Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have not been on the floor during the entire remarks of my friend from Virginia, but I did hear part of it. I first want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the people of Virginia and on behalf of a sensible way to resolve our budget problems. The Senator has been a leader in building bridges and recognizing how devastating sequestration is, not just to the Federal workers who live in his State, not just to the people who live in his State, but to our entire country. This is dangerous, sequestration. The Senator has been a leader in pointing that out. He has also made it very clear that sequestration is mindless across- the-board cuts and that we have a responsibility to make priority decisions. When we use sequestration we are on automatic pilot but it is an automatic pilot that cannot carry out its current mission. It cannot safely navigate the air. That is where we are. I applaud my colleague for taking on this issue of saying to our friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's listen to each other. We know we are divided. We have different views. But we need to sit down, work together, and come up with a sensible way to balance the Federal budget to give the predictability that is necessary and to eliminate these sequestration cuts. It is particularly painful right now when we have so many Marylanders, so many Virginians, so many people in this country who are receiving paychecks with a 20-percent cut. Yet the work they have to do is the same.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Health Information Technology: A Building Block to Quality Health Care.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 17, 2013, at 1 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``From Selma to Shelby County: Working Together to Restore the Protections of the Voting Rights Act.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``E-Rate 2.0: Connecting Every Child to the Transformative Power of Technology.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 3 p.m. in room 428A Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Small Business Tax Reform: Making the Tax Code Work for Entrepreneurs and Startups.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Expansion of Internet Gambling: Assessing Consumer Protection Concerns.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Shining a Light on the Consumer Debt Industry.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,'' during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013 at 2:30 a.m. in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013 p.m.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013 at 10 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Department of Homeland Security at 10 Years: Harnessing Science and Technology to Protect National Security and Enhance Government Efficiency.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my friend from Iowa, and I couldn't disagree with him more. I know he has very strong views about the nomination of Tom Perez, but let me go through the record. I wish to spend a little bit of time speaking first about Tom Perez. I know him very well. We have served together in government in Maryland. He served on the county council of Montgomery County. I will mention that he was the first Latino to serve on the county council of Montgomery County. Montgomery County, which is very close to here, is larger than some of our States. It is a large government. It has very complex problems. He served with great distinction on the county council. As the Presiding Officer knows, it is a very difficult responsibility to serve local government. One has to deal with the day-to-day problems of the people in the community. He served with such distinction that he was selected to be the president of the county council, the head of the county council of Montgomery County. He then went on to become the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under Governor O'Malley in the State of Maryland, which is a very comparable position to which President Obama has appointed him as Secretary of Labor in his Cabinet. It is very interesting that as Secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, he had to deal with very difficult issues--issues that can divide groups. But, instead, he brought labor and business together and resolved many issues. It is very interesting, in his confirmation process, business leaders and labor leaders came forward to say this is the right person at the right time to serve as Secretary of Labor in the Obama administration. I held a press briefing with the former head of the Republican party in Maryland and he was very quick to point out that Tom Perez and he did not agree on a lot of policy issues, but he is a professional, he listens, and tries to make the right judgment. That is why he should be confirmed as Secretary of Labor. That was the former head of the Republican party in Maryland who made those statements a few months ago. Tom Perez has a long history of public service. He served originally in the Department of Justice in many different capacities. He started in the Department of Justice. He served in the Civil Rights Division and, of course, later became the head of the Civil Rights Division. He helped us in the Senate, serving as a staff person for Senator Kennedy. I think the greatest testimony of his effectiveness is how he has taken the Civil Rights Division from a division that had lost a lot of its glamour, a lot of its objectivity under the previous administration, and is returning the Department of Justice to that great institution to protect the rights of all Americans. Look at his record in the Department of Justice: Enforcement of the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The division convicted 141 defendants on hate crimes charges in 4 years. That is a 74-percent increase over the previous 4 years. The division brought 194 human trafficking cases. That is a 40-percent increase. You could talk a good deal about what happened between 2004 and 2008 with Countrywide Financial Corporation, one of the Nation's largest residential mortgage lenders, engaging in systematic discrimination against African-American and Latino borrowers by steering them into subprime loans or requiring them to pay more for their mortgages. I know the pain that caused. I met with families who should have been in traditional mortgages who were steered into subprime loans, and they lost their homes. Tom Perez represented them in one of the largest recoveries ever. The division's settlement in 2011 required Bank of America--now the owner of Countrywide--to provide $335 million in monetary relief to the more than 230,000 victims of discriminatory lending--the largest fair lending settlement in history. That is the record of Tom Perez as the head of the Civil Rights Division. The division investigated Wells Fargo Bank, the largest residential home mortgage lender in the United States, alleging that the bank engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination against minority borrowers placed, again, in subprime loans. The division's settlement--the largest per-victim recovery ever reached in a division lending discrimination case--required Wells Fargo to pay more than $184 million to compensate discrimination victims and to make a $50 million investment in a home buyer assistance program. I could go on and on and on about the record Tom Perez has in his public service--at the county level, at the State level, and at the Federal level. He has devoted his career to public service and has gotten the praise of conservatives and progressives, Democrats and liberals, and business leaders and labor leaders. That is the person we need to head the Department of Labor. So let my spend a few minutes talking about Senator Grassley's two points that he raises as to why we should deny confirmation of the nomination of Tom Perez, the President's choice for his Cabinet. He talked about the fact that Tom Perez has not answered all the information Senator Grassley would like to see from a House committee-- a partisan effort in the House of Representatives. It is not the only case. There is hardly a day or a week that goes by that there is not another partisan investigation in the House of Representatives. That is the matter the Senator from Iowa was talking about--not an effort that we try to do in this body, in the Senate, to work bipartisanly when we are doing investigations. This has been a partisan investigation. Thousands of pages of documents have been made available to congressional committees by the Department of Justice. So let's get the record straight as to compliance. The Department of Justice, Tom Perez, has complied with the reasonable requests of the Congress of the United States and spent a lot of time doing that. It is our responsibility for oversight, and we have carried out our responsibility for oversight. Any balanced review of the work done by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division will give the highest marks to Tom Perez on restoring the integrity of that very important division in the Department of Justice. Let me talk about the second matter Senator Grassley brings up, and that deals with the City of St. Paul case--one case. It dealt with the city of St. Paul in the Supreme Court Magner case. Senator Grassley points out, and correctly so, this is a disparate impact case. It not only affects the individual case that is before the Court, it will have an impact on these types of cases generally. When you are deciding whether to litigate one of these cases, you have to make a judgment as to whether this is the case you want to present to the Court to make a point that will affect not only justice for the litigant but for many other litigants. You have to decide the risk of litigation versus the benefit of litigation. You have to make some tough choices as to whether the risk is worth the benefit. In this case, the decision was made, not by Tom Perez, not by one person. Career attorneys were brought into the mix, and career attorneys--career attorneys--advised against the Department of Justice interceding in this case. HUD lawyers thought this was not a good case for the United States to intercede. Senator Grassley says: Well, this was a situation where there was a quid pro quo. It was not. There was a request that the United States intercede and dismiss. Tom Perez said: No, we are not going to do that. The litigation went forward. So a professional decision was made based upon the best advice, gotten by career attorneys--attorneys from the agency that was directly affected by the case that was before the Court--and a decision was made that most objective observers will tell you was a professional judgment that is hard to question. It made sense at the time. I understand Senator Grassley has a concern about the case. People can come to different conclusions. But look at the entire record of Tom Perez. I think he made the right decision in that case. But I know he has a proud record of leadership on behalf of the rights of all Americans, and that is the type of person we should have as Secretary of Labor. Tom Perez has been through confirmation before. He was confirmed by the Judiciary Committee to serve as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Thorough vetting was done at that time. Questions were asked, debate was held on the floor of the Senate, and by a very comfortable margin he was confirmed to be the head of the Civil Rights Division. Now the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has held a hearing on Tom Perez to be Secretary of Labor. They held a vote several months ago and reported him favorably to the floor. It is time for us to have an up-or-down vote on the President's nomination for Secretary of Labor. I hope all my colleagues would vote to allow this nomination to be voted up or down. I was listening to my distinguished friend from Iowa. I heard nothing that would deny us the right to have a vote on a Presidential nomination. That is the first vote we are going to have on whether we are going to filibuster a Cabinet position for the President of United States and a person whose record is distinguished with a long record of public service--and a proven record. Then the second vote is on confirmation, and Senators may disagree. I respect every Senator to do what he or she thinks is in the best interests. But I would certainly hope on this first vote, when we are dealing with whether we are going to filibuster a President's nomination for Secretary of Labor, that we would get the overwhelming support of our colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on Tom Perez to be the next Secretary of Labor. I started by saying I have known Tom Perez for a long time, and I have. I know he is a good person, a person who is in public service for the right reasons, a person who believes each individual should be protected under our system, and that as Secretary of Labor he will use that position to bring the type of balance we need in our commercial communities to protect working people and businesses so the American economy can grow and everyone can benefit from our great economy. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and certainly to support moving forward on an up-or-down vote on the nomination to be Secretary of Labor. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, July is National Lake Appreciation Month. This nationwide initiative is sponsored by the North American Lake Management Society, a non-profit organization focused on making partnerships between citizens, scientists, and professionals to protect our Nation's lakes and reservoirs. National Lake Appreciation Month began in 2012 as a way to encourage us to explore and enjoy America's many beautiful lakes, as well as increase efforts to clean and protect them. In addition to recreational uses such as boating, fishing, and swimming, lakes provide a variety of environmental and health benefits. They absorb rainfall and runoff from land, help prevent floods, provide drinking water, regulate the climate, and provide homes for precious wildlife. The Environmental Protection Agency's National Lake Assessment, conducted in 2007 and again in 2012, revealed that many of our lakes are imperiled due to poor nearshore habitat, too many nutrients, invasive plants and animals, and other threats. By protecting the health of our lakes, we defend the vitality of the animals and plants that depend on them and ensure that we can enjoy them for years to come. This year, Maryland has joined 23 other States in celebrating National Lake Appreciation Month and in affirming the importance of lakes for our drinking water, energy production, food production, and recreational value. Maryland boasts 60 large lakes over 5 acres in size, and over 100 lakes in total. We use these lakes for fishing, boating, and other outdoor recreation, as well as for energy. For example, Deep Creek Lake, our largest inland lake in Maryland, consists of 65 miles of shoreline, 18 species of fish, and a wide variety of other animal and plant species, some of which are endangered. The lake also powers the Deep Creek Hydroelectric Power Plant, which provides energy not only to Maryland, but also to communities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. So far we have been able to keep this and other Maryland lakes healthy. In a recent test, it was found that Deep Creek Lake's water clarity was still at a level similar to that of 1957. As factors such as pollutants and runoff increasingly threaten the health of our lakes, it is important that we continue to work to fight against them. I am pleased to celebrate National Lake Appreciation Month, to encourage people both to enjoy America's beautiful lakes, and to do their part to keep them clean and healthy. Lakes are a very important part of our ecosystem in Maryland. We must continue to increase our efforts to care for our lakes and show our appreciation for all that they provide us.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, my good friend Congressman Steny Hoyer promotes America by using the phrase ``make it in America.'' The statement expresses the pride of our country, the ingenuity, the spirit of American workers, and the fact that we can compete against any country in the world on a level playing field. We can make it in America. I rise today to share with my fellow Senators news of my recent visit to Maryland businesses that are contributing to our local and national economy through manufacturing innovation. As part of what I call my ``made in Maryland'' tour, I visited Volvo Group North America's manufacturing facility in Hagerstown, MD, and the Flying Dog Brewery in Frederick, MD. A few weeks ago I toured the Paul Reed Smith guitar factory on the Eastern Shore. My ``made in Maryland'' tour has highlighted many of the leading job creators and key small businesses that have helped revive Maryland's manufacturing sector. The goal was to meet employees and business owners, take stock of their challenges and successes, and identify ways the Federal Government can help them grow and innovate. We have highlighted the diverse products being produced in our great State, and we celebrate the hard-working Marylanders who have made these products and the companies that are providing jobs in our local communities. For example, the Paul Reed Smith guitar factory in Stevensonville, MD, makes high-end guitars used by some of the most prominent musicians in the world--including Carlos Santana. Paul Reed Smith has operated for nearly 30 years and now employs nearly 230 workers with revenues of $24 million. They are the largest private employer in Queen Anne's County, MD, and one of the top five employers on the upper shore. As a region and country, we must stay focused on creating good jobs at home and strengthen and continue to build our economy. Manufacturing is good for Maryland, and it is good for America. Let me tell you about my visit to Volvo Group, which employs 1,500 people in Hagerstown, MD--accounting for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the region's manufacturing sector. Employees at this facility are paid approximately 62 percent above the average wage in the region. These are good jobs that people are proud to hold. Volvo has set the standard for environmentally aware manufacturing. Through its partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, Volvo has developed the next generation of fuel-efficient engines and trucks. Since 2001, Volvo has invested $330 million to upgrade and renovate their facilities, allowing Volvo to build a state-of-the-art engine development laboratory to produce increasingly fuel-efficient engines. This Volvo facility has shown outstanding success. Sixty of Volvo's trucks a day have the same emission as one truck in 1990. That is an amazing reduction of pollutants going into the air. In addition, the facility recycles 84 percent of the site's waste, and it has achieved an 83-percent decrease in the use of diesel fuels. Furthermore, Volvo remains invested in western Maryland by making generous contributions to local health and welfare organizations, civic and community organizations, art and cultural organizations, and education initiatives across the region. This commitment to the well- being of Volvo employees is demonstrated by the August 2013 opening of an onsite Family First Pharmacy which will provide employees and their families innovative state-of-the-art health care to be provided by doctors, nurses, and pharmacists in cooperation with Walgreens. As the Volvo facility is highly invested in the local community and its numerous employees, we must remain invested in assuring this socially responsible company's future success. Later in the day I traveled to Frederick, MD, and visited the Flying Dog Brewery. They make a very different product than the most energy- efficient transmissions in the world that are assembled at Volvo, but I recognize the same qualities in both of these unique companies and their employees: hard work, attention to detail, and a real pride and passion for the product being made. These are qualities that can never be outsourced. Small breweries such as Flying Dog have been anchors of local and American economies since the start of our history. This is a state-of-the-art facility that constantly works to perfect its product through innovative techniques. In addition to making a product whose high quality I can attest to, they are supporting 80 jobs and reinvesting profits back into the western Maryland community. When I grew up, brewing in Maryland was a huge industry. We lost most of it, but it is coming back. Today, the brewing industry in Maryland is supporting more than $13 million in wages paid and contributing nearly $100 million to our State's economy. My ``Made in Maryland'' tour was conceived to highlight manufacturing and innovation that is boosting our economy across our State. But I can tell my colleagues that agriculture, which is still our No. 1 industry, is being revived along the way too. During my tour of the Flying Dog Brewery, I met a farmer and his son who are fifth- and sixth-generation Frederick County family farmers celebrating the 175th year of their family farm. They told me their decision to begin growing barley, small grains, and hops for local breweries is what kept their farm going. They supply small grains and hops to Flying Dog and numerous Maryland brewing companies for many of their seasonal, locally sourced brews. Their farm, Amber Fields Malting and Brewing Company, in conjunction with Brewer's Alley Restaurant and Brewery in Frederick, MD, introduced Amber Fields Best Bitter, which they describe as an English-style best bitter. This was the first commercially brewed beer in over 100 years to rely exclusively on barley grown and malted in Maryland. Amber Fields Best Bitter and additional releases also featuring locally grown ingredients are available through Brewer's Alley and their sister brewery, Monocacy Brewing Company, both in Frederick, MD. America's manufacturing sector--from autos and truck manufacturing to beer makers and guitars--have played a major role in growing our economy and our Nation to be the world's leader. It has also helped create the strongest middle class in history. To continue in our recovery, we need to make sure companies such as Volvo Group, Flying Dog Brewery, and Paul Reed Smith Guitars, which are creating jobs and investing in our economy here at home, have what they need to be successful. Our job in Washington should be to make their job easier, because when they do better, we all do better. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Hampshire is going to go next. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, that Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that any time in a quorum be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to speak on the floor of the Senate to express my disappointment in last week's district court decision on the Cardin-Lugar provision of the SEC rule. An amendment offered by Senator Lugar and me on the Dodd-Frank legislation imposed certain transparencies on extractive industries. It was a pretty simple position. It said that those companies that are registered on the SEC that are involved in extraction of minerals would be required to disclose on a project-by-project basis the details of those contracts. We did that for many reasons. We did it because we thought transparency is right. We did it in order to deal with energy security so that we know the types of contracts that are being entered into. We did it so investors would have information in order to decide whether they wanted to invest in the stock. The United States has been in the forefront of transparency, and this decision will delay implementation of a vital transparency rule that will shine much needed sunlight on information designed to protect investors and to promote U.S. energy security. The Cardin-Lugar amendment and the SEC rule are critical to achieving important U.S. policy objectives. These objectives include protecting U.S. interests in both national and energy security. Why do I say that? Having transparency in what the extractive industries are doing makes it more likely we will have stable energy sources globally. Stable energy sources are critically important to our national security interests. These provisions are important for our national security. It also ensures investors awareness and protection. If you are going to invest in a stock of an oil company or a mineral company, you have the right to know where they are doing business. You have the right to know what countries they are doing business in and the specific contracts they enter into so you can make the right decision as an investor. That is why the SEC rules make sense. Lastly, it promotes America's core principles of transparency, integrity, and good governance worldwide. It is interesting that we sometimes talk about the mineral wealth of a country as being a resource curse. Although they have wealth, that wealth is taken by the elite of the country and used to finance corruption, which just adds to the misery of the people. Some of the wealthiest nations that exist as far as minerals are concerned have some of the greatest poverty in the world. Well, the provision Senator Lugar and I coauthored was an attempt to deal with that and an attempt to deal with good governance. If we can trace the money, we have a better chance to end corruption, develop good governance, and stable regimes. The district court's ruling of API v. SEC, which sends the rule back to the SEC, is disappointing. The rule is flawed because the court completely misread not only the statute but the clear congressional desire of the statute. The statute provision was for transparency, and yet the court's ruling strikes down the SEC rule which implements that transparency. The court spent a tremendous amount of time addressing the issue of public disclosure of company reports. The whole purpose of section 1504 was to provide transparency to investors and citizens about payments made to the government. Why would Congress write a law to increase transparency for investors and then allow the SEC to keep the reports secret? Congress was clear in the letter and the spirit of the law that this information should be in the public domain. On the issue of the host country exception, over the very lengthy comment period for the rule, the SEC was not presented with one concrete example from industry about a specific law or contract that would prohibit these types of disclosures. In fact, examples are to the contrary, including the fact that companies such as Norwegian oil giant Statoil regularly report their payments to countries such as Angola and China--where industry says prohibitions exist--yet that company had no negative repercussions. The API is trying to muddy the waters by having the SEC address problems that the industry has failed to prove exists. The United States has been a leader on transparency in the extractive industries. It is the district court that has now put a hurdle on that transparency. The district court's decision is not only contrary to the law, it is contrary to what is happening globally today. The EU has already enacted a law requiring the same payment disclosure that section 1504 requires on a project and company level without exceptions. In a summit last month, the G8 issued a communique unequivocally backing mandatory disclosure. Canada said it will develop mandatory disclosures in 2 years. The Canadian mining industry endorsed that provision. Despite the oil industry's continued fight in the U.S. court, the overwhelming momentum is on the side of mandatory disclosure. Why? Because of national security. Why? Because investors have a right to know. Why? Because it is the right thing for good governance. Despite this setback, let me make it clear: We will not give up. This law still stands, and the SEC has many options to appeal the decision or revise the rule. The SEC must make sure it finishes the job. As Senator Levin, Senator Lugar, and I stated in our amicus brief in this case: Resource companies can believe whatever they wish and make any communication they wish about their payments to foreign governments. ``The resource curse,'' or the benefit or costs of transparency; they have done so throughout this process. What resource companies may not do is impede the power of the legislative branch to require disclosure of objective information to fulfill compelling public policy objectives, including the strengthening of American national and energy security and investor protections. That is exactly what that provision did. Congress exercised its right, as the legislative branch, to require transparency for good public reasons. Members of Congress and the administration on a bipartisan basis have long supported transparency through comprehensive disclosure of payments made by resource companies. That support will continue as we work with the SEC to implement this important law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on July 1, interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans rose from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This means for students across the country, the annual cost of their student loans will go up by as much as $1,000 a year. This makes no sense. The cost to the government is not 6.8 percent. In other words, the government will be making money on the student loans. That was never our intent, and that makes absolutely no sense. I hear many of my colleagues talk about how we do not want to increase tax burdens on American families. Now we are taking our most vulnerable--students who need affordable higher education--and telling them they are going to have to pay more money for their student loans. And, by the way, the government is going to make money off of that? We have to do something about that. Let me talk a little bit about the size of student loans today. Total student debt passed the $1 trillion mark last year. There is more debt in student loans than there is in credit cards in America. Sixty percent of the students must borrow money in order to afford a college education. Thirty-five percent of America's 35 million students are behind on their loan payments. This is an enormous problem, and on July 1 it became a more difficult burden for American families because of the higher interest rates. Senator Harkin, the chairman of the education committee, is absolutely correct that we should take up a revision of how we charge students for loans and the availability of loans and the cost of education when we take up the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That committee will be taking it up shortly. But in the meantime, we should take action to prevent the increase in these student loans from going forward. That is why I am a cosponsor and urge my colleagues to support S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013. That act is pretty simple. It just says we are going to extend the 3.4 percent for another year. In other words, the government will not make that money off the backs of our students. I hope all of us would agree that we need to get that done now so the increased burden, the increased costs, and the unnecessary costs to students are avoided. Now, because of our budget scoring rules, S. 1238 needed to be paid for. It is fully paid for. In other words, because current law would allow interest rates on subsidized loans to go up to 6.8 percent, to take it back to 3.4 percent, the budget scorekeepers say we have to pay the cost of that difference, even though the government would be making money at the 6.8 percent. So S. 1238 is fully paid for. We take a provision that the Senate Finance Committee has been looking at, known as the stretch IRAs that basically deal with inherited individual retirement accounts, and we require that those funds be taxed in a more timely way than they are today--a noncontroversial provision. It provides the money. I must tell you that I do not necessarily agree that the 3.4-percent continuation should not be baselined. Why do I say that? I hear so many of my colleagues say, when we have a tax bill and we extend tax relief, that if we do not extend that tax relief, that is raising taxes on individuals. In other words, what they are saying is that the temporary tax relief is really baselined and that if we do not extend that, we are increasing taxes. Well, here, for students, the 3.4 percent was the law. Why now, just extending that, do we all of a sudden have to come up with a different standard on how we pay for it? That being said, S. 1238 is fully paid for. What I think is wrong is for us to allow interest rates to go up where the government is making money off the backs of our students. We should not be doing that. Higher education is already too expensive. We should be looking at ways to make college education more affordable for American families. For generation after generation, we have been telling our children that the American dream is achievable to those individuals willing to pursue an education and work hard. Are we now prepared to tell millions of students that we are pushing the American dream beyond their grasp? Let me give one example. Amanda McIntosh wrote me a letter. She is a first-generation college student who holds a college degree from Christopher Newport University, a master's degree from Columbia University, and a graduate certificate from Johns Hopkins University. Amanda is not from a wealthy family, so she has over $100,000 in student loan debt. Amanda would like to earn her doctoral degree so that she can conduct research that influences policy regarding access to higher education for historically underrepresented populations, but she is buried under student loans and unable to continue her education, unable to afford a car or make a downpayment on a home or otherwise invest in the economy. She simply cannot afford to take on more loans. What is the message here? What are we telling the future generations of Americans? We are saying: You need education in order to succeed. You need education so we can have a competitive workforce. And then we tell them that the cost of education is out of their reach. And then we are going to tell them that the loans are going to be more expensive. In Amanda's case, she would like to do something with her future that could be extremely helpful to our country and to herself. She may not be able to do that because of the cost of higher education. And then so many students graduate with such large debt today that they have to look at paying off their debt and it affects their career choice. These might be gifted scientists who could really do something to help discover the answer to dread diseases, how we could cure them, but instead they have to opt out for a short-term career decision to pay off their student loans. We need to have a policy that makes higher education more affordable, not more costly. Yet increasing the cost of the Stafford loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent will make it more expensive for families to be able to afford a college education. Obtaining a college degree is not a luxury; it is an economic imperative. Affordable access to higher education means more scientists, doctors, nurses, engineers, computer programmers, and other highly skilled workers our economy will need to fill the high-tech jobs of the future. A well-educated, highly skilled workforce is vital to sustain our national security and prosperity in a globalized 21st- century job market. So I urge my colleagues to support S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013, as a commonsense approach to protecting students at no additional cost to the taxpayer. As I said earlier, this bill would simply allow the 3.4 percent to remain in effect until our committee has the time to pass reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and they could then take into consideration not just the availability and the cost of student loans but the cost of higher education, the transparency in the cost of higher education, the concerns we have about different types of schools and whether we are getting value for the dollar. All that can be done as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. But in the meantime we should keep the loan cost to students at 3.4 percent and not allow it to increase as it did on July 1. We will have the opportunity to do that, I understand, tomorrow on the bill on the floor. I would urge my colleagues to support that effort. Tribute to Jodi Schwartz On a personal note, let me point out that a very valuable member of my staff, Jodi Schwartz, will be leaving us at the end of this week. She is our education person in my office who has been so helpful to me not just on the student loan issue but on all educational issues-- affordability of education, the quality of education, the opportunity for everyone to have the great dream of America. She has been a very valuable asset to our staff. I will certainly miss her in my Senate office, and I wish her only the best. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, last week I was honored to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, along with Secretary of State John Kerry; Global Aids Coordinator, Ambassador Eric Goosby; Senator Mike Enzi; Namibian Health Minister D. Richard Kamwi, and Tatu Msangi, a PEPFAR beneficiary and nurse from Tanzania. Ten years ago, AIDS threatened the very foundation of societies in Africa--creating millions of orphans, stalling economic development, and leaving countries stuck in poverty. Before PEPFAR started in Namibia in 2004, Minister Kamwi explained, nearly one in four pregnant women in Namibia were infected with HIV, yet only a handful of them could access treatment. The circumstances were dire, and it was clear something needed to be done. The visionary leadership of President George W. Bush and the Congressional Black Caucus, especially the late Congressman Donald Payne Sr. and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, led to the establishment of the program in 2003 with an initial $15 billion to fight HIV and AIDS worldwide. Today, thanks to the ongoing, bipartisan U.S. commitment to PEPFAR, hope has replaced despair, life has replaced death, and productivity has replaced illness and disability. PEPFAR is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease internationally, and it has saved and improved millions of lives. Today Namibia's mother-to-child HIV transmission rate at 6 weeks is less than 3 percent. Thanks to PEPFAR, Ms. Msangi, is healthy enough to help treat and counsel HIV patients, and her daughter Faith was born HIV-free, representing the best of what this remarkable program has to offer. This bipartisan program is a tremendous success, having exceeded every one of its initial goals. PEPFAR directly supports nearly 5.1 million people on antiretroviral treatment, and has contributed to a 20-percent reduction in new HIV infections globally. This month, the program reached a remarkable milestone when the one-millionth infant was born HIV-free, thanks to PEPFAR. Thirteen countries have reached a crucial tipping point--where annual new adult HIV infections are below the annual increase in adults on antiretroviral drug treatment. And we are building capacity for recipient nations to address the problem. We have helped improve host country health care delivery systems, and countries are now taking ownership in their responsibility to care for their people. I authored an amendment to PEPFAR's 2008 reauthorization bill that supports in-country health worker training for people like Ms. Msangi, which U.S. universities and NGOs support along with other elements of the program. Research being done by Maryland institutions--including the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland--is making a difference globally; and Maryland NGO's like Catholic Relief Services of Baltimore are partnering with us in this global fight. Yet despite the remarkable progress that these partnerships have produced, we still have challenges ahead of us. According to UNAIDS, an estimated 1.7 million people are dying annually from AIDS-related causes. Global health and development resources are being squeezed due to difficult economic times. And issues of stigma and discrimination continue to limit access to treatment and care to those in need. The U.S. will continue to lead this global fight, but we need the commitment and leadership of partner countries--reinforced with support from donor nations, civil society, people living with HIV, faith-based organizations, the private sector, foundations, and the Global Fund--in order to see an HIV-free generation in our lifetime. PEPFAR represents the best of what our government can do when we put aside partisanship for the good of humanity. It represents the very best of America and our commitment to global humanitarian values. It is a testament to the power of thinking big and of dreaming big, and we must continue to do just that to conquer this disease once and for all.