Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me just point out the civilian workforce is going to be cut. According to the House Armed Services Committee, over 10,000 positions will be eliminated in FY12 alone. The House bill does not contain this provision. This provision imposes an effective cap on civilian and contractual workers.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will not take 3 minutes. The point I am bringing up is that what this would do is impose an additional cap on civilian and contractual. They are already controlled by law. The law says by mission and budget. That is what it should be. The administration supports this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to approve it. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I call up amendment No. 3025.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I think it is time to explain amendment No. 3025 that I hope I will be able to call up shortly, knowing full well that our schedule might get difficult when these amendments are brought up at a later point. My amendment would strike section 341 of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. It included language that would arbitrarily require the Secretary of Defense to cut the civilian and contractor workforce to achieve equal savings as they achieve from planned reductions in the military personnel for fiscal year 2012 through 2017. This provision does not consider the work requirements of the Department nor the law that states: The civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall be managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and consistent with (1) the workload required to carry out the functions and activities of the department. What that means is that when we consider the number of civilian personnel needed by the Department of Defense, we look at the mission they need to accomplish and we look at the budget support. That is how those decisions have been made. My amendment would strike the current section 341 that is in the committee draft and reaffirms the civilian manpower requirements by stating the following: The Secretary of Defense, consistent with longstanding law--which was expanded in a bipartisan effort in the fiscal year 2012 NDAA bill--ensures that the civilian workforce is sufficiently sized--a term copied from 10 USC 129a)--after taking into account military strategy requirements and military endstrength. The Comptroller General is required to report back to the Congress whether the Department is compliant with the law. I am pleased this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Akaka, Boxer, Begich, Brown of Ohio, Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, Mikulski, McCaskill, and Tester. I might point out that there is no such provision included in the House NDAA. I would like to note what this amendment does not do. It would not prevent the Department of Defense from downsizing the civilian workforce. Indeed, according to the House Armed Services Committee, the Department is already reducing its civilian workforce by over 10,000 positions in fiscal year 2012 alone. It would not treat service contractors any differently than civilian employees. The goal of this amendment is pretty simple. It would reaffirm the law that prohibits DOD from managing its civilian workforce by arbitrary constraints. That is what this provision that I am asking to be stricken by my amendment would do. It would set caps and cuts. Downsizing is inevitable but be consistent with the law. It should be based on a workload analysis and the budgets that are provided through the congressional process. This would repudiate the notion that what happens in one department's workforce automatically affects the other. The way the language came out from the committee, regardless of the needs of our civilian missions within the Department of Defense, its cut would be tied to the military side and the contractors would also be affected. It should be based upon their vision. It should be based upon their budget. There should not be arbitrary provisions. Proponents of section 341 would insist that the civilian workforce should be automatically reduced by approximately 5 percent because the Obama administration would reduce the military workforce by approximately 5 percent. They are different missions, different priorities; they need to be judged based upon their respective priorities and missions. Earlier today the administration released a Statement of Administration Policy that clearly rejects the current section 341 of the bill. I am quoting from the administration's statement of policy: The Administration objects to section 341, which would reduce funding for the civilian and contractor workforce by a rate that is at least equal to the percentage of funding saved from the planned reductions of military personnel end strength. This would require savings in civilian and contract workforces in excess of $5 billion over the planned savings through FY 2017. The Administration believes the size of the civilian workforce should be determined based on workload and funding, not on arbitrary comparisons to the military. To comply with this legislation, the Department would need to significantly divest workload and impose workforce caps. What the committee did--I don't know if it was intentional or not-- what the committee did, they imposed their own sequestration order on the civilian and contractor workforce within DOD. That makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone here has been outspoken that it is wrong to do these across-the-board cuts that have nothing to do with priority or mission. My amendment would strike that provision from the committee bill. It would substitute instead law that requires that the workforce be determined by mission and budget. It does not at all prevent us from downsizing. We all know we have to downsize, and the budget downsizes the civilian and contractor workforce. But we should not be setting arbitrary caps within what we have already done through the review and budget process. I am pleased that this amendment is supported by many of the groups directly impacted by the decisions here. When I have a chance to offer this amendment, I will urge my colleagues to support the amendment so we can correct this provision in the bill, which I think allows us to comply with current law, protect the mission of the Department of Defense, and establish priorities in the way we should, not by arbitrary caps. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3199

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Ann Y. Lee, a Department of Defense fellow, during the Senate consideration of S. 3254, the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and give thanks to my State director, Bailey Fine, who is retiring at the end of the 112th Congress after 27 years of devoted service. There is great sadness but deep appreciation as I say goodbye to Bailey who, in 1982, ran my reelection campaign to the Maryland House of Delegates; then served as my campaign aide during my first congressional race in 1986; as my district director for 20 years; and, finally, as my State director during my first term in the Senate. Over the years, Bailey has been a friend to my entire family, a trusted confidant, a reliable sounding board for my legislative district and statewide agendas. For more than three decades I have been truly fortunate to have her at my side, providing knowledgeable advice and a commonsense approach to the many issues that face Members of the House and Senate. Bailey is a people person who understands how our work in Washington affects the everyday lives of Marylanders, and she regularly reminds my staff and me of that fact. Bailey's knowledge of Baltimore and of Maryland is unparalleled. She grew up in Northern Virginia but settled in Baltimore in 1970 where she worked first for the Housing Commissioner and later for the late Mayor William Donald Schaeffer. During her years handling special projects for the mayor, Bailey developed a deep love for Baltimore City and a true understanding of how Baltimore works. Bailey became a creative genius at promoting and highlighting the many achievements of the city under Mayor Schaeffer. Before Mayor Schaeffer left city hall, he nominated Bailey to serve as president of the Baltimore City school board. In that role, she helped parents navigate the school bureaucracy, suggested workable solutions for teachers, and brought a commonsense approach to the Baltimore City school system. But Bailey's knowledge and expertise goes beyond how government works. She has her pulse on Baltimore and on Maryland. She knows the key players in the city and the State, many of them on a personal level. For many years Bailey has been the go-to person when people need to get things done. Without a doubt, Bailey has been an invaluable resource to my entire staff, to me, and to the people of Maryland. But she is also a tireless advocate and a voice for families and individuals who may not have had the understanding or resources to access the services they need. Whether it is working with the mayor of Oakland when spring floods threatened a dam near the town, getting housing and other services for a veteran, or working with community groups to improve their schools, Bailey is a relentless public servant. There is also no denying that her energy and enthusiasm are unstoppable and unsurpassed and that her retirement will leave a real void. Through her efforts, so many people have been connected to jobs, affordable housing, quality health care, or government benefits. So many of these people have benefited from her advocacy, their lives changed for the better, and most of them will never know her name. To me, that is the highest form of public service. I ask my Senate colleagues to recognize the many contributions that Bailey has made and the example she has set for public service. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Bailey's family, her husband Stanley, and her children Michael and Laura, for their support and understanding as Bailey has worked to help others. Today is Bailey and Stanley's 41st wedding anniversary, and on December 8 Laura will be married. Please join me in wishing Bailey Fine a healthy and happy retirement and well-deserved time with her family.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to vote for the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I have the honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was present during the hearings we had with regard to the ratification of the treaty. I listened to the witnesses who testified and listened to all the arguments that always have been made about treaties. I must tell you, it was overwhelmingly supportive of the ratification of the treaty. I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Lugar, who is on the floor. He has been a real champion on basic human rights issues and advancing it through treaties on which the United States has taken leadership. I applaud his unstinting commitment to advancing the rights of people with disabilities. I also want to acknowledge our chairman Senator Kerry, and the work he has done in regard to this treaty; Senator Harkin, and many others, have been involved in the United States' participation in this treaty. To put it directly, we were responsible for this treaty moving forward because the United States has been in the leadership of protecting people with disabilities. The way we treat people with disabilities is a civil rights/human rights issue. We know the history of America was not always what it is today, and we know the struggles people with disabilities have had in getting access to services that we sometimes take for granted. Many years ago I visited our State institution for children with developmental disabilities. I saw in one large room literally 100 children receiving no care at all, most of them not clothed. I knew we could do better in this country, and today our access to health services for people with disabilities is remarkably better. I remember when if you had a physical disability and were confined to a wheelchair, it was basically impossible to get use of public transportation. We have changed those policies in our country, recognizing that every American has the right to basic services. I remember when it was difficult for people to get public education in traditional schools if they had disabilities. We have changed those laws in America. We have changed our public accommodation laws. We have changed our employment laws. We have led the world in saying that it is a basic right, and people with disabilities have the same protections as every one of us. I am proud of the progress we have made here in the United States. I was part of the Congress in 1990 that passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. I am very proud to be part of the Congress that passed that law. I remember two of our colleagues who have been in the forefront of this work: Senator Dole, whose name has been mentioned, has been one of the great leaders in this body in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, and Congressman Tony Coelho, with whom I served in the other body, the House, took on a leadership position to bring to the public attention for us to do what was right for people with disabilities. The United States has provided international leadership. The year after we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, my colleague in the House, Congressman Steny Hoyer, took that effort in the United States internationally. In 1991, in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, we passed the Declaration on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities because of the U.S. leadership. It is now known as the Moscow Document. We have provided international aspirations to make sure that we treat people with disabilities as we would treat anyone else. We have in America the strongest protections of any country. We have improved our laws. We have led the world in providing the right legal framework, the right policies, and the right programs so people with disabilities can gain access to all services. The ratification of this treaty is particularly important to the United States. I say that because it further demonstrates our leadership on this issue. We have added language in this treaty; we don't have to change any laws if we ratified this treaty. We are in full compliance. There is no need for America to take any further steps. All this treaty ratification does is reaffirm America's leadership on this issue and provides protection for our citizens internationally. We made that very clear with amendments we added to this treaty during the committee markup. We don't have to change any laws. Yet it helps U.S. citizens abroad. The rights of the disabled should not end at our border. They should have the same protections when they travel to another country or when they work in another country or when they temporarily live in another country. We want to make sure American citizens are treated fairly. A witness testified at our hearing on the ratification of this treaty about how she was in a wheelchair in another country and she was not permitted to use her wheelchair to get access to an airplane. That is wrong. This treaty will protect an American who happens to be in another country and who happens to have a disability to make sure that person can get reasonable access to transportation, reasonable access to public accommodations, and that the person is not discriminated against because of her or his disability. This helps advance globally the basic human rights of people with disabilities. Other countries will learn from the United States. Until we ratify, we can't participate in the international discussions taking place to protect people with disabilities. Yet we have the most advanced laws. By our ratification of this treaty, we are in a position to help other countries advance the rights of people with disabilities, and that is exactly what we should be doing in America. Our Nation was founded on the principle that we are all created equal and each of us has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of our abilities. Ratifying this treaty is a strong act of diplomacy and a symbol of America's continued commitment to equal justice for all. The history of our Nation has been the continued expansion of rights, opportunities, and responsibilities to more and more Americans. It is in our interests and in the interests of all humankind to see that the expansion happens in other countries as well. I urge my Senate colleagues to vote for the ratification of this treaty. It is the right vote to take for the United States. Standing up for basic human rights is right. It is right to protect our citizens when they travel internationally. I urge my colleagues to vote for ratification. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the millions of brave American veterans who have given of themselves to protect this great Nation and our precious liberties. I thank not only our veterans but also men and women currently in uniform and all their families. The sacrifices our veterans and service members make are enormous: remote deployments, long deployments, injuries, and worse. Despite the inherent risk, the United States continues to attract the most qualified and dedicated citizen soldiers. The role of the citizen soldier in this country is older than the United States itself. From the first shots declaring our independence to the current war in Afghanistan, Americans have enjoyed unparallel freedom and security thanks to those among us who are willing to put themselves in harm's way. This past Sunday, we formally honored our Nation's veterans and we celebrated how privileged we are to have a fighting force as committed to excellence as our own. Our expressions of gratitude, however, should manifest themselves in actions that make positive impacts on the lives of the veterans to whom we owe so much. President John Kennedy once said: ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' So today I will utter words I hope you will join me in living by. When we say ``we owe our freedom to our men and women in uniform,'' we must make sure our veterans are treated as such. We must make sure that those veterans who need help transitioning back to civilian life have the resources to do so. We need to be sure veterans can find suitable jobs. When our men and women return home, they should have access to the best medical care, education, and training available so they can continue to be beacons of model citizenry. Let this Veterans Day be a catalyst for how we treat veterans for the rest of the year and beyond. The appreciation, gratitude, and respect shown to veterans today should be ever-present. The men, women, and families who protect us deserve so much more than just 1 day to be publicly appreciated. Every American can do something to repay our veterans. There are many organizations dedicated to helping veterans. For instance, I have had the distinct honor to work on legislation with my colleague C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger to help Fisher House, an organization that arranges for travel and accommodations for family members who visit their wounded warriors as they recuperate in hospitals away from home. Fisher House established a program called Hotels for Heroes which allows travelers to donate credit card hotel reward points to military families. Many of those families will be visiting their loved ones at Water Reed in my home State of Maryland. With fewer than 1 percent of all Americans currently serving in our All-Volunteer Armed Forces, the sacrifices of the few are not always felt by the many. Donating unused frequent flyer airline miles and hotel points is a wonderful--and easy--way for Americans to express their appreciation for our brave warriors and their families. Another worthy organization is America's Vet Dogs, which is working with inmates provided by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to train service dogs to aid returning veterans who are disabled. There are countless other groups doing an immeasurable amount of good for our veterans and their families but we always can--and should--do more. So on this Veterans Day, I ask that all Americans give something back to the people who have given so much for this country. Our veterans deserve it, and our country is made stronger when everyone makes sacrifices for it. Veterans understand sacrificing for others; we honor our veterans if we understood that too. Mr. President, as we honor the brave men and women who have served in our military, we also must turn our thoughts and prayers to those who currently wear a uniform in service to our country, especially those in harm's way in Afghanistan and around the world. They are tomorrow's veterans. So during this lameduck session of the 112th Congress and as we prepare for the 113th Congress, I urge my colleagues to consider our Active-Duty service members, our veterans, and their families' needs as we legislate. It is my deepest hope addressing those needs will not be mired down by partisanship on either side of the aisle. In closing, I would like to extend my deepest and most sincere thanks to our Active-Duty service men and women, veterans, and their families. I thank you for your selfless service, your dedication, your strength of character, and your courage. As a nation, we owe you an eternal debt of gratitude and appreciation for your innumerable sacrifices on our behalf.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 75th anniversary of the city of Greenbelt, the first planned community in the United States built by the Federal Government. Greenbelt was envisioned as a social experiment by Rexford Guy Tugwell, a friend and adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The town was built under the authority of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act. It was designed to provide low-income housing and drew 5,700 applicants for the original 885 residences. The first families arrived on October 1, 1937. They were chosen to meet income and other criteria, including a demonstrated willingness to participate in community organizations. Most early residents were under 30 years of age and were from diverse religious backgrounds. They were blue and white collar workers, but due to the segregation at the time, no African Americans were able to purchase homes or live in Greenbelt. Physically, Greenbelt was designed as a complete city with homes, businesses, schools, roads, recreation facilities, and town government. Homes were clustered in ``superblocks'' with a system of interior walkways permitting residents to go from home to town center without crossing a major street. Streets were designed to separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic and community amenities and businesses were centrally located for easy access. The first residents were pioneers in community engagement. They quickly formed a government--the first city manager form of government in the State of Maryland. They formed the first kindergarten in Prince George's County, started a journalism club that today continues to publish the weekly Greenbelt News Review, formed the Greenbelt Health Association, established police, fire and rescue squads, and opened the first public swimming pool in the Washington area in 1939. Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc. operated the grocery store, gas station, drug and variety stores, barber and beauty shops, movie theater, valet shop, and tobacco shop, and over the years, as needs arose, citizens formed numerous cooperatives. The Federal Government built an additional 1,000 homes in 1941 to accommodate families coming to Washington in connection with the defense programs of World War II. In 1952, Congress voted to sell off the Greenbelt towns, and citizens in Greenbelt formed a housing cooperative which purchased the homes. In 1997, when Greenbelt celebrated its 60th anniversary, the U.S. Department of Interior recognized Historic Greenbelt as a National Historic Landmark. Today, many of the original features of this planned community still exist, although the city itself has expanded to include additional shopping centers, high-rise office buildings, garden apartments, townhouses, and private development. Around a dozen original families still live in Greenbelt, passing on the cooperative spirit and sense of community that has made Greenbelt a thriving city and a special place to call home. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the residents and the city of Greenbelt on successfully nurturing 75 years of community planning, cooperation, and engagement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, would the Senator from South Dakota enter into a colloquy to discuss concerns I have with his bill S. 1956 and a suggested amendment I have filed for consideration, which is currently running through the hotline process? First of all I want to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me to address some of the concerns I have with this bill as it was reported out of the Commerce Committee. While I have some ongoing reservations about the precedent and potential impacts this bill could have on our relations with our closest European allies, I am willing to allow legislation to move forward if I may get consent to have my amendment agreed to. I would like to discuss my amendment and the process which the legislation prescribes the Secretary of Transportation to follow in determining whether to prohibit U.S. airlines from participating in the European Union's carbon emissions trading scheme. The second paragraph of subsection (a), section 3 of the legislation contains a provision that is designed to ``hold harmless'' U.S. airlines from the fees, taxes or fines that they incur from the EU under the emissions trading scheme. While the Secretary of Transportation has discretion as to how he will act to ``hold harmless'' our air carriers, it is understood that these actions could possibly require some form of payment by the Federal Government. One of my greatest concerns with the bill, which I believe the sponsors of the bill share with me, and I appreciate their interest in working with me to address this issue, is that any payments that may result from this provision not come at the expense of the American taxpayer. I would like to ask the Senator this question: is it correct that it is not his intent that any costs or remunerations triggered by this legislation come at the expense of U.S. taxpayer dollars?

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Senator for his cooperation with me on this important fiscal matter. I want to make it clear to my colleagues, as this bill progresses forward or is reconciled with a less thoughtful House proposal, I do want my colleagues to understand that should the Senate have to reconsider a different proposal in a conference report that I intend to reserve my right to object. I also want my colleagues to understand that I feel that the United States and countries around the globe must take actions to address the threat carbon emissions pose to the global environment. I think there are some legitimate concerns with the way the EU has proposed to take unilateral actions to reduce carbon emissions from the aviation sector. I don't fault the EU for their leadership in the face of what has thus far been nearly 15 years of failed multinational negotiations on how we as cooperating nations should be reducing or mitigating aviation carbon emissions. I would like for the United States to take greater action to address this problem, and in many respects I think it is unfortunate that the United States has not demonstrated the same kind of leadership that the nations of Europe have taken on this issue.

Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the Sentor clarifying his intent, and I am glad he shares my concern. I believe my amendment helps make the intent of the legislation clear. My amendment adds a third paragraph to subsection (a) of section 3 of the bill. The amendment will explicitly exclude any appropriated funds or user fee receipts to be expended on actions taken under the hold harmless clause. This amendment will ensure that any taxpayer dollars, either through appropriations or through user fee receipts, are expressly prohibited from supporting actions resulting from the held harmless clause of the bill. Would my colleague agree that my amendment assures that no U.S. taxpayer dollars will be expended on any held harmless actions that may result from this bill?

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I very much appreciate my friend Senator Hatch, and we are good friends, and I very much appreciate the point he makes. I do need to correct at least two points. One, I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh undergraduate, not law school. I am a graduate of the University of Maryland Law School, and I want to make sure my friends in Maryland know it was their law school.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. Under my reservation, let me first thank my colleague from Utah for bringing this matter before us. But, like him, I was in the Congress in the late nineties when we passed the TANF law. I remember being part of welfare reform. Prior to that time, we had what is known as AFDC, aid for dependent children, which was an entitlement program that offered the States the opportunity to move forward without risk because they were guaranteed a certain amount of money for every child who was eligible-- for every family who was eligible for welfare funds. We changed that to provide for temporary assistance for needy families, TANF. I remember very clearly working with the States and working with my distinguished colleague, and what we told the States was this: You are going to get a block grant. That means you are going to be bottom-line responsible for the program, that there will no longer be a guarantee on the number of families who are enrolled in welfare as to dollars you are going to receive. We promised two things: We told the States we were going to give them the tools they needed to get the job done. We provided the funds so they could provide for job training so that the people on welfare would have adequate skills in order to get jobs. We promised them childcare so that children could be taken care of while they were in the workforce. We provided the tools, but we also said we would provide the States the flexibility to get the job done. We provided accountability, and accountability was the participation rate, which could be satisfied in different ways, which said the States have the flexibility to get the job done--a model of federalism--but we would let the States experiment to figure out the best way to accomplish the end result: getting people off of cash assistance, getting them into the workplace. Now, let me point out to my colleagues that the waiver authority has been in the law for a long time, section 1115. We have had our disagreements with all administrations on the use of the waiver authority. My colleague refers to the GAO's report which dealt with five waivers that were requested from 2000 to 2009. Those State waivers sought relief from specific requirements. It did not bring forward an innovative new approach to try to use State experimentation to get the best results. It is interesting that in 2008, under the Bush administration, Health and Human Services documented that the waiver authority indeed existed as it related to the participation rates and the way in which they could be satisfied. Secretary Sebelius has made it clear that the waiver will only be used for a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent. So she is looking at using the waivers to increase participation rates, to increase the number of people who are actually employed. If there is not progress within a year, the State runs the risk of losing the waiver. It is focused on improving employment outcomes for participants. I must say that I am extremely disappointed about the partisan nature of this discussion. I say that because I think we have all seen the ads that have been put on the networks by Governor Romney that accuse the Obama administration of eliminating the work requirement on TANF, on welfare, when the fact is that the use of this waiver authority has been to strengthen the work participation rates--to strengthen the work participation rates. These ads have been condemned by major news sources on both the left and right. They understand this. So you would think that once Governor Romney understood that his ad was misleading and wrong, he would take it off the air, but instead he has actually increased the usage of this ad, which I find to be outrageous. Maybe it is consistent with Governor Romney's recent disclosure of his concern for half of America, saying it is not his problem. My job--our job--is to consider the needs of all of our constituents. TANF is a program that I think represents a model in federalism. It allows us to learn from the States so we can take their best models and use them for national policies. That is the reason for federalism. That was the reason we went to TANF reform. What the waiver authority is being used for is to give us that experimentation. We have heard from more and more States that Congress mandates too much. I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that we have too many mandates. Well, some States have a better way of doing it. Rather than spend their money dealing with the mandates, they said: Look, we will accomplish the bottom line. We will get more people working. We will get better results. We will get people better trained. We will not only get people employed, but they will have the skills to go up the employment ladder, to really succeed and have good-paying jobs in their lifetime. Let's do what is right, and then you can learn from us, rather than having to listen to the specific mandates some of my colleagues would like to see in stone here from Washington. This was a commitment we made to the States in the nineties. The waiver authority is in existing law. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius, is only using it for innovative approaches that increase the work responsibilities of the State, not diminish them. That has been well documented. For all of those reasons, I do object.

Mr. CARDIN. Well, I was afraid to apply. I wasn't sure I would get in. The second point, on a more substantive matter on this debate, is that I wish to point out the requests that were made for waivers between 2000 and 2009 were from the final requirement. They didn't seek to bring forward a demonstration program or a different way to get to their results. The difference here is that States should have the flexibility to come in with innovative ways if they accomplish at least what we set out in law for them to accomplish. In fact, with these demonstration waivers, they will have to do better on the end result on people working. I just wanted to point that out because I thought there were differences from the prior requests that were made and Secretary Sebelius's response.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Freny Dessai, Sarah Butler, Talitha James, Amanda Sellers, Bryan Watt, Daniel Lind, and Daniel West, staff of the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the continuing resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time on behalf of Maryland farmers. They are hurting, along with many farmers around the Nation, because of the devastation from the drought. I am talking on behalf of the poultry farmers. As the Presiding Officer knows, in the Delmarva peninsula the impact they have had from the drought on the corn crop makes it extremely difficult to make ends meet. I am talking about dairy farmers in western Maryland. We have a robust agricultural community. It is one of the largest parts of our economy. That is true in just about every State in the Nation. We have seen the worst drought in 50 years. It is affecting 42 States in this Union. This is widespread. Congress needs to act. First we should encourage our colleagues in the House of Representatives to take up and pass the farm bill that we have passed. That was a bipartisan bill. It was a bill that was debated in this Chamber. It is a bill that would help our agricultural community to get through this crisis brought about by extreme weather. As I mentioned, the farm bill was a bipartisan effort. It dealt with many components that would help segments of our agricultural community as a result of the conditions from the drought. Let me mention a few. The livestock disaster provision that expired in 2011 in the farm bill is strengthened, it is made retroactive back to 2012, and it would help those who are in the cattle producing part of agriculture get through the conditions of this drought. Seventy-two percent of the cattle-producing areas are affected by the drought. It is going to have an effect on our entire country. We have a responsibility to make sure our farm policies help them get through the unusually disastrous weather conditions. As I mentioned earlier--and the Presiding Officer being from Delaware knows the poultry industry has suffered unbelievably. The reason, quite frankly, is--and I will talk a little bit more about this--the price to produce a chick in the poultry industry is so much dependent on the price for feed and corn. The corn price is extremely high as a result, in part, of the drought conditions. The farm bill we passed would help the corn producers which, in fact, would help the poultry industry, so it is an important part of the farm bill. From my fruit and vegetable growers, the reform in the Crop Insurance Program would help them during these very tough times. Let me mention the conservation programs. I know Chairman Stabenow has talked about this frequently on the floor, but the farm bill we passed reforms the conservation programs and allows our farmers to do the right thing. One of the things we learned from the Dust Bowl--the crisis we confronted in the 1930s--was that we have to take care of and protect our water and soil. We need to be attentive to water and soil. After the Dust Bowl crisis, we passed in the Congress different types of conservation acts. The farm bill we passed in this House consolidates, reforms, and strengthens the conservation programs so our farmers can do the right thing not only for producing today but producing tomorrow and taking care of the circumstances we know Mother Nature will be throwing at us. We can't do anything about that until the House takes up the farm bill. They have yet to take it up. I urge my colleagues in the other body to take up this bill. We need to do that for many reasons, one of which, of course, is the extreme conditions that the agricultural community in this country is confronting as a result of this drought. Let me talk specifically about poultry. On the Delmarva Peninsula, the poultry industry is in crisis. It is in crisis. The Senator from Delaware, the Presiding Officer, understands this. Seventy-five percent of the cost to produce poultry is in the price of feed. The poultry industry uses corn for feed. They need to have corn. At the present time, corn is approaching $9 a barrel. What does that mean? If the price is at that rate, it would cost about $2 per pound to produce a chick for market. The retail price is $2 a pound. It doesn't take too much of an economic background to know we cannot make it under those economic conditions. Our poultry industry needs help. They need to be competitive, and it is difficult to do that when we are so dependent upon the price of corn. The problem with corn is we are competing uses. It is not only used in the food chain, it is used as an energy source as a result of corn-based ethanol, which distorts the food chain. I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Boozman and Senator Mikulski, that would modify the renewable fuel standards. Those are the standards which require a certain percentage of our renewables in corn ethanol. It would modify that, and let me explain how. It would link the amount of corn ethanol required for the renewable food standards to the amount of the corn supply. That makes sense. When we have more corn, fine, we can meet the renewable standards. But this year we have had drought conditions so we have much less corn. As a result, corn is going up in price, making it very difficult for our poultry industry. So then the requirements would be reduced. We think that makes sense. That is using market forces to help meet our energy needs but also to help deal with the realities of the poultry industry. I have also joined with Senator Hagan, Senator Chambliss, Senator Pryor, and Senator Boozman in authoring a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency calling for them to waive the renewable fuel standards conventional ethanol product mandate for this year. Again, let the farmers be able to compete. Don't let us distort the marketplace. Let me just say, in summary, agriculture is critically important to this country for many reasons. It is one of the largest parts of our economy, it is important for our national security, and it is part of our way of life. We lead the world in agriculture productivity. It is important for us on international trade and all the reasons I mentioned. We need to be attentive to how we deal with agriculture in this country. We need a farm and agricultural policy. The farm bill we passed is necessary to be enacted or we are going to have a lapse in our agricultural programs. We have done our work. It is critically important before the House goes home that they take up the farm bill. I hope they will pass our farm bill in order to help farmers in Maryland and around the Nation. I then hope we would also pay special attention to the poultry industry, to recognize that because of the price of corn related not just to the food chain but to energy we have a responsibility to help an industry that is so dependent upon corn as a commodity to produce the poultry product. We need to help our agricultural community to do the right thing. It is important for our country, and I urge my colleagues to pay attention to these issues before we recess for the fall elections. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first I note Senator Grassley is on the floor and I thank him for the courtesy of allowing me to go next. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001. The tragedy of 9/11 is forever seared in our Nation's consciousness. The attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were intended to crush the American spirit but instead galvanized it to new strengths. After 11 years, the memories are still raw and the pain is real. It is for the 3,000 people who perished that day that I stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and ask everyone: Never let go of those memories. On that day, terrorists showed their utter lack of humanity; we responded by showing the best side of ours. We suffered a grievous loss on that day, but we must remember that we are a strong and determined nation and we will defeat those who want to do us harm. Many of those responsible have been hunted down and brought to justice. In the case of Osama bin Laden and many others, justice was brought to them. Now there is no doubt that those who wish to do harm to America know they do so at their own peril. Today, it is clear our men and women in uniform and our intelligence community will never rest. They will never waiver. We have come a long way since September 11, and we owe so much to those men and women and the families who support them. Today, we join to show the world that our Nation is united and resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard our liberty against any enemy. We also take time to remember those who perished on September 11 and to remember their families with a special prayer. We reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers, medical workers, city officials, and ordinary citizens who gave their own lives trying to save others. Each of us has been affected by 9/11. On September 11 we showed the world a brand of resilience that could only be made in America. In the minutes, hours, and days after the attacks, Americans showed their amazing propensity for compassion, sacrifice, and selflessness. Charity, voluntarism, and a reawakening of the American spirit guided us through those weeks directly after the attacks. Men and women waited in lines for hours to give blood, children donated their savings to help with relief efforts, communities sponsored clothing drives, and different faith groups held interfaith services. Our response showed the world that Americans have an unquenchable love of freedom and democracy. Now, 11 years later, I stand before you, always remembering that stunningly clear day that was to be forever ingrained into our national identity. My prayers are still with those who suffered, those still suffering, and those we lost. But time has taught me that the way to honor the victims of 9/11 is to come together as we did in the days and months after 9/11. On that day, we were truly united. September 11 was not an attack on Blacks, Whites, Christians, Jews, or Muslims or on conservatives or liberals. It was an attack on all of us, and we came together accordingly. We helped our neighbors and we helped strangers. We reaffirmed our commitment to justice and the rule of law. On that day we were reminded that the best parts of our American character will forever trump any opponent. So as I stand before you today, I encourage all Americans to nurture the best parts of our common American character. What is that character? It was the selflessness and courage of a New York City firefighter running into a smoking tower and up the stairs when everyone else was running down. It was the composure, confidence, and decency of bystanders helping perfect strangers. It was the sense of country that caused many to answer the call of duty and enlist in the war on terror. It was the faith people showed in their fellow citizens that allowed for empathy, not hate to define us afterwards. On this day, let's not only mourn for those we lost but let's vow to them to be as good as they would expect us to be. Mr. President, 9/11 was intended to bring this country to new lows but instead we achieved new highs. Keep the memories of 9/11 in our hearts and let them guide our actions, actions that show each other and the world how good we are and how good we can be. Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.'' Surely 9/11 was a nightmare horrific. As horrific and cruel as it was, it cannot extinguish the dream. I yield the floor.