Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President; I rise today for a moment of bittersweet reflection and the celebration of a dedicated public servant who has contributed greatly to the State of Maryland and our entire Nation. June 21st marks the final day that Susan Sullam will be working in my office as my communications director. We've traversed a 27-year journey together that started when I was first running for the House of Representatives. Over the years, with a combination of her quick writing and single-minded determination, she has helped me find my voice and articulate my positions during the very best and the very worst of times for me and our country. She has been a friend, trusted counselor, and a part of my extended family. As a former editor at Knight-Ridder with an interest in politics, Susan became one of my first and few campaign workers. She was instrumental in helping me win my first election to the U.S. House of Representatives. And when I took office, she became my first press secretary. Somehow, Susan managed to give 110 percent of herself to her family and to her job. Throughout our time working together, I have had the privilege of watching Susan's daughters, Jennifer and Karen, grow into remarkable, professionally accomplished young women. She instilled in her girls the understanding that you really could raise a family and have a career without shortchanging either one. I am forever grateful to them and Susan's husband Brian for sharing her time with me and the people of Maryland. I know Susan's family is looking forward to their first dinner without her Blackberry I have always thought that Susan was born to be a journalist. Her mother, Mary Jane Fisher, was an admired and respected journalist and publicist who worked for 25 years as the Washington correspondent for the National Underwriter, a publisher of insurance and financial services trade publications. She was a well-known figure on Capitol Hill, and she frequented hearings of the Ways and Means Committee, where I served. During one particularly memorable Medicare hearing, I watched from the dais as three generations of this wonderful family all worked the room. Mary Jane was reporting for her publication; Susan was covering the hearing as my press secretary; and Susan's daughter Jennifer was serving as an intern in the Ways and Means press office that summer, reporting to her boss, now-Representative Dan Maffei of New York. Susan has been witness to the good and bad of politics over the course of nearly three decades. We started together at a time of great optimism that Congress could make decisions and enact meaningful legislation. Susan worked tirelessly during the many iterations of health care reform; she was constantly and meticulous pulling together materials that would help explain how real families would benefit from the passage of the legislation. This was as true in the 1990s with Hillary Clinton, as it was just a few years ago when we finally passed the Affordable Care Act. Her congressional career also encompassed my time as a member of the House Ethics Committee. During this period, Susan was witness to the various undertakings of the committee as it carried out it is authorization to investigate violations of the House of Code of Official Conduct by Members and staff, investigations that included the ``House Bank'' and the Speaker of the House. But Susan's career was so much more. As I pushed to reshape our retirement system, Susan was there every step of the way with an article, interview, or a cable show designed specifically to get out the word to people who could benefit from the proposed legislative changes. Some moments we have shared together tested our Nation, as well as our professional relationship. We came together as a family during 9/ 11, watching our Nation as it was grievously wounded. I voted against giving President George W. Bush the power to send our troops into Iraq. While I knew it was the right decision, it was certainly not an easy one at the time. She pushed hard and urged me to take the strongest possible position against the war. She was my voice and my megaphone. What makes all of Susan's accomplishments so much greater is the fact that she did much of this split between Washington and Baltimore. She was born and raised a Washingtonian but made Baltimore her home and the place she raised her family. She was as comfortable talking about restaurants on Federal Hill as Adams Morgan. When I was elected to the U.S. Senate, Susan was with me as I traveled throughout the State. She welcomed the opportunity to expand our representation to all of Maryland. Together we held press conferences on the Eastern Shore, visited editorial boards in western Maryland, and attended ribbon cuttings from Aberdeen to Fort Meade. Susan made herself familiar with nearly every Maryland smalltown newspaper and most of their publishers and could tell you about their editors without missing a beat. After 27 years, I take as much pride as Susan in the fact that she really has had more opportunities than anyone else to share my voice and my positions on issues of importance with the people of Maryland and the Nation. I have enjoyed working side-by-side with her and having her as an anchor of Team Cardin. I have learned from her, and I thank her for her time. Her quick words, honesty, and dedication to public service will be missed by me, Myrna, and my entire staff. It is with heartfelt gratitude that I wish her well in this next stage of her life.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents discover, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize this successful program. For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake connection.'' The Network members provide an experience of such high quality that their visitors will indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as well as intellectually, and thus to its conservation. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the nation's largest and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square miles within six states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and historic assets of our nation. The Chesapeake is enormous and vastly diverse--how could you possibly experience the whole story in any one place? Better to connect and use the scores of existing public places to collaborate on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay's story. Visitors and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a coordinated Gateways Network. Beyond simply coordinating the Network, publishing a map and guides, and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park Service has helped Gateways with matching grants and expertise for 200 projects with a total value of more than $12 million. This is a great deal for the Bay--it helps Network members tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this National Treasure--and it's a good deal for the Park Service. In this legislation, we cap the Gateways authorization at just $2 million annually. It serves all 150+ Gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of visitors served. With the National Park Service's expertise and support, Gateways have made significant progress in their mission to tell the bay's stories to their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the bay and its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is time to reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails program. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation in the Senate that would prohibit the use of racial profiling by Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies. This legislation is entitled the End Racial Profiling Act, ERPA, 2013. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Coons, Harkin, Menendez, Stabenow, Levin, Mikulski, Warren, Boxer, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Hirono. Last year, the Nation's attention was riveted to the tragic, avoidable death of Trayvon Martin in Florida in February 2012. As we all know from the news, an unarmed Martin, 17, was shot in Sanford, FL, on his way home from a convenience store, while carrying a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. After the tragedy, I met with faith and civil rights groups at the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore to discuss the issue of racial profiling. Joining me were representatives from various faith and civil rights groups in Baltimore, as well as graduates from the center's program. I heard there first-hand accounts of typical American families that were victims of racial profiling. One young woman recounted going to a basketball game with her father, only to have her dad detained by police for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin. That is why I was pleased that the Justice Department, under the supervision of Attorney General Eric Holder, announced a Civil Rights Division and FBI investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. I join all Americans in wanting a full and complete investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to ensure that justice is served. There are many questions that we need answered. Was Trayvon targeted because he was black? The State of Florida has already charged the shooter with second-degree murder, and the defendant will be given a jury trial of his peers, which begins next month in State court. Trayvon's tragic death leads to a discussion of the broader issue of racial profiling. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled ``Ending Racial Profiling in America'' in April 2012, which was chaired by Senator Durbin. At the hearing I was struck by the testimony of Ronald L. Davis, the Chief of Police of the City of East Palo Alto, CA. I want to quote part of Chief Davis' testimony, in which he stated that: [T]here exists no national, standardized definition for racial profiling that prohibits all uses of race, national origin, and religion, except when describing a person. Consequently, many state and local policies define racial profiling as using race as the 'sole' basis for a stop or any police action. This definition is misleading in that it suggests using race as a factor for anything other than a description is justified, which it is not. Simply put, race is a descriptor not a predictor. To use race along with other salient descriptors when describing someone who just committed a crime is appropriate. However, when we deem a person to be suspicious or attach criminality to a person because of the color of his or her skin, the neighborhood they are walking in, or the clothing they are wearing, we are attempting to predict criminality. The problem with such predictions is that we are seldom right in our results and always wrong in our approach. After the hearing I was joined at a press conference by Baltimore's Rev. Dr. Jamal Bryant, a leading youth activist and advisor to the Trayvon Martin family. He echoed the call to end racial profiling by law enforcement in America: This piece of legislation being offered by my senator, Senator Cardin, is the last missing piece for the civil rights bill from 1965 that says there ought to be equality regardless of one's gender or one's race. Racial profiling is in fact an extension of racism in America that has been unaddressed and this brings closure to the divide in this country. I have called for putting an end to racial profiling, a practice that singles out individuals based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. My legislation would protect minority communities by prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. First, the bill prohibits the use of racial profiling by all law enforcement agents, whether Federal, State, or local. Racial profiling is defined in a standard, consistent definition as the practice of a law enforcement agent relying on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin as a factor in their investigations and activities. The legislation creates an exception for the use of these factors where there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and time frame, which links persons of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin to an identified incident or scheme. Law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from using racial profiling in criminal or routine law enforcement investigations, immigration enforcement, and national security cases. Second, the bill would mandate training on racial profiling issues, and requires data collection by local and State law enforcement agencies. Third, this bill would condition the receipt of Federal funds by state and local law enforcement on two grounds. First, under this bill, state and local law enforcement would have to ``maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling.'' Second, they must ``eliminate any existing practices that permit or encourage racial profiling.'' Fourth, the bill would authorize the Justice Department to provide grants to State and local government to develop and implement best policing practices that would discourage racial profiling, such as early warning systems. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices. The bill would also provide remedies for individuals who were harmed by racial profiling. The legislation I introduce today is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, Rights Working Group, ACLU, and numerous other national, state, and local organizations. Racial profiling is bad policy, but given the state of our budgets, it also diverts scarce resources from real law enforcement. Law enforcement officials nationwide already have tight budgets. The more resources spent investigating individuals because of their race, religion, national origin, or ethnicity, the fewer resources directed at suspects who are actually demonstrating illegal behavior. Using racial profiling makes it less likely that certain affected communities will voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement and community policing efforts, making it harder for our law enforcement community to combat crimes and fight terrorism. Minorities living and working in these communities in which racial profiling is used may also feel discouraged from traveling freely, which corrodes the public trust in government. This ultimately demonizes entire communities and perpetuates negative stereotypes based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or religion. Racial profiling has no place in modern law enforcement. The vast majority of our law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line every day handle their jobs with professionalism, diligence, and fidelity to the rule of law. However, Congress and the Justice Department can and should still take steps to prohibit racial profiling and finally root out its use. I agree with Attorney General Holder's remarks to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee where he stated: In this Nation, security and liberty are--at their best-- partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all . . . In this Nation, the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude . . . Racial profiling is wrong. It can leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals. And it is, quite simply, bad policing--whatever city, whatever state. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the ``equal protection of the laws'' to all Americans. Racial profiling is abhorrent to that principle, and should be ended once and for all. As the late Senator Ted Kennedy often said, ``civil rights is the great unfinished business of America.'' Let us continue the fight here to make sure that we truly have equal justice under law for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation in the Senate that would prohibit the use of racial profiling by Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies. This legislation is entitled the End Racial Profiling Act, ERPA, 2013. I thank my colleagues who have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, including Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Coons, Harkin, Menendez, Stabenow, Levin, Mikulski, Warren, Boxer, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and Hirono. Last year, the Nation's attention was riveted to the tragic, avoidable death of Trayvon Martin in Florida in February 2012. As we all know from the news, an unarmed Martin, 17, was shot in Sanford, FL, on his way home from a convenience store, while carrying a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. After the tragedy, I met with faith and civil rights groups at the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore to discuss the issue of racial profiling. Joining me were representatives from various faith and civil rights groups in Baltimore, as well as graduates from the center's program. I heard there first-hand accounts of typical American families that were victims of racial profiling. One young woman recounted going to a basketball game with her father, only to have her dad detained by police for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin. That is why I was pleased that the Justice Department, under the supervision of Attorney General Eric Holder, announced a Civil Rights Division and FBI investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. I join all Americans in wanting a full and complete investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin to ensure that justice is served. There are many questions that we need answered. Was Trayvon targeted because he was black? The State of Florida has already charged the shooter with second-degree murder, and the defendant will be given a jury trial of his peers, which begins next month in State court. Trayvon's tragic death leads to a discussion of the broader issue of racial profiling. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled ``Ending Racial Profiling in America'' in April 2012, which was chaired by Senator Durbin. At the hearing I was struck by the testimony of Ronald L. Davis, the Chief of Police of the City of East Palo Alto, CA. I want to quote part of Chief Davis' testimony, in which he stated that: [T]here exists no national, standardized definition for racial profiling that prohibits all uses of race, national origin, and religion, except when describing a person. Consequently, many state and local policies define racial profiling as using race as the 'sole' basis for a stop or any police action. This definition is misleading in that it suggests using race as a factor for anything other than a description is justified, which it is not. Simply put, race is a descriptor not a predictor. To use race along with other salient descriptors when describing someone who just committed a crime is appropriate. However, when we deem a person to be suspicious or attach criminality to a person because of the color of his or her skin, the neighborhood they are walking in, or the clothing they are wearing, we are attempting to predict criminality. The problem with such predictions is that we are seldom right in our results and always wrong in our approach. After the hearing I was joined at a press conference by Baltimore's Rev. Dr. Jamal Bryant, a leading youth activist and advisor to the Trayvon Martin family. He echoed the call to end racial profiling by law enforcement in America: This piece of legislation being offered by my senator, Senator Cardin, is the last missing piece for the civil rights bill from 1965 that says there ought to be equality regardless of one's gender or one's race. Racial profiling is in fact an extension of racism in America that has been unaddressed and this brings closure to the divide in this country. I have called for putting an end to racial profiling, a practice that singles out individuals based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. My legislation would protect minority communities by prohibiting the use of racial profiling by law enforcement officials. First, the bill prohibits the use of racial profiling by all law enforcement agents, whether Federal, State, or local. Racial profiling is defined in a standard, consistent definition as the practice of a law enforcement agent relying on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin as a factor in their investigations and activities. The legislation creates an exception for the use of these factors where there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and time frame, which links persons of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin to an identified incident or scheme. Law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from using racial profiling in criminal or routine law enforcement investigations, immigration enforcement, and national security cases. Second, the bill would mandate training on racial profiling issues, and requires data collection by local and State law enforcement agencies. Third, this bill would condition the receipt of Federal funds by state and local law enforcement on two grounds. First, under this bill, state and local law enforcement would have to ``maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to eliminate racial profiling.'' Second, they must ``eliminate any existing practices that permit or encourage racial profiling.'' Fourth, the bill would authorize the Justice Department to provide grants to State and local government to develop and implement best policing practices that would discourage racial profiling, such as early warning systems. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to provide periodic reports to assess the nature of any ongoing discriminatory profiling practices. The bill would also provide remedies for individuals who were harmed by racial profiling. The legislation I introduce today is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, NAACP, Rights Working Group, ACLU, and numerous other national, state, and local organizations. Racial profiling is bad policy, but given the state of our budgets, it also diverts scarce resources from real law enforcement. Law enforcement officials nationwide already have tight budgets. The more resources spent investigating individuals because of their race, religion, national origin, or ethnicity, the fewer resources directed at suspects who are actually demonstrating illegal behavior. Using racial profiling makes it less likely that certain affected communities will voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement and community policing efforts, making it harder for our law enforcement community to combat crimes and fight terrorism. Minorities living and working in these communities in which racial profiling is used may also feel discouraged from traveling freely, which corrodes the public trust in government. This ultimately demonizes entire communities and perpetuates negative stereotypes based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or religion. Racial profiling has no place in modern law enforcement. The vast majority of our law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line every day handle their jobs with professionalism, diligence, and fidelity to the rule of law. However, Congress and the Justice Department can and should still take steps to prohibit racial profiling and finally root out its use. I agree with Attorney General Holder's remarks to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee where he stated: In this Nation, security and liberty are--at their best-- partners, not enemies, in ensuring safety and opportunity for all . . . In this Nation, the document that sets forth the supreme law of the land--the Constitution--is meant to empower, not exclude . . . Racial profiling is wrong. It can leave a lasting scar on communities and individuals. And it is, quite simply, bad policing--whatever city, whatever state. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the ``equal protection of the laws'' to all Americans. Racial profiling is abhorrent to that principle, and should be ended once and for all. As the late Senator Ted Kennedy often said, ``civil rights is the great unfinished business of America.'' Let us continue the fight here to make sure that we truly have equal justice under law for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as Memorial Day 2013 approaches, as our fellow Americans are making plans to have cookouts, enjoy the outdoors, and spend precious time with their loved ones, I believe we should remember that the reason we are able to enjoy these moments is because of the military servicemembers who have given ``the last full measure of devotion'' in the service of our great Nation. From the American Revolution to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, brave young men and women have always answered the call to fight for our country and for our freedom. They have made many sacrifices, and as we remember in particular those who have fallen, I am inspired by their courage and dedication to freedom. The death of each one of these service men and women represents not only a tragic loss to their loved ones, but to their community and to the country. This Memorial Day should be observed as a time for all Americans to reconnect with our history and core values by honoring those who gave their lives for the ideals we cherish. In addition to remembering the servicemembers who have fought and died in our Nation's wars, I believe that we must also take care of the servicemembers and veterans who are still with us. There are, regrettably, serious issues that still need to be addressed with regard to our military and veteran communities. Active-Duty military and veteran suicides are at record rates, Veterans Administration disability claims continue to be severely delayed, programs that assist discharged servicemembers transition to civilian life are still inadequate, and many of our servicemembers and veterans still lack the healthcare they need--and are entitled to--after a decade of war. I believe that we in the Congress must do everything we can do to remedy these problems. As George Washington famously said ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our Nation.'' I believe this statement has added weight and meaning and truth with our Nation's movement to an all-volunteer military after the Vietnam War. With fewer than 1 percent of our Nation's population on active military duty, the gap between those who have served in uniform and those who have not has never been greater. These differences in life experiences have led to misguided perceptions of how each group views the other. The widening of this ``civilian-military gap'' makes it less likely that our servicemembers and veterans will properly reintegrate back into our society, and less likely that our best and brightest will pursue military service. As a society, we must address the problem. If we can't care for the service men and woman and their families who have made so many sacrifices on our behalf, then holidays such as Memorial Day end up having little relevance. One veteran I recently met with said to me, ``I fought proudly for my country in Afghanistan, but when I came back I didn't feel like I came back. I'm still waiting to feel like I came back.'' No American who has worn the uniform of this country should have to feel this way. Memorial Day is a day we Americans hold close to our hearts because in the sometimes hectic pace of our daily lives, we can forget just how fortunate we are. Memorial Day reminds us. Throughout this holiday weekend we will see many American flags and flowers adorning the graves of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. I will especially remember in my thoughts and prayers the 127 Marylanders who have been killed in our most recent conflicts, and I will remind myself that our freedom isn't free. And I will remember that the best way to honor their ultimate sacrifice is to ensure that we are unwavering in our support to care for those who do return to us wounded, ill, and injured. This Memorial Day, let us affirm our commitment to those who have returned from the fields of battle as the best way to honor their fallen comrades.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, authorized under P.L. 105-312 in 1998 and reauthorized by P.L. 107-308 in 2002, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network helps several million visitors and residents discover, enjoy, and learn about the special places and stories of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize this successful program. For visitors and residents, the Gateways are the ``Chesapeake connection.'' The Network members provide an experience of such high quality that their visitors will indeed connect to the Chesapeake emotionally as well as intellectually, and thus to its conservation. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The Chesapeake ranks as the largest of America's 130 estuaries and one of the nation's largest and longest fresh water and estuarine systems. The Atlantic Ocean delivers half the bay's 18 trillion gallons of water and the other half flows through over 150 major rivers and streams draining 64,000 square miles within six states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake watershed is among the most significant cultural, natural and historic assets of our nation. The Chesapeake is enormous and vastly diverse--how could you possibly experience the whole story in any one place? Better to connect and use the scores of existing public places to collaborate on presenting the many chapters and tales of the bay's story. Visitors and residents go to more places for more experiences, all through a coordinated Gateways Network. Beyond simply coordinating the Network, publishing a map and guides, and providing standard exhibits at all Gateways, the National Park Service has helped Gateways with matching grants and expertise for 200 projects with a total value of more than $12 million. This is a great deal for the Bay--it helps Network members tell the Chesapeake story better and inspires people to care for this National Treasure--and it's a good deal for the Park Service. In this legislation, we cap the Gateways authorization at just $2 million annually. It serves all 150+ Gateways and their 10 million visitors. No other National Park can provide such a dramatic ratio of public dollars spent to number of visitors served. With the National Park Service's expertise and support, Gateways have made significant progress in their mission to tell the bay's stories to their millions of members and visitors, extend access to the bay and its watershed, and develop a conservation awareness and ethic. It is time to reauthorize the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails program. It is my hope that the Congress will act quickly to adopt this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes at top land grant universities in each of the 50 States and the U.S. territories. These institutes created a grant program and provided opportunities for applied water supply research. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on research and development of green infrastructure. Water and the availability thereof is a defining characteristic of U.S. landscape, culture, wealth, and security. Clean water is a relatively rare and invaluable resource. Last year's funded projects included research into the impacts of climate change on water supply lakes, the development of better detection methods for pathogens in drinking water, and the impacts of drought on farm supply chains. In my own State, some of the tools we use for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were products of these same grants in previous years. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters cleaner through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources. WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants leverage non-federal dollars at a minimum ratio of 2 to 1, but often far beyond that level, as high as 5 to 1. The Water Resources Research Act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109-471. In that period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 each to state and competitive project grants. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional 5 years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This lower authorization level reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes the economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. An independent review panel has judged that the Water Resources Research Institutes command significant funding leverage for the modest amount of appropriations required to support it. Thus, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers. Today, floods, droughts, and water degradation issues pervade the nation. Simultaneously, water resources are increasingly critical for production of resources, economic stability, and the health and well- being of the citizenry. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is relevant, critical, and deserving of our support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, in honor of the 20th anniversary of International Migratory Bird Day on May 11, I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species found in the U.S. migrate across our borders and many of these spend our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes international cooperation for long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects. This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year, providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds, like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic population declines. The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the state of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. To date, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has administered these grants to support 422 projects in more than 35 countries. The $46.5 million that this program has provided in grants has leveraged $178.5 million from partners, almost four additional dollars for every one spent. More than 3.25 million acres of quality bird habitat have benefitted. In addition, birding is among the wildlife watching activities that generate jobs and income, approximately $2.7 billion annually, for the U.S. economy. This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes at top land grant universities in each of the 50 States and the U.S. territories. These institutes created a grant program and provided opportunities for applied water supply research. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on research and development of green infrastructure. Water and the availability thereof is a defining characteristic of U.S. landscape, culture, wealth, and security. Clean water is a relatively rare and invaluable resource. Last year's funded projects included research into the impacts of climate change on water supply lakes, the development of better detection methods for pathogens in drinking water, and the impacts of drought on farm supply chains. In my own State, some of the tools we use for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were products of these same grants in previous years. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters cleaner through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources. WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants leverage non-federal dollars at a minimum ratio of 2 to 1, but often far beyond that level, as high as 5 to 1. The Water Resources Research Act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109-471. In that period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 each to state and competitive project grants. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional 5 years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This lower authorization level reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes the economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. An independent review panel has judged that the Water Resources Research Institutes command significant funding leverage for the modest amount of appropriations required to support it. Thus, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers. Today, floods, droughts, and water degradation issues pervade the nation. Simultaneously, water resources are increasingly critical for production of resources, economic stability, and the health and well- being of the citizenry. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is relevant, critical, and deserving of our support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, in honor of the 20th anniversary of International Migratory Bird Day on May 11, I am introducing the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. More than half of the bird species found in the U.S. migrate across our borders and many of these spend our winter in Central and South America. This bill promotes international cooperation for long-term conservation, education, research, monitoring, and habitat protection for more than 350 species of neotropical migratory birds. Through its successful competitive, matching grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports public-private partnerships in countries mostly in Latin America and the Caribbean. Up to one quarter of the funds may be awarded for domestic projects. This legislation aims to sustain healthy populations of migratory birds that are not only beautiful to look at but help our farmers by consuming billions of harmful insect and rodent pests each year, providing pollination services, and dispersing seeds. Migratory birds face threats from pesticide pollution, deforestation, sprawl, and invasive species that degrade their habitats in addition to the natural risks of their extended flights. Birds are excellent indicators of the health of an ecosystem. As such, it is troubling that, according to the National Audubon Society, half of all coastally migrating shorebirds, like the Common Tern and Piping Plover, are experiencing dramatic population declines. The Baltimore Oriole, the State bird of Maryland and one whose song brightens all of the Northeastern U.S., has steadily declined in population despite being protected by Federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the state of Maryland's Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Likewise, the iconic Red Knot bird, whose legendary 9,000 mile migration centers on a stopover in the Mid-Atlantic states, is decreasing in population quickly. Threats to these beloved Maryland birds are mainly due to habitat destruction and deforestation, particularly in the Central and South American countries where the birds winter. In addition, international use of toxic pesticides ingested by insects, which are then eaten by the birds, has significantly contributed to this decline. Conservation efforts in our country are essential, but investment in programs throughout the migratory route of these and countless other migratory birds is critical. This legislation accomplishes this goal. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the Western hemisphere. To date, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has administered these grants to support 422 projects in more than 35 countries. The $46.5 million that this program has provided in grants has leveraged $178.5 million from partners, almost four additional dollars for every one spent. More than 3.25 million acres of quality bird habitat have benefitted. In addition, birding is among the wildlife watching activities that generate jobs and income, approximately $2.7 billion annually, for the U.S. economy. This legislation is cost-effective, budget-friendly, and has been a highly successful federal program. This simple reauthorization bill will make sure that this good work continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I remember--and I am sure the Presiding Officer does too--an early morning in March when we completed our budget deliberations. That was a couple of months ago. I remember the outcry about the Senate not following regular order in passing a budget. On that March morning, we followed regular order. We passed a budget. We took up lots of amendments. We spent hours on debate. We voted on many amendments, and the Senate worked its will. Of course, the House has also worked its will. It passed a budget that is different from the Senate budget. The next step in regular order is for the House and Senate to meet in what is called a conference to work out the differences between the House and the Senate so we can then have a budget for the country. That is how the regular process works. I know for the last couple of years we have had budgets. We have had budgets because of grand bargains that have been agreed to on debt extensions and things such as that, but there is now a cry to follow regular order. That is what we should do: Follow regular order. So the next step is to go into a conference. I must tell my colleagues, I don't quite understand why the Republican leader is objecting to going to conference. He is trying to say, We will go to conference if the Senate agrees with the House. No, we don't go to conference because we agree with one body; we go to conference to work out our differences. So I am extremely disappointed that those who are yelling the loudest about following regular order are now preventing us from using regular order. We need to get to conference, and one of the reasons is so we can get rid of sequestration. Sequestration means across-the-board mindless cuts. It treats every priority in government the same. That is mindless. That is not what we should be doing. It is having a major impact on the mission of many agencies in this country. They can't do what the public wants them to do because they don't have the budget support to do it. For an agency that is affected by sequestration, it amounts to almost 10 percent of their budget, because they have to cram in savings over a short number of months. Also, it only affects some agencies, not all. Not all of the programs are affected by sequestration. But those discretionary programs that are affected are across the board, without any discretion. If the Presiding Officer ran into a tough economic time or someone we represent does and they lose some income, they look at their family budget. They may have money put aside for rent or mortgage payments, maybe some money put aside for a food budget for their family, and maybe there is some money put aside to go to an Orioles-Red Sox game. They are going to have to make some tough choices, but they are going to make choices based upon what is most important to their family. They certainly are going to pay their rent payment or their mortgage payment to keep the roof over their family home. So that is what we should be doing. We have to make decisions, and we cannot do these across-the-board cuts. It is hurting agencies. These are cuts on top of cuts on top of cuts. Let me mention one group that will be particularly affected by that, and that is our Federal workforce. These are the people who are at NIH, the talented scientists doing the research that is keeping us healthy. They are finding the answers to the dread diseases in our society. These are people who are standing guard on our border, keeping us safe. These are people who do food inspections to make sure we have a healthy food supply. These are people who help our seniors, to make sure they get the checks they need for their dignity in their older years. These are people who are working for the public. What have we done to them? Three straight years of freezes, no increase in their salaries. We are now looking at what we are going to do with their benefit structure. On top of that, we have freezes on the number of employees; therefore, they are being asked to do more with less. And now we have furloughs, which is basically cuts--cuts in their salary. It is not the Federal payroll that causes the deficits we have today. As the Presiding Officer and I know, it is the fact that we went to war in two countries, we cut taxes, we went through a recession. We have to answer the way of getting out of this problem in a balanced approach. We have already done the discretionary cuts to those agencies, and we are now affecting their ability to do their mission. I want to mention some of the effects of sequestration on the citizens of Maryland, whom I have the opportunity to represent in the Senate. Maryland will lose approximately $14.4 million in funding for primary and secondary education. Twelve thousand fewer students will be served and approximately 30 fewer schools will receive funding. In Maryland, we believe education is a top priority. That is how we compete. That is how we invest in our future. We invest in our children. Maryland will lose approximately $10 million in funds for about 120 teachers, aides, and staff who help our children with disabilities. Around 770 fewer low-income students in Maryland will receive aid to help them finance the cost of college, and around 440 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college. These are programs that Democrats and Republicans have fought for over the years to make sure they are funded. Now, in Maryland, we are going to have to cut back. Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 800 children in Maryland, reducing access to critical early education. The list goes on and on and on. Maryland would lose about $3 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. We have worked hard to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and provide a safe environment for our families. That is in jeopardy as a result of sequestration. In addition, Maryland could lose another $467,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection. In Maryland, there will be 46,000--tens of thousands--of civilians in the Department of Defense who will be furloughed, reducing gross payroll by around $353.7 million in total in our State. Maryland will lose about $317,000 in justice assistance grants. These grants support law enforcement. We all talk about supporting law enforcement. These grants also support prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives. Maryland will lose about $66,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 9,270 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment. Madam President, 2,050 fewer children in Maryland will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and hepatitis B. Maryland will lose approximately $551,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats, including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. Maryland will lose about $1.6 million in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,500 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. Maryland health departments will lose about $595,000, resulting in around 14,900 fewer HIV tests. Maryland could lose up to $124,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence. My point is these are cuts that I do not think the public wants us to do. In Congress, each of us says: Oh, we did not mean that. Well, it is time for us to act. Democrats and Republicans, coming together in a bipartisan way, compromise. That is what our Founding Fathers envisioned we would do--working together--so we have a balanced approach. Just look at compulsory spending, mandatory spending. We can organize our health care delivery system in a more cost-effective way. Dealing with individuals with high-cost interventions--we can save money there--reduce hospital readmission rates. There are ways we can bring down costs in a sensible way. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. We can reduce our military spending. We can certainly look at the $1.2 trillion we spend every year through the Tax Code--that is on a yearly basis--tax expenditures. We can certainly close some of those loopholes and get the badly needed revenues so we can deal with our budget in a balanced, responsible way. Let's work together in a bipartisan fashion, Democrats and Republicans. One more thing it will do: Solving problems gives predictability, and people will know what the rules are. They will know what our budget is, they will know what our Tax Code is, and that unleashes our economy and creates jobs, which helps the economy and helps balance our budget. I urge my colleagues, let's take the next step. The next step is to go to conference on the budget. Let's work out the differences between the House and the Senate. Let's do what we are supposed to do in regular order. I urge my Republican colleagues to remove their objections, and let's get to a conference on the budget as soon as possible. With that, I see my distinguished friend from Utah who is on the floor. I always learn a lot when he speaks, so I am going to yield the floor for my colleague from Utah.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2013. I wish to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, for joining me in this effort. Our bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow employees who use health flexible spending arrangements, FSAs, to cash out any remaining balance in their account at the end of a plan year. This provision replaces current IRS policy in which any unspent FSA funds revert to the employer at the end of the plan year for activities related to plan administration. FSAs are an important benefit for all workers as they allow employees to set aside pre-tax dollars to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenditures, including dental and vision services. Many families count on their FSAs to help cover their monthly expenses for prescription drugs, co-pays for doctors' visits, children's dental care, and medical equipment and supplies for disabled family members. In an economy where every penny counts, it just does not make sense for employees who may have overestimated their anticipated yearly out- of-pocket health care expenditures at the beginning of a plan year to be penalized by having to forfeit unspent funds to their employer at the end of a plan year. It also leads to wasteful spending when employees try to avoid forfeiting their FSA balances by rushing at the end of a plan year to purchase unnecessary health-related items, such as multiple pairs of eyeglasses. One-third of the Federal workforce currently use FSAs, as do millions of State, county and local public employees, and workers in private industry. We should encourage employees to put money into FSAs to help defray their out-of-pocket health care costs, to use these funds wisely, and not have them fear losing hard-earned money at the end of a plan year just because their health care expenditures may be less than anticipated. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, which will help America's working families better manage their personal finances.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medical FSA Improvement Act of 2013. I wish to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, for joining me in this effort. Our bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow employees who use health flexible spending arrangements, FSAs, to cash out any remaining balance in their account at the end of a plan year. This provision replaces current IRS policy in which any unspent FSA funds revert to the employer at the end of the plan year for activities related to plan administration. FSAs are an important benefit for all workers as they allow employees to set aside pre-tax dollars to pay for out-of-pocket health care expenditures, including dental and vision services. Many families count on their FSAs to help cover their monthly expenses for prescription drugs, co-pays for doctors' visits, children's dental care, and medical equipment and supplies for disabled family members. In an economy where every penny counts, it just does not make sense for employees who may have overestimated their anticipated yearly out- of-pocket health care expenditures at the beginning of a plan year to be penalized by having to forfeit unspent funds to their employer at the end of a plan year. It also leads to wasteful spending when employees try to avoid forfeiting their FSA balances by rushing at the end of a plan year to purchase unnecessary health-related items, such as multiple pairs of eyeglasses. One-third of the Federal workforce currently use FSAs, as do millions of State, county and local public employees, and workers in private industry. We should encourage employees to put money into FSAs to help defray their out-of-pocket health care costs, to use these funds wisely, and not have them fear losing hard-earned money at the end of a plan year just because their health care expenditures may be less than anticipated. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, which will help America's working families better manage their personal finances.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter for the incredible work they have done in bringing forward the Water Resources Development Act, the WRDA legislation. This truly has been a bipartisan effort to bring forward an extremely important bill for our economy, for jobs, for infrastructure, and for competitiveness. I can speak for the citizens of Maryland as to how important this legislation is to the economic life of our State in maintaining the shipping channels that are critical to the ports in our State, the Port of Baltimore. This legislation will provide the wherewithal for Maryland and our Nation to remain competitive. In this environment, it is not easy to get a major bill to the finish line. It looks as though as a result of the work done by the chairman and the ranking Republican member, we are on the verge of being able to move this bill forward. I know we are going to have a few votes in a few moments, and I wanted to take this time to urge my colleagues to reject the Barrasso amendment that would deny the regulation of a lot of the waterways in our country. For 40 years the Clean Water Act dramatically improved the health of a generation of Americans. Without this law, which for decades had protected rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waterways from toxic pollution, all of our Nation's waters would be less safe to swim in, to fish in, and, especially, to drink. Mr. President, we are talking about the health of the people of this country--the Clean Water Act. We are talking about the health of our streams which people live next to. We are talking about families depending upon clean safe water when they turn their taps on so they can have water to give their families. We are talking about our environment. I am pretty aggressive on this because I have the honor of representing one of the States that is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Presiding Officer also represents a State--West Virginia--that is part of the Chesapeake Bay, as is Pennsylvania and Delaware and Virginia and the District of Columbia. My point is there are over 100,000 streams and rivers that feed into the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in North America and has thousands of species. The life of the Chesapeake Bay depends upon the waters that flow into it, and the Barrasso amendment would deny the effectiveness of regulating the health of the waters leading into the bay. It would inject into the Clean Water Act a way in which we would be denying the protection of the Clean Water Act to the public. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is anti- environment. There is no question about that. But let me cite another reason. I hear my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about predictability and we need to know what the rules are. We thought we knew what the rules were on the Clean Water Act, but then the Supreme Court came through with some cases that are, quite frankly, baffling to us because they change the long-standing tradition of the regulations on the Clean Water Act. We thought we understood what it was all about. So there is a great deal of uncertainty today, and the Barrasso amendment takes us back to that uncertainty. The Obama administration, through its regulatory process, has given us the predictability we need so everyone can plan their activities, knowing full well what the responsibilities are for clean water. I don't think we want to return to that time of uncertainty, and the Barrasso amendment would lead us back down that path. There are many other reasons why this is wrong to do. When we take a look at how many wetlands and how many streams and brooks we have lost across this country, do we want to turn back the clock on the regulation of clean water on the streams, the brooks, and the wetlands that are involved in our water supply? It is literally because of the protections of the Clean Water Act that we know we are going to have a safe supply of drinking water. It is because of the Clean Water Act we know we can go to our beaches this summer and enjoy the recreational activities along the water. The Barrasso amendment would take us to a point where we could lose the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act in protecting the public health of the people of this Nation. We have a good bill before us. It is well balanced. I do again applaud the chairman and ranking member. There are provisions in this bill, quite frankly, I would like to see written in a different way, but it was done with full bipartisan cooperation, and so the Barrasso amendment should be rejected by this body, and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Portman and I are introducing this legislation, which refines the language included in a previous bill, S. 3532, introduced in the 112th Congress by Senator Hutchison and myself. Our goal is to ensure the retirement security of our Nation's clergy, church lay workers, and their families by resolving an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries. Churches and synagogues established some of the first pension plans in the country, some dating back to the 18th century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff have adequate resources during their retirement years. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over one million clergy members across the country in their retirement--particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Church plans developed structures and mechanisms that reflect the differing church polities they serve and their unique status has been recognized in law. However, recent IRS regulations governing 403(b) pension programs and legislative changes have resulted in uncertainty and compliance issues for church pension plans. The Church Plan Clarification Act is straightforward, non- controversial, and has bipartisan support. I hope we can work quickly to provide clarity for these distinctive plans by enacting this legislation and thereby ensuring that those who dedicate their lives to religious service are not inappropriately and unfairly disadvantaged. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Portman and I are introducing this legislation, which refines the language included in a previous bill, S. 3532, introduced in the 112th Congress by Senator Hutchison and myself. Our goal is to ensure the retirement security of our Nation's clergy, church lay workers, and their families by resolving an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries. Churches and synagogues established some of the first pension plans in the country, some dating back to the 18th century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff have adequate resources during their retirement years. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over one million clergy members across the country in their retirement--particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Church plans developed structures and mechanisms that reflect the differing church polities they serve and their unique status has been recognized in law. However, recent IRS regulations governing 403(b) pension programs and legislative changes have resulted in uncertainty and compliance issues for church pension plans. The Church Plan Clarification Act is straightforward, non- controversial, and has bipartisan support. I hope we can work quickly to provide clarity for these distinctive plans by enacting this legislation and thereby ensuring that those who dedicate their lives to religious service are not inappropriately and unfairly disadvantaged. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, next week is American Craft Beer Week so I am pleased to rise today with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce Act of 2013, otherwise known as the Small BREW Act. Our esteemed former colleague, Senator Kerry, now Secretary of State, introduced this bill in the 112th Congress. I am honored to take up the mantel. The Small BREW Act of 2013 would reduce the excise tax on America's craft brewers. Under current federal law, brewers producing fewer than 2 million barrels annually pay $7 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels they brew, and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter, one barrel = 31 gallons. The Small BREW Act would create a new excise tax rate structure that helps start-up and small breweries and reflects the evolution of the craft brewing industry. The rate for the smallest packaging breweries and brewpubs would be $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels. For production between 60,001 and 2 million barrels, the rate would be $16.00 per barrel. Thereafter, the rate would be $18.00 per barrel. Breweries with an annual production of 6 million barrels or less would qualify for these recalibrated tax rates. The small brewer threshold and tax rate were established in 1976 and have never been updated. Since then, the annual production of the largest U.S. brewery has increased from 45 million barrels to 105 million barrels. Raising the ceiling that defines small breweries from 2 million barrels to 6 million barrels more accurately reflects the intent of the original differentiation between large and small brewers in the U.S. Because of differences in economies of scale, small brewers have higher costs for raw materials, production, packaging, and market entry compared to larger, well-established multi-national competitors. Adjusting the excise tax rate would provide small brewers with an additional $67 million each year they could use to start or expand their businesses on a regional or national scale. Three years ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, scored the bill at roughly $33 million annually and $324 million over 10 years. A more recent, March 2013, study on the costs and benefits of the House companion bill that Harvard University economist John Friedman prepared on behalf of the Brewers Association indicates that the bill would directly reduce the excise tax revenue collected by the Federal Government by $67.0 million in 2013. But Professor Friedman notes that such a loss would be offset in large part by $49.1 million in new payroll and income taxes collected on the increased economic activity. As craft beer prices decline, demand would rise and the Federal Government would collect an additional $1.1 million in excise taxes from the increased sales. The net yearly revenue loss, therefore, would be $16.9 million in 2013. The total net revenue loss over 5 years would be $95.9 million. The bill would lead to the creation of 5,230 new jobs in the first 12-18 months after passage and the cost of each new job in foregone revenue would be just $3,300. While some people may think this is a bill about beer, it is really about jobs. Small brewers are small business owners in communities in each and every State across the country. Nationally, small and independent brewers employ over 108,000 full and part-time employees, generate more than $3 billion in wages and benefits, and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal and consumption taxes, according to the Brewers Association. As the craft beer industry grows so, too, does the demand for American-grown barley and hops and American-made brewing, bottling, canning, and other equipment. Maryland is home to 29 craft brewers, with at least 24 more in the planning stages. According to the Brewers Association of Maryland, there were 342 people employed full-time who were directly involved in producing craft beer in the State last year, and another 1,420 people employed full or part-time who were indirectly involved, including brew-pub restaurant staff and associated employees. The brewing industry accounted for $8.9 million in State excise taxes and $56.7 million in Federal excise taxes, paid some $13 million in wages, and generated nearly $95 million in economic activity. Small brewers have been anchors of local communities and America's economy since the start of our history. Indeed, there is a Mayflower document published in 1622 that explains why the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock which states, ``For we could not now take time for further search or consideration: our victuals being much spent, especially our beer.'' Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have been homebrewers. Going back much further, the oldest extant recipe is for beer. And many people would argue that our thirst for beer is what drove man from being a hunter-gatherer to a crop cultivator since the earliest domesticated cereal grains were various types of barley better suited for beer production than making bread. Saint Arnulf of Metz, also known as St. Arnold, who lived from roughly 582 to 640 AD, is known as the ``Patron Saint of Brewers'' because he recognized that beer, which is boiled first, contains alcohol and is slightly acidic, was much safer to consume than water. French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, who discovered yeast and propounded the germ theory that is the basis of so much of modern medicine, worked for breweries for much of his career. The pH scale, the standard measurement of acidity, was developed by the head of Carlsberg Laboratory's Chemical Department in 1909. Dr. S

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as we prepare to celebrate Mother's Day this Sunday, I am today introducing a joint resolution which would remove the deadline for the ratification by the States of the equal rights amendment, the ERA. I thank my cosponsors. As of this morning my cosponsors included Senator Kirk, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murkowski, Senator Harkin, Senator Sanders, Senator Levin, Senator Menendez, Senator Stabenow, Senator Heinrich, Senator Boxer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Murphy, Senator Baldwin, Senator Landrieu, Senator Brown, and Senator Begich. When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, or 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress, but ultimately only 35 of the 38 States required ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982. Congress has the authority to give the States another chance, and should do so. I want to point out to my colleagues that in 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. So this additional delay is certainly in keeping with our prior precedent. Article 5 of the Constitution contains no time limit for the ratification of constitutional changes, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution requires equal protection of the laws, and so far the Supreme Court has held most sex and gender classifications are subject only to intermediate scrutiny when analyzing the laws that have a discriminatory impact. In other words, right now gender discrimination does not have the strict interpretation standard; it is not subject to the higher standard which it should be. In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Scalia gave an interview in which he stated: Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. In other words, we don't have that protection in the Constitution today. Ratification of the ERA by State legislatures would provide the courts with a clearer guidance in holding gender or sex clarification to the strict scrutiny standard. The ERA is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment. It reads: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation, and the amendment would take effect 2 years after ratification. Today nearly half the States have a version of ERA written into their State constitutions. The constitution of my own State of Maryland reads that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex.'' I am therefore pleased to introduce this joint resolution today, and I thank Representative Andrews for introducing a companion version in the House today as well. This legislation is endorsed by a wide variety of groups, including United 4 Equality, the National Council of Women's Organizations, the American Association of University Women, Business & Professional Women's Foundation, Federally Employed Women, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, next week is American Craft Beer Week so I am pleased to rise today with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce Act of 2013, otherwise known as the Small BREW Act. Our esteemed former colleague, Senator Kerry, now Secretary of State, introduced this bill in the 112th Congress. I am honored to take up the mantel. The Small BREW Act of 2013 would reduce the excise tax on America's craft brewers. Under current federal law, brewers producing fewer than 2 million barrels annually pay $7 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels they brew, and $18 per barrel on every barrel thereafter, one barrel = 31 gallons. The Small BREW Act would create a new excise tax rate structure that helps start-up and small breweries and reflects the evolution of the craft brewing industry. The rate for the smallest packaging breweries and brewpubs would be $3.50 per barrel on the first 60,000 barrels. For production between 60,001 and 2 million barrels, the rate would be $16.00 per barrel. Thereafter, the rate would be $18.00 per barrel. Breweries with an annual production of 6 million barrels or less would qualify for these recalibrated tax rates. The small brewer threshold and tax rate were established in 1976 and have never been updated. Since then, the annual production of the largest U.S. brewery has increased from 45 million barrels to 105 million barrels. Raising the ceiling that defines small breweries from 2 million barrels to 6 million barrels more accurately reflects the intent of the original differentiation between large and small brewers in the U.S. Because of differences in economies of scale, small brewers have higher costs for raw materials, production, packaging, and market entry compared to larger, well-established multi-national competitors. Adjusting the excise tax rate would provide small brewers with an additional $67 million each year they could use to start or expand their businesses on a regional or national scale. Three years ago, the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, scored the bill at roughly $33 million annually and $324 million over 10 years. A more recent, March 2013, study on the costs and benefits of the House companion bill that Harvard University economist John Friedman prepared on behalf of the Brewers Association indicates that the bill would directly reduce the excise tax revenue collected by the Federal Government by $67.0 million in 2013. But Professor Friedman notes that such a loss would be offset in large part by $49.1 million in new payroll and income taxes collected on the increased economic activity. As craft beer prices decline, demand would rise and the Federal Government would collect an additional $1.1 million in excise taxes from the increased sales. The net yearly revenue loss, therefore, would be $16.9 million in 2013. The total net revenue loss over 5 years would be $95.9 million. The bill would lead to the creation of 5,230 new jobs in the first 12-18 months after passage and the cost of each new job in foregone revenue would be just $3,300. While some people may think this is a bill about beer, it is really about jobs. Small brewers are small business owners in communities in each and every State across the country. Nationally, small and independent brewers employ over 108,000 full and part-time employees, generate more than $3 billion in wages and benefits, and pay more than $2.3 billion in business, personal and consumption taxes, according to the Brewers Association. As the craft beer industry grows so, too, does the demand for American-grown barley and hops and American-made brewing, bottling, canning, and other equipment. Maryland is home to 29 craft brewers, with at least 24 more in the planning stages. According to the Brewers Association of Maryland, there were 342 people employed full-time who were directly involved in producing craft beer in the State last year, and another 1,420 people employed full or part-time who were indirectly involved, including brew-pub restaurant staff and associated employees. The brewing industry accounted for $8.9 million in State excise taxes and $56.7 million in Federal excise taxes, paid some $13 million in wages, and generated nearly $95 million in economic activity. Small brewers have been anchors of local communities and America's economy since the start of our history. Indeed, there is a Mayflower document published in 1622 that explains why the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock which states, ``For we could not now take time for further search or consideration: our victuals being much spent, especially our beer.'' Presidents from George Washington to Barack Obama have been homebrewers. Going back much further, the oldest extant recipe is for beer. And many people would argue that our thirst for beer is what drove man from being a hunter-gatherer to a crop cultivator since the earliest domesticated cereal grains were various types of barley better suited for beer production than making bread. Saint Arnulf of Metz, also known as St. Arnold, who lived from roughly 582 to 640 AD, is known as the ``Patron Saint of Brewers'' because he recognized that beer, which is boiled first, contains alcohol and is slightly acidic, was much safer to consume than water. French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, who discovered yeast and propounded the germ theory that is the basis of so much of modern medicine, worked for breweries for much of his career. The pH scale, the standard measurement of acidity, was developed by the head of Carlsberg Laboratory's Chemical Department in 1909. Dr. S

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, May is Mental Health Awareness Month. The Mental Health America organization began this campaign in 1949 in an effort to raise awareness of mental health conditions and mental wellness. Even after more than 60 years, however, we are still fighting against the stigma of mental illness and for greater access to mental health services for all Americans. I would like to call particular attention to mental health issues affecting our Active-Duty service men and women, our veterans, and the impact of these issues on thousands of military families. The protracted military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have made mental health disorders some of the ``signature'' wounds our military members experience upon returning from these conflicts. A comprehensive study by RAND found that approximately 18.5 percent of those returning from deployment reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of post- traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, or depression. And up to 30 percent of troops returning home from combat develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months. Unfortunately, due to the stigma associated with seeking help and the fear of risking their careers, our service men and women often do not seek the care they desperately need and are entitled to receive. In fact, according to a recent Department of Defense, DoD, report, mental health disorders are the leading cause of disability among U.S. military members. Recent studies illustrate that out of the 1.4 million Active-Duty servicemembers, mental health disorders are the leading cause of hospitalization among men and the second leading cause for women, only after pregnancy-related conditions. The five most common mental disorders our military members face are post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, major depression, bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence, and substance dependence. These disorders are likely to be chronic in nature or long-lasting in duration. Since mental health issues often aren't immediately addressed on Active Duty, we see even higher numbers of mental illness diagnoses among our veterans. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, VA, the number of veterans receiving specialized mental health treatment from the VA has risen each year, from 927,052 in fiscal year 2006 to more than 1.3 million in fiscal year 2012. One major reason for this increase is the VA's proactive screening of all veterans to identify those who may have symptoms of depression, PTSD, or problem use of alcohol or drugs. As we anticipate a growing number of incoming veterans with this need for care, increasing availability of qualified mental health professionals is absolutely imperative. I commend VA Secretary Shinseki's recent decision to hire an additional 1,600 mental health staff at the VA. We know our veterans need these services and we must do everything we can to provide them with the care they need. The invisible wounds of war are not new--they were called ``shell shock'' or ``combat fatigue'' after World War I and World War II, or ``post-Vietnam syndrome'' after Vietnam. But there are unique features stemming from our prolonged engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. First, our troops have experienced more frequent deployments of longer duration while having shorter ``dwell time,'' creating a more stressful environment. Second, we have the highest rate of survivability in history for serious injuries such as amputations, severe burns, and spinal cord damage, leading to greater need for mental health care. Third, the prevalence of traumatic brain injury, TBI, from improvised explosive devices, IEDs, and other blasts have increased the number of combat veterans with mild to severe diagnoses, which are linked to other psychological comorbidities. It took the DoD and the VA too long, unfortunately, to realize that their medical care system must provide the same level of expertise, resources, and dedication to address the psychological wounds of war as they do for physical ones. Although the DoD and the VA have made progress in the past 5 years, there is still a great gap between the mental health needs of our military members and their access to quality care. This is an epidemic that needs to be resolved. Recent reports indicate that nearly 22 veterans commit suicide every day. In 2012, more than 349 Active-Duty service men and women across the four branches took their own lives. That is an average of 1 every 25 hours, the highest suicide rate ever in the DoD. It is not just about resources. In fact, having an adequate number of mental health professionals is just one component of ensuring access to care. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified in a hearing the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense held last year that he was unsatisfied with the Pentagon's current approach to combating military suicides and admitted that the DoD needs to review its procedures for handling mental health cases. Secretary Panetta said that there are still huge gaps in the way a mental health diagnosis is determined. Furthermore, Secretary Panetta acknowledged that the greatest obstacle to service men and women receiving necessary mental health treatment is the stigma that continues to be associated with seeking help for psychological injuries. Throughout Maryland, I hear from service men and women who believe that seeking mental health services will hurt their military careers. We must overcome these real and perceived barriers to care by changing the policies that govern how we provide mental health care to our military members. Those who are hurting in silence will seek treatment only when they can truly speak freely and off the record. As more and more of these individuals go untreated, we will continue to see a rise in suicides and other tragic incidents among our military members and veterans. Even as we wind down our combat operations in Afghanistan over the next year, I fear that we will continue to see an increasing number of our military members and veterans needing mental health care in the near future. Yet the DoD now is facing looming furloughs and unnecessary funding cuts, which could force the DoD to lose many of the highly valued mental health and behavioral professionals who were hired to help treat soaring rates of PTSD. Recently, Dr. Jonathan Woodson, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, stated his concerns over the DoD's long-term capability to provide mental health care to the force, to counter the effects of PTSD. More than one-half of the mental health specialists serving the military are civilians, and they have options to seek employment elsewhere. I worry about sustaining this valuable workforce under constant threat from sequesters. Mr. President, we need to ensure that we have the personnel, resources, and policies in place to guarantee access to quality mental health care for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and their families. Active-Duty service men and women especially need access to such care without fear of being stigmatized of suffering career- damaging consequences. Providing such care isn't just a good idea to maintain the well-being and readiness of our troops; it is our solemn moral obligation to those who have sacrificed so much for our great Nation. It is important for us to remember that--especially during Mental Health Awareness Month and as we approach Memorial Day.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank Republic of Korea, ROK, President Park Geun-hye for her thought-provoking and heartfelt address on May 8 to a joint meeting of Congress. President Park is a testament to her nation's resilience. Like her country, she has courageously weathered difficulties and emerged as a strong leader on the global stage--her nation's first woman President. Her momentous visit to the United States came at an opportune time to underscore the solidarity and cooperation between our two countries. Our deep ties with the Korean people stretch back to Korea's Chosun Dynasty, when we established diplomatic relations in 1882. One hundred and thirty-one years later, we are expanding our relationship in new ways. This year we celebrate 60 years of the U.S.-ROK alliance, established in 1953 by our Mutual Defense Treaty. In Korean culture, which greatly respects its elders, the 60th birthday of a person's life, called a ``hwan-gap,'' holds great significance. It acknowledges the wisdom and maturity that a person attains by the peak of a productive life. And so, too, has the U.S.-Korea relationship proven fruitful and productive. Our relationship is more than a military alliance; it is a comprehensive partnership. Our people-to-people ties are strong; per capita, South Korea sends more students to the United States to study than any other industrialized country. We cooperate on counterterrorism efforts and on development assistance. One year ago, we demonstrated our commitment to strengthen our economies with the signing of our free trade agreement. South Koreans have created an economic ``Miracle on the Han River'' out of a country once leveled by war. The country has risen from being an aid recipient to becoming a world economic power, which now lends a hand to help other nations flourish. The Republic of Korea had a GDP per capita of $79 in 1960; today its GDP per capita is over $30,000. It is one of the fastest growing developed countries in the world. And we are proud to have played a role in helping our friend climb from poverty to prosperity, in contrast to its northern neighbor, whose people continue to suffer greatly from poverty. So there is much to celebrate during this 60th year of our alliance. And President Park has attested to the strength of the enduring global alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States. This is an historic anniversary, not only of our friendship, but of the end of the Korean war. Since the end of the war, the Republic of Korea has practiced restraint and mature diplomacy in the face of tremendous threats, continued bellicose rhetoric, and provocative actions from North Korea. This is in no small part due to the strength of the U.S.-ROK alliance and our close cooperation. As President Park has demonstrated in her determined but flexible approach, we need to preserve stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region by acting decisively together to address both North Korea's provocations and the dire humanitarian situation there. North Korea continues to threaten U.S. interests and the security of our friends and allies. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I have been closely watching the alarming developments following North Korea's February 12 nuclear test, including its declaration that it nullified the 1953 armistice, and its decision to shut down the Kaesong industrial complex, and its repeated threats to strike the United States and our allies. And I am deeply concerned about American citizen Kenneth Bae, who last week was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in a North Korea gulag for ``hostile acts'' against the country and Kim Jong-Un's regime. We must do more to reach an international solution on bringing North Korea back into the denuclearization process. It is essential to ensure the continued safety of Americans and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the strategically critical Korean peninsula. And we must not forget the humanitarian crisis that is besieging the North Korean people, as they are often imprisoned, starved, and deprived of civil liberties and freedoms at the hands of a ruthless authoritarian state. So what more can we do? This March, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on North Korea which underscored the importance of working with the United Nations Security Council to strengthen sanctions on North Korea. The United States has intensified coordination on addressing the North Korean threat with Japan and developed a new counter-provocation plan with the Republic of Korea. In April, I chaired a Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs hearing during which we discussed ways to work with China to help change North Korea's dangerous path. I was pleased to see Secretary Kerry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, and Deputy Secretary Burns travel to China to seek China's help to rein in North Korea. And I welcomed the recent visit of the Chinese chairman of the six-party talks, Wu Dawei, to Washington. It was encouraging to see China strongly support UN Security Council Resolution 2094. This resolution imposes tough new financial sanctions which will block North Korea from moving money to pay for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and makes arms smuggling and proliferation more difficult. The sanctions will only be successful if all countries rigorously implement and enforce them. The international community, including the U.S., must sustain sanctions and continue systematic pressure. We hope that China will be sincere in implementing these sanctions and reduce its economic support of North Korea. New sanctions alone, however, cannot halt the pattern of North Korean provocations and broken promises. The United States will not reward bad behavior. We must use all of the diplomatic, military, financial, and multilateral tools at our disposal in a newly coordinated effort to move beyond the current stalemate. Along with Senators Menendez, Corker, and others, I have cosponsored the North Korea Nonproliferation and Accountability Act of 2013, which would direct the Department of State to undertake a comprehensive review of our North Korea policy to look for creative ways to re- engage. If North Korea shows a serious intent to denuclearize, halt its proliferation activities and improve human rights, we should be open to bilateral talks, as Secretary Kerry stated on his April trip to the region. We must continue to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. We stand by Japan, South Korea, and other allies in providing extended nuclear deterrence under our ``nuclear umbrella.'' And the international community stands with us in condemning North Korean aggression and belligerent actions. At the same time, we should separate humanitarian concerns from politics. New ROK President Park Geun-hye has launched a policy of de- linking humanitarian aid to North Korea from diplomatic developments. Previously, the U.S. has done the same, funding food aid to North Korea from 2008 to 2009. We should consider reinstating such food aid to North Korea based on demonstrated need and our ability to verify that the food will reach the intended recipients. Congress and the administration must track the delivery of aid to make sure it reaches the people who so desperately need it. American development workers now provide humanitarian assistance in North Korea without U.S. Government assistance, giving North Koreans an opportunity to encounter the goodwill of the American people. In June 2012, a United Nations evaluation team confirmed that over 60 percent of the population continues to suffer from chronic food insecurity. Hungry people can focus only on survival and have no additional energy to direct toward bettering their lives or changing the environment or regime around them. So we must extend our hand to the North Korean people by supporting the NGO community's basic humanitarian efforts to provide lifesaving services such as supplemental school feeding, increased agricultural production, clean water, and medical assistance programs. The humanitarian crisis is further compounded by gross human rights violations. People are trying to cross the border in search of food and then being imprisoned in forced labor camps when they are caught leaving the country. Reports indicate that approximately 138,000 people were being held in detention centers in 2011, where they are beaten, tortured, and starved. These human rights violations merit international condemnation and accountability. I urge UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Pillay and Special Rapporteur Darusman to establish a mechanism of inquiry through the UN Human Rights Council to document these egregious human rights violations expeditiously. I have great concerns about North Korea's political trajectory, but I believe that a broader humanitarian engagement holds a long-term promise of enhancing regional peace and security. President Park Geun- hye has taken a similar approach. I applaud her tremendous courage and welcome her visit on this historic occasion.