues relating to the displacement of Kosovo Roma to Macedonia and elsewhere. Throughout his tenure with the OSCE, which lasted through 2006, his work was driven by the need for crisis management stemming from acts of violence and other extreme manifestations of prejudice against Roma--not only in the Balkans but elsewhere in the OSCE region as well. In his 2006 testimony before the Helsinki Commission, he observed that international organizations had largely focused on the situation of Roma in Central Europe, neglecting Western countries such as Greece, France, Spain, and Italy. ``I don't think that Europe for the time being realizes the depth of the racism and racist attitudes in its structures, [in] Europe as a whole.'' The mass fingerprinting of Roma in Italy in 2008 and the expulsions of Roma from France in 2010 would illustrate that Gheorghe had spoken with typical insight. I wish that I could say Nicolae Gheorghe's work to advance the human rights of Roma was complete. Clearly, it is not. Each day, it must be carried on by the many people he encouraged and a new generation of activists. Toward that end, our load is lighter because of the burdens he carried, our goals are nearer because of the distance he traveled, and we are inspired by his legacy.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, make no mistake about it, the resolution before us, in my judgment, is one of the most difficult decisions a Member of the Senate will ever have to make. The authorization of force is an awesome responsibility that each of us has. None of us wants to see American troops in harm's way. None of us wants to see the need for the use of military force. This is a difficult judgment for us to make. The Constitution envisions that both the President and Congress are involved in the deploying of U.S. military. Certainly the President, as Commander in Chief, and the Congress, under the War Powers Act, have a responsibility to authorize the use of force. Today in this country Americans are tired of war. We have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for way too long. We thought these campaigns would be short campaigns. They turned out to be very long. There has been a tremendous loss in human life and fiscal resources as a result of the wars in which the United States has participated. But the public also understands that we have a responsibility to use our military to protect the national interests of the people of this country. They understand that America's military strength keeps the people in this country safe, and they expect that the President and the Congress will use that military force in order to protect the national security of the people of this country. What is in our national security interest and why would the President come to Congress asking us to consider the use of military force in the current circumstances in Syria? People understand, they recognize that if we are about to be attacked, there is a need to use force. The United States plays a unique role in the international community, for we understand that standing up for basic internationally recognized human rights is a responsibility we all have. I supported President Clinton when he asked for the authorization of force for the United States, along with the international community, to be involved in restoring order in the republics of the former Yugoslavia, where there was ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. But for the leadership of the United States additional communities would have been destroyed and people would have lost their lives. We stood up because it was in the interests of the United States to stand up for the enforcement of basic internationally established human rights. Let's evaluate what is happening in Syria today and understand that although what is happening there may be far from our shores, the impact very much could be felt here in the United States. I serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We were called back into session last week because of the President's request for the Congress to act on his request for the use of force. We held hearings that were open to the public, and we held classified hearings in order to better understand what had happened in Syria. I think it is now clear beyond any doubt that the Asad regime in Syria used chemical weapons. The evidence is clear. It was not the first occasion they used chemical weapons. They had used chemical weapons in the past but not to the magnitude they did on August 21 of this year which resulted in more than 1,400 deaths, many of whom were children. The videos of that image are now available publicly. People can see the horrific act that was imposed upon the people of Syria by its President, President Asad. The action of Syria on August 21 violated international norm. Since chemical weapons were used in World War I, the international community has come together and said: Even in war we will not permit the use of chemical weapons. It is so horrific, so indiscriminate in its killing and in its maiming that as an international community we will stand and say: No, you cannot use chemical weapons. The evidence is clear that President Asad of Syria used chemical weapons in a mass way and killed over 1,400 people. That action requires the response of the international community, for if it goes unchallenged it is more likely President Asad will continue to use chemical weapons. He just considers it one of the weapons in his toolbox, and he will call it out more and more if it goes unchallenged by the international community. The people of Syria are not the only ones at risk. These chemical weapons could easily be used against American allies in that region. It could be used against Turkey. It could be used against Jordan. It could be used against Israel. If the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria goes unchallenged and if President Asad can get away with the use of chemical weapons, what message does that send to the regime in Iran and its ambition to become a nuclear weapons state and perhaps use nuclear weapons? What message does it send to the Government of North Korea, which is openly testing the use of nuclear weapons? We have a direct interest in preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, and we have to work with the international community to say this will not go unchallenged. We not only have a moral imperative--and we do have a moral imperative--but we also have an issue of our national security interest. If these weapons of mass destruction get in the hands of terrorist organizations and groups, it threatens the security of Americans and it threatens the security of our allies. We have a responsibility to protect the national security of the people of this country. I have engaged many people in Maryland who have talked to me about their concerns about the use of the American military in Syria. They recall what happened when the Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq where there was evidence of chemical weapons, and then we went in and found no chemical weapons. There were statements made about how this would be a limited operation. Our troops were there for a decade. So there is obviously concern about the information being made available to us and what is being asked of the Congress of the United States. When force was authorized against Iraq and that resolution was pending on the floor, I served in the other body, in the House of Representatives. I had a chance to see firsthand the information about Iraq and its risk factors to the interest of the United States. Some may recall that the popular sentiment was for America to authorize the use of force--for Congress to authorize the use of force. I voted no on that resolution because I was convinced America did not have a national security interest to use military force. So I will explain the difference between the circumstances in Iraq over a decade ago and what we are facing today in Syria. The original justification for the United States entering its combat troops in Iraq was that Iraq was deeply involved with the then- government of Afghanistan and the attack on our country on September 11. I looked for that information, and I saw no information between the Iraqi Government and the attack on our government. Yet those statements were made and it was used as justification for the use of military force. Here the justification is the use by Syria of chemical weapons, and that has been established. I believe the international community has now understood the evidence is clear that the Asad regime used chemical weapons in contravention to international norm. When we were authorizing the Iraq use of force, there were no restrictions on the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we used ground troops. We used hundreds of thousands of ground troops in our campaign in Iraq. American lives were put directly at risk, and it put America directly in harm's way. The request made by the President of the United States for military action in Syria does not include--and, in fact, the resolution that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee makes it clear that there will be no ground combat troops from the United States of America. We will not be drawn into a ground war. The Iraqi resolution that was approved over a decade ago had no time limit on that authorization. As we saw with that authorization and with the Afghanistan authorization, those campaigns went for over a decade, with American troops at risk. The authorization that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee contains a 60-day limitation on the authorization of the use of force. It can be extended once for an additional 30 days. This is a limited campaign. It is very clear this authorization is restricted to the specific objective to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist organizations. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended resolution is limited. It is limited to that mission. It is limited in the type of military operation--no ground troops. It is limited in time and is not to exceed 60 to 90 days. It is limited to the fact that use of force should be the last option--not the first but the last option. I have said many times on the floor of the House, and now on the floor of the Senate, that the use of military should be the last resort. There are other options that need to be explored first. So the resolution that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requires the President to pursue diplomatic ways to resolve the issue before he can use force. He must certify to Congress that he has done that before he can use force. Mr. President, you understand this directly because you raised some of these issues. We now have an opportunity that we hope will work. We now have the attention of Russia and Syria since they know America is serious about reacting to Syria's use of chemical weapons. They know we will not stand by. They have now acknowledged that chemical weapons in great numbers exist in Syria. And, quite frankly, I think they have acknowledged the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Of course, the videos speak for themselves and the physical evidence is overwhelming. Now the suggestion is they will turn over those chemical weapons to the international community. If that is done, we have achieved our objective in the resolution that is before us. The resolution before us is to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by Syria. If they turn their chemical weapons over to the international community, we have achieved our objective. However, any such plan must be verifiable, enforceable, and timely. Excuse me if I seem a little bit suspicious of the suggestions made by Russia and Syria. I want to make sure they are verifiable, they are enforceable, and that they are timely. We anticipated a diplomatic effort when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended this resolution to the floor of the Senate. There are many Members of the Senate, including the Presiding Officer, who are looking at ways we can come together to support the President's effort to stand up against the use of chemical weapons. I hope we will be able to come together with language in this resolution that will allow the Syrian Government to turn over its chemical weapons in a timely and enforceable way so military force will not be necessary. Make no mistake about it, but for the leadership of President Obama and their fear of the use of American military force, we would never be at this opportunity right now where we have a viable diplomatic channel we can pursue. I wanted to acknowledge that we anticipated diplomacy would be used, as it always should be, before the use of our military. We hope our military will not be necessary, but we have to react to the use of chemical weapons. Let me explain some of what we don't want to see happen. Earlier I referenced the hearings we had in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I congratulate Senator Menendez and Senator Corker, the chairman and ranking Republican on our committee. We had a very open hearing, we had access to classified information, and then we had an open discussion in our committee where all views were heard. We tried to recommend a resolution we thought was responsible for the Congress to weigh in on. It was not the resolution the President submitted to us. It was one that was much more limited to the authorization we thought was appropriate. I think it has served its purpose from the point of view of putting Syria on notice that the United States is prepared to join the international community to say: Chemical weapons will not be allowed to be used. We also made it clear we will not be drawn into a civil war. President Asad has done some horrible things in that country. In my view, he has lost the legitimacy of leading the country, but it is up to the Syrians to solve their civil conflict. American troops will not be drawn into the civil problems within Syria itself. They are going to have to resolve that issue. As the United States has said, and as the international community has said, there needs to be a political solution to the future of Syria. Yes, there are some good people in the opposition and there are some people we are concerned about in the opposition. At the end of the day, it is up to the Syrians, through a political process, to determine their own government. What we should expect is a government that will respect the human rights of all the people of Syria and will respect the right of Syrians to determine who their leader should be. All ethnic communities should be able to live in peace in Syria, and that is our objective, to get to that political solution. We will not be drawn into a broader conflict. As I said earlier, the people I have talked to in Maryland don't want war. The people I have talked to in this Nation do not want the United States drawn into another war, and neither do I. One more point about the response to the use of chemical weapons. Yes, our first priority is to make sure these chemical weapons aren't used again. The best way to do that is to get control of the weapons and make sure they are not used and, hopefully, destroyed. President Asad needs to be held accountable. He has committed war crimes. He has committed crimes against humanity. He needs to be held accountable for the criminal actions he has perpetrated on the people of Syria. As we know, over 100,000 have lost their lives, many of whom were civilians who were put in harm's way by the Syrian Government against international norms. I encourage my colleagues to join me in the effort of calling on an international tribunal to take President Asad, in this case, and establish the international justice so that he is held accountable for his actions. One last point about the resolution before us. It is important to work with the international community. I hope we will find more countries standing up for the importance of international participation regarding condemning the use of chemical weapons. One of the hopes we have in this new opportunity for a diplomatic solution is for the United Nations to assume its appropriate role. The United Nations Security Council will have an opportunity as early as today to pass an enforceable resolution condemning what happened in Syria and accepting the offer to take control of all of its chemical weapons and do it in a way that is enforceable and in a way that accomplishes its goal. I hope the United Nations Security Council will act. I hope the international community will join us. United States leadership is needed, and President Obama is providing it. But the key point is we must respond to the use of chemical weapons. I think this debate is strengthening our country. I understand there are different views. I urge my colleagues to come together to support a resolution that puts America on record supporting President Obama in saying we will not permit the use of chemical weapons to go unchallenged, that our objective is to make sure the world is safer, and we are prepared to work with the international community in order to achieve those objectives. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to modernize the Congressional budget scoring process with respect to health spending and the effects of preventive health care. Although the United States spends more than any other Nation in the world on health care, $2.6 trillion in 2010, our citizens' health status lags behind that of most developed countries, and we have the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations. One reason is that the United States' expenditures for the treatment of disease far exceed our investments in preventive health. Our neglect of prevention has been costly. Spending on the treatment of chronic diseases is overwhelming our health care budgets, particularly those of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The following statistics come from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer and stroke account for more than 50 percent of all deaths each year. In 2005, 133 million Americans almost 1 out of every 2 adults had at least one chronic illness. About \1/4\ of people with chronic conditions have one or more daily activity limitations. Arthritis is the most common cause of disability, with nearly 19 million Americans reporting activity limitations. Diabetes continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure, nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations, and blindness among adults, aged 20-74. Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., behind diet, physical activity, and tobacco. CDC also tells us that four health risk behaviors--lack of physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption--are responsible for much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases. More than \1/3\ of all adults do not meet recommendations for aerobic physical activity based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, and 23 percent report no leisure-time physical activity at all in the preceding month. In 2007, 22 percent of high school students and only 24 percent of adults reported eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. More than 43 million American adults, approximately 1 in 5, smoke. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes almost all cases. Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80 percent in women. Smoking also causes cancer of the voicebox, mouth and throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, cervix, and stomach, and causes acute myeloid leukemia. Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to over 54 different diseases and injuries, including cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast, liver diseases, and other cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, and gastrointestinal health problems. Binge drinking, the most dangerous pattern of drinking, defined as consuming more than 4 drinks on an occasion for women or 5 drinks for men, is reported by 17 percent of U.S. adults, averaging 8 drinks per binge. By addressing just these four behaviors, we can alter the trajectory of chronic disease and the health costs associated with them. That is the power of prevention. As Dr. Albert Reece of the University of Maryland School of Medicine once said, ``Lifestyle is primary care.'' Prevention also means early screening. In addition to increasing survival rates, identifying diseases early reduces health care costs. In the case of colorectal cancer, Medicare will pay under $400 for a colonoscopy, but if the patient is not diagnosed until the disease has metastasized, the costs of care can exceed $58,000 over the patient's lifetime. A screening mammography costs the Medicare program a small fraction of the tens of thousands of dollars that treatment of breast cancer costs, depending on when the cancer is found and the course of treatment used. One drug used to treat late stage breast cancer can cost as much as $40,000 a year. Research has shown that increasing to 90 percent the number of women aged 40 and older who have been screened for breast cancer in the past two years would save more than 100,000 lives each year in the United States. One of the most compelling cases for prevention is in the area of oral health. The tragic, preventable death of 12 year-old Marylander Deamonte Driver in 2007 illustrated the consequences of poor access to oral health care. His untreated tooth abscess spread to his brain and after two extensive operations, he died. Although a tooth extraction would have cost about $80, the final total cost of his medical care exceeded $250,000. The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry tells us that dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease among children in the United States. It affects one in five children aged 2 to 4, half of those aged 6 to 8, and nearly \3/5\ of 15 year olds. But it is also the most preventable disease if basic oral care is provided starting at an early age. The good news in that for nearly every category of chronic disease we can reduce its prevalence by making preventive health care a priority. All around us are examples of why prevention is an essential part of health care and why effective use of preventive measures, such as screening and smoking cessation can save lives and lower health care costs in the long run. But the current Congressional budget process has hindered our ability to get appropriate credit for the cost savings that prevention can bring. For this reason, investing in initiatives that can move our Nation forward toward optimal health often requires us to cut funding in other important areas because of the budget rules. Today, budget resolutions, budget reconciliation, and CBO scoring analyses use a ten-year ``scoring'' window. But the research performed at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD and at research centers across the nation has demonstrated that some expenditures for preventive services result in cost savings when considered in the long term. Unfortunately, Congressional budget scoring rules only permit taking into account the first ten years, a time frame in which savings may not be apparent. We want to change that. Today, with Senators Mike Crapo, Angus King, Tom Udall, and Jeanne Shaheen, I am introducing the Preventive Health Savings Act of 2013. It would allow the Chairman or Ranking Member of the House or Senate Budget Committee, or the health committees--HELP, Finance, Ways and Means, or Energy and Commerce--to request an analysis of preventive measures extending beyond the existing 10-year window to two additional ten-year periods. Re-evaluating our budget rules is not a new phenomenon. In recent years, Congress has increasingly looked for ways to assess long-term budget consequences. For example, Congress currently requests that CBO report on measures that would cause a large future increase in the deficit--more than $5 billion in the following four decades. The Preventive Health Savings Act would direct CBO to incorporate credible data on prevention. Because we want to ensure that CBO's projections are tied to scientific data, our bill would define preventive health as ``an action designed to avoid future health care costs that is demonstrated by credible and publicly available epidemiological projection models, incorporating clinical trials or observational studies in humans, longitudinal studies, and meta- analysis.'' This narrow, responsible approach encourages a sensible review of health policy that Congress believes will promote public health, and it will make it easier for us to invest in proven methods of saving lives and money. CBO would be required to conduct an initial analysis to determine whether the provision would result in substantial savings outside the 10-year scoring window and to include a description of those future- year savings in its budget projections. The broad coalition of groups supporting this bill includes: the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Aetna, Allscripts, American Association of Diabetes Educators, American College of Occupational Medicine, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Diabetes Association, BlueCross BlueShield Tennessee, Building Healthier America, Care Continuum Alliance, Council for Affordable Health Coverage, Dialysis Patient Citizens, The Endocrine Society, Healthcare Leadership Council, Healthways, IHRSA: International Health Racquet & Sportsclub Association, Johnson & Johnson, Marshfield Clinic, Memorial Care Health System, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, National Retail Federation, National Kidney Foundation, Novo Nordisk, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, Sanofi, Texas Health Resources, and Weight Watchers. I also wish to applaud the bipartisan House sponsors of this legislation--two physicians--Representatives Michael Burgess of Texas and Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for their vision in introducing the companion bill, HR 2663, which now has 19 cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which will give our budget process the flexibility needed to dramatically bend the health care cost curve.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to modernize the Congressional budget scoring process with respect to health spending and the effects of preventive health care. Although the United States spends more than any other Nation in the world on health care, $2.6 trillion in 2010, our citizens' health status lags behind that of most developed countries, and we have the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations. One reason is that the United States' expenditures for the treatment of disease far exceed our investments in preventive health. Our neglect of prevention has been costly. Spending on the treatment of chronic diseases is overwhelming our health care budgets, particularly those of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The following statistics come from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer and stroke account for more than 50 percent of all deaths each year. In 2005, 133 million Americans almost 1 out of every 2 adults had at least one chronic illness. About \1/4\ of people with chronic conditions have one or more daily activity limitations. Arthritis is the most common cause of disability, with nearly 19 million Americans reporting activity limitations. Diabetes continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure, nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations, and blindness among adults, aged 20-74. Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., behind diet, physical activity, and tobacco. CDC also tells us that four health risk behaviors--lack of physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption--are responsible for much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases. More than \1/3\ of all adults do not meet recommendations for aerobic physical activity based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, and 23 percent report no leisure-time physical activity at all in the preceding month. In 2007, 22 percent of high school students and only 24 percent of adults reported eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. More than 43 million American adults, approximately 1 in 5, smoke. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes almost all cases. Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80 percent in women. Smoking also causes cancer of the voicebox, mouth and throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, cervix, and stomach, and causes acute myeloid leukemia. Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to over 54 different diseases and injuries, including cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast, liver diseases, and other cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, and gastrointestinal health problems. Binge drinking, the most dangerous pattern of drinking, defined as consuming more than 4 drinks on an occasion for women or 5 drinks for men, is reported by 17 percent of U.S. adults, averaging 8 drinks per binge. By addressing just these four behaviors, we can alter the trajectory of chronic disease and the health costs associated with them. That is the power of prevention. As Dr. Albert Reece of the University of Maryland School of Medicine once said, ``Lifestyle is primary care.'' Prevention also means early screening. In addition to increasing survival rates, identifying diseases early reduces health care costs. In the case of colorectal cancer, Medicare will pay under $400 for a colonoscopy, but if the patient is not diagnosed until the disease has metastasized, the costs of care can exceed $58,000 over the patient's lifetime. A screening mammography costs the Medicare program a small fraction of the tens of thousands of dollars that treatment of breast cancer costs, depending on when the cancer is found and the course of treatment used. One drug used to treat late stage breast cancer can cost as much as $40,000 a year. Research has shown that increasing to 90 percent the number of women aged 40 and older who have been screened for breast cancer in the past two years would save more than 100,000 lives each year in the United States. One of the most compelling cases for prevention is in the area of oral health. The tragic, preventable death of 12 year-old Marylander Deamonte Driver in 2007 illustrated the consequences of poor access to oral health care. His untreated tooth abscess spread to his brain and after two extensive operations, he died. Although a tooth extraction would have cost about $80, the final total cost of his medical care exceeded $250,000. The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry tells us that dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease among children in the United States. It affects one in five children aged 2 to 4, half of those aged 6 to 8, and nearly \3/5\ of 15 year olds. But it is also the most preventable disease if basic oral care is provided starting at an early age. The good news in that for nearly every category of chronic disease we can reduce its prevalence by making preventive health care a priority. All around us are examples of why prevention is an essential part of health care and why effective use of preventive measures, such as screening and smoking cessation can save lives and lower health care costs in the long run. But the current Congressional budget process has hindered our ability to get appropriate credit for the cost savings that prevention can bring. For this reason, investing in initiatives that can move our Nation forward toward optimal health often requires us to cut funding in other important areas because of the budget rules. Today, budget resolutions, budget reconciliation, and CBO scoring analyses use a ten-year ``scoring'' window. But the research performed at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD and at research centers across the nation has demonstrated that some expenditures for preventive services result in cost savings when considered in the long term. Unfortunately, Congressional budget scoring rules only permit taking into account the first ten years, a time frame in which savings may not be apparent. We want to change that. Today, with Senators Mike Crapo, Angus King, Tom Udall, and Jeanne Shaheen, I am introducing the Preventive Health Savings Act of 2013. It would allow the Chairman or Ranking Member of the House or Senate Budget Committee, or the health committees--HELP, Finance, Ways and Means, or Energy and Commerce--to request an analysis of preventive measures extending beyond the existing 10-year window to two additional ten-year periods. Re-evaluating our budget rules is not a new phenomenon. In recent years, Congress has increasingly looked for ways to assess long-term budget consequences. For example, Congress currently requests that CBO report on measures that would cause a large future increase in the deficit--more than $5 billion in the following four decades. The Preventive Health Savings Act would direct CBO to incorporate credible data on prevention. Because we want to ensure that CBO's projections are tied to scientific data, our bill would define preventive health as ``an action designed to avoid future health care costs that is demonstrated by credible and publicly available epidemiological projection models, incorporating clinical trials or observational studies in humans, longitudinal studies, and meta- analysis.'' This narrow, responsible approach encourages a sensible review of health policy that Congress believes will promote public health, and it will make it easier for us to invest in proven methods of saving lives and money. CBO would be required to conduct an initial analysis to determine whether the provision would result in substantial savings outside the 10-year scoring window and to include a description of those future- year savings in its budget projections. The broad coalition of groups supporting this bill includes: the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Aetna, Allscripts, American Association of Diabetes Educators, American College of Occupational Medicine, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Diabetes Association, BlueCross BlueShield Tennessee, Building Healthier America, Care Continuum Alliance, Council for Affordable Health Coverage, Dialysis Patient Citizens, The Endocrine Society, Healthcare Leadership Council, Healthways, IHRSA: International Health Racquet & Sportsclub Association, Johnson & Johnson, Marshfield Clinic, Memorial Care Health System, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, National Retail Federation, National Kidney Foundation, Novo Nordisk, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, Sanofi, Texas Health Resources, and Weight Watchers. I also wish to applaud the bipartisan House sponsors of this legislation--two physicians--Representatives Michael Burgess of Texas and Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for their vision in introducing the companion bill, HR 2663, which now has 19 cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which will give our budget process the flexibility needed to dramatically bend the health care cost curve.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. CARDIN. I wish to thank Senator Murray and Senator Collins returning us to regular order and bringing an appropriations bill to the floor that is consistent with the budget resolution passed by this body. I also wish to compliment my colleague from Maryland, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski. We are returning to regular order in the Senate. I find it amazing. It was only a week ago my colleagues on the Republican side were saying we don't want to turn the Senate into the House. Now we have a motion to recommit that would take the House numbers. We didn't do that. Should we only have a unicameral legislature? I thought we thought this body was important. Yet this motion to recommit will have the effect of saying that what we do in this body doesn't make any difference; let's just take the House's bill. I don't think that is what we want. The House bill that has been reported I don't think it has yet been voted on was a partisan bill. What we did in this body is have Democrats and Republicans working together. That should be the model we use in this institution. The motion to recommit would destroy that, would take that away. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Let me talk on the merits, if I might, for one moment, and that is what this motion would mean as far as jobs in this country and responsible investments. Remember that we are operating under a budget resolution that will reduce the deficit. It gets us to actually stronger efforts to reduce the deficit. I can't speak to every category of spending, but I do know something about transportation. I serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee. There is bipartisan support on our committee to do more than what is in this budget. We have trillions of dollars' worth of roads and bridges that are falling down. We have to invest, to create jobs. We understand transportation creates jobs. The motion to recommit would take us to numbers that are lower than the sequestration numbers. I was just on the floor a few minutes ago talking about how the sequestration is hurting this country--it is hurting job growth, hurting our economy, hurting Federal workers, and hurting ordinary Americans. Well, this motion makes it worse. It goes below the sequestration numbers. We need to invest in job growth, we need to do it in a balanced, responsible way, and that is exactly what Senator Murray did in wearing her hat as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. She has now brought out an appropriations bill totally consistent with the action there. Here is the real hypocrisy. What we have said on our side of the aisle is we understand there is a difference. Let's go to conference and resolve the differences. And the same people who are supporting this motion will not let us go to conference to resolve the differences. We should return to regular order. Reject this motion to recommit.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank my colleague for his comments. I understand he already mentioned what has happened at the National Institutes of Health and the fact that, because of the sequestration cuts, the number of grants being given out this year, contracts with young scientists to do research, is going to be cut by the hundreds. We don't know which one of these researchers would have come up with an advancement, a major breakthrough, but there would have been some. And they are going to be denied. They may get discouraged, the people who would have received these grants, and they may go into other fields. We may lose them forever. They may go to other professions. They may go to other countries. But we know they are not doing the work they are trained to do and we know they had a proposal that went through the most difficult vetting process and was selected for funding and should have been funded but is not being funded because of these sequestration cuts. That we know. That much we know for sure. We also know it is not just that researcher who has been hurt by the sequestration cuts. It is the businesses that depend upon the basic research--many of which are small companies--in order to build upon that research to create the products that go into the marketplace and create the jobs that are necessary for our economy. There is a direct loss to the economy of our country as a result of these sequestration cuts. It is time we move forward and resolve the problems of our country. I agree with my friend from Virginia that we have to find a way on both sides of the aisle to come together, but I must point out it has been extremely difficult, particularly with the climate in the other body. In the current issue of New York magazine, Jonathan Chait writes: The chaos and dysfunction have set in so deeply that Washington now lurches from crisis to crisis, and once-dull, keep-the-lights-on rituals of government procedures are transformed into white-knuckle dramas that threaten national or even global catastrophe. The Republican party has spent 30 years careering ever more deeply into ideological extremism, but one of the novel developments of the Obama years is its embrace of procedural extremism. The Republican fringe has evolved from being politically shrewd proponents of radical policy changes to a gang of saboteurs who would rather stop government from functioning at all. This brinkmanship is preventing the economic recovery from gaining steam, it is preventing us from addressing urgent problems, and it is punishing all Americans, not just Federal workers. If we come together on behalf of the American people, we can replace sequestration with a measured and balanced approach to deficit reduction. We can agree on a path forward to fiscal solvency that spreads the burden equitably. We can begin to solve our problems instead of compounding them, but I will tell you what we can cannot do. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of Federal workers. It isn't feasible, and it isn't fair. Increasingly, Federal workers are asked to do more with less. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the size of the civilian workforce relative to the country's population has declined dramatically over the last several decades, notwithstanding occasional upticks due to military conflicts or the taking of the census. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were, on average, 92 Americans for every Federal worker. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were 106 Americans for every Federal worker. By 2011, the ratio had increased to 145 Americans for every Federal worker. Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76 percent, and the private sector workforce has risen by 133 percent, but the size of the Federal workforce has risen by just 11 percent. Relative to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than half the size it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal expenditures. I previously talked about the adverse effect of sequestration on many of our domestic agencies. I have talked a little bit today about the circumstances at NIH. I have talked about the Food and Drug Administration, the Social Security Administration, and other domestic Federal agencies. I will focus, if I might, for the next few minutes on the impacts of sequestration on a particular group of Federal workers: the Department of Defense civilian employees who are part of a Total Force team providing invaluable support to our men and women in uniform serving in harm's way. These proud individuals have in the past few weeks suffered unnecessary hardships due to sequestration. The primary priority of our government is the defense of our Nation and sequestration adversely affects the civilian men and women who help provide that defense. DOD civilians serve our Nation by advancing scientific research, providing logistical support to our servicemembers while forward deployed, and ensuring institutional stability within DOD offices as servicemembers rotate to different duty stations. Recently, some in the media have promoted the idea that the $85 billion sequestration cut triggered on March 1 isn't causing drastic effects. CNN called the cuts ``not as bad as advertised,'' and the Washington Post reported that the cuts are less ``scary'' than predicted. Tell that to the 46,000 DOD employees in Maryland and another 103,000 in the Capital region who are being furloughed, losing up to 20 percent of their weekly pay through the rest of this fiscal year. Earlier this month, the Defense Department began furloughing 652,000 civilian employees nationwide, forcing them to take up to 11 unpaid days off through September. This is in addition to the furloughs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Internal Revenue Service. These furloughs disrupt our national and economic security and put hundreds of thousands of Federal workers and their families in financial hardship. Our government cannot continue to provide for the defense of our Nation by maintaining such a harmful policy toward our civilian workers. I have visited installations throughout Maryland. I have heard about and have seen the impact of furloughs of Defense Department employees and other Federal employees and the impact it will have on their ability to carry out their mission. These cuts and furloughs are affecting the ability of the agency to carry out its legal mission. For instance, at Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Charles County, over 1,870 civilian employees--about 97 percent of the total government civilian workforce--are being forced to take leave without pay 1 day per week. It puts base police and fire protection, safety programs, air operations, air quality programs, and facilities at risk. At Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, furloughs will hit 2,400 Defense Department civilians--94 percent of the civilian staff. Walter Reed is the country's top facility for wounded combat soldiers. Its Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation is the largest within the Department of Defense. Its seven specialty service clinics include one for traumatic brain injuries. Soldiers needing expert care might have to wait longer for appointments or be forced to nonmilitary facilities, both of which will drive up costs and compromise the quality of care. I cannot say how many of us have taken the floor to talk about our commitment to make sure our service people--our wounded warriors--get the type of treatment they deserve. Many of us have visited the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and we are proud of the services that are being provided. Sequestration is hurting our ability to meet the mission we promised to the heroes who have served our Nation and have now come home and expect that health care to be available to them. At Fort Detrick 4,900 Defense Department civilians will be furloughed. Those civilians support a multigovernment community that conducts biomedical research and development as well as medical material management that includes everything from advanced bandages to vaccines for soldiers on the battlefield and in military hospitals. That mission is at risk. There is no other place that can carry out the type of advanced lab work that is done at Fort Detrick. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Harford County's largest employer, home to 11 major commands and more than 80 agencies, has approximately 11,500 DOD civilian employees subject to furlough, which is about half of APG's workforce. Before sequestration, APG reported contributing more than $400 million in payroll and $500 million in contracts annually. I can assure everyone that community will be affected and many businesses will be affected, as well as the mission at APG itself. Just a few miles away at Fort Meade, Maryland's largest employer, sequestration is affecting the entire region. Most of its 27,000 DOD civilian employees face furloughs. These furloughs have all sorts of unintended consequences. A furloughed worker, for instance, may have trouble making his or her mortgage or car payments. Reduced credit worthiness may affect a worker's ability to maintain or obtain a security clearance. Is that how we want to treat people who have helped defend us from terrorists? Budgets cuts compounded by sequestration will lead to brain drain in the Defense Department, with some of the best and the brightest defense professionals in the Federal Government deciding to seek opportunities elsewhere. The Federal workforce is better educated, older, and more experienced, on average, than its private sector counterparts. A significant number of Federal workers provide their services to the American people at a discount. They could command higher salaries in the private sector, but they choose to work for the Federal Government because they are patriots and they believe in public service. The world is still a dangerous place. In such uncertain times, we cannot afford to let political dysfunction get in the way of ensuring our national security. Sequestration is harming our national security readiness. Sequestration is not just about compromising the ability of Federal workers to carry out their critical missions on behalf of all Americans, and it isn't just hurting Federal workers and their families economically. Private sector businesses and communities across the country are being hurt by the reduced purchasing power of furloughed Federal workers. Federal workers are similar to everyone else; they support the local businesses in their communities: auto dealers, restaurants, dry cleaners, you name it. They all suffer when Federal employees suffer. The local economy suffers and the recovery becomes that much harder and slower. We need to stop demonizing and scapegoating and punishing Federal workers. We need to replace sequestration with a rational budget. One of the greatest attributes of the American character is pragmatism. Unlike what some other Federal employees are actually doing, in Congress, balancing a budget is not rocket science. We know the various options. Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the prophet Isaiah: ``Come, let us reason together.'' That is what we need to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end of the day the American people have entrusted us with governing and with being pragmatic. Let us do our job so Federal workers can get back to doing their jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Kevin Covert, our human rights officer at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Very shortly, he will move on to another assignment as is the usual practice at the Department of State. During his recent tour, Mr. Covert brought a remarkable level of initiative and leadership to his job. A diplomatic first responder to raids, attacks, and show trials, his was the face of American diplomacy there to listen to the stories of civil society leaders who found themselves branded foreign agents for simply working to better their own country. His handshake was there to remind those Russians who dared meet with him that the United States is committed to telling their story for the record and will not forget them--and Mr. Covert did just that as a lead drafter of the Russia section of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as well as through objective and incisive reporting chronicling an assault on rights unprecedented in modern Russia. All the while, his composure, and likely a good sense of humor, enabled him to listen patiently to host government interlocutors as American concerns were disingenuously construed as so much meddling while he politely, and with good judgment and integrity, reminded his counterparts of their own freely undertaken commitments to the rule of law and democracy. As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have the regular opportunity, and distinct honor, to interact with the hard-working men and women of the Foreign Service. They do not wear uniforms, but they make numerous sacrifices, take significant risks, and serve our country honorably. Our relations with Russia are at the heart of a truly comprehensive security and cooperation in Europe and I have paid close attention to this country in recent years. In that context, I am acutely aware of the challenges that our diplomats, serving in Russia under the leadership of Ambassador Mike McFaul, face. Over the past year, as a crackdown on fundamental freedoms gained scope and speed, professionals at our embassy in Russia never wavered in their support for the universal values that we as Americans hold especially dear. Our personnel, particularly those covering sensitive issues such as human rights, met adversity with poise and served our Nation with great dedication. They represent this country well and do us all proud. Mr. Covert will be missed in Moscow by his colleagues at Post, as well as by countless Russians who got to know him in recent years. I salute Kevin Covert and all his State Department colleagues working the Russia beat during this difficult, but exciting, period of change.