Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi for his patience in allowing me to speak for a few minutes in regard to the 11th anniversary of September 11. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand for bringing this to the attention of the Senate and the American people and to thank Senators Rubio and Durbin for being here. It is hard to believe it has been 40 years since that tragic event in which terrorists had the attention of the world during the Olympics in Munich. It is hard to believe that over the last 40 years we have experienced so much of the violence from extremists and terrorists. Tomorrow we will commemorate the 11th anniversary of the attack on our own country. We recognize the only way we could stand up for this type of extremism is to never forget and to rededicate ourselves to do everything we can to root out extremists, to root out terrorists, and to never forget the consequences of their actions. I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand and Senator Rubio for the resolution we passed in this Congress to let those who were victimized 40 years ago know we will not forget them and that we continue to dedicate our efforts to root out this type of hatred and this type of extremism to make sure the Olympic spirit--which is world competition to bring peace in the world--is alive and well in the Senate and the United States of America. We will continue to commemorate what happened so we don't forget and dedicate ourselves to a more peaceful world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the devastating impact the drought gripping nearly 80 percent of the country is having on food producers. Fewer natural occurrences are more devastating to agricultural production than extreme drought. The drought conditions the United States is facing today are considered the worst the country has seen in more than 50 years. Data computed in the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicate that the severity of the current drought is on par with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. USDA has determined that more than 1,000 counties in 26 States, encompassing more than two thirds of the lower 48, are experiencing drought conditions. Drought conditions stretch from coast to coast and encompass nearly every State south of 42nd parallel west of the Mississippi River while also including nearly all of Florida, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. It is also worth noting that farmers on Delmarva peninsula are coping with a drought of their own as well as record high temperatures. While these conditions undoubtedly present challenges for commodity growers, agricultural science, modern farming techniques and a series of financial support programs help commodity growers cope with increasingly difficult growing conditions. These advances in farming, combined with robust grower supports like commodity direct payments and federally subsidized crop insurance premiums, along with a high market price for corn, driven by increased demand for corn from a variety of sectors, including ethanol producers who must meet government mandates to produce 15.2 billion gallons of ethanol this year, all help U.S. grain growers survive this difficult growing season. Our national farm support programs are centered on assuring the financial security of commodity growers. However, there is little to no assurances on the availability and affordability of corn feed for livestock and poultry and for food production broadly. This issue hits very close to home for me as Maryland's poultry industry continues to struggle tremendously during this drought because there is so little corn feed available. What feed is available is extremely expensive. Feed accounts for more than 75 percent of the cost of raising poultry. Corn futures project the price of corn hitting $9 dollars a bushel by the end of the summer. As the price of feed continues to rise, feed costs will make up an even greater percentage of the cost to grow birds to market weight. And unlike raising hogs and cattle, which ruminant species that can eat other types of feed like soybeans or hay, chickens can only eat grains--in other words corn. To understand how important the availability of affordable corn is let's take a look at chicken by the numbers: As of today, the price per bushel of corn is $8.20. One bushel of corn equals 56 pounds of shelled corn. On average, it takes 7 weeks and 13\1/2\ pounds of corn to raise a single chicken to market weight. Market weight for a single chicken is approximately six pounds, although the weight of the bird that is actually meat is probably somewhere closer to three or four pounds. Approximately four birds can be raised, from egg to slaughter, on a bushel of shelled corn--or, a little more than $2 worth of corn. The retail price for a whole three pound chicken at a popular Maryland supermarket chain is $6 (at $2 per lb). That means that the retail price of a pound of chicken is equal to the price of corn feed. And corn is just one input cost to raising poultry. Clearly market conditions like this are not sustainable for maintaining a viable domestic poultry industry. Domestic poultry, beef, and pork producers operate without the safety nets commodity growers have. Those domestic producers that are still owned by U.S.-based companies are at an even greater disadvantage, because many of the foreign owned meat and poultry companies in the U.S. can afford to operate at a loss for extended periods of time because they have financial backing from state-run banks overseas. Our meat and poultry producers are in dire need of relief if they are going to survive into the future. One way to provide some relief for poultry and livestock growers would be to modify the Renewable Fuel Standard's ethanol production mandate for corn ethanol so as to provide our farmers better access to the corn stocks they need. Food producers--including livestock and poultry producers, who use tremendous amounts of corn to raise their livestock and produce food-- do not have the luxury of a mandated market for their products. I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play in helping our Nation achieve greater energy security. However, the nurturing and growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at the expense of our domestic food supply. In other words, we cannot sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be commercially produced into ethanol. Domestic food production is reaching a state of crisis driven by the increasing cost of inputs, like corn, that the food producers have to unfairly compete with industries that are operating with under government production mandates. That is why Senators Boozman, Mikulski and I introduced legislation making a simple change to the Renewable Fuel Standard to help provide domestic food producers access to corn. This legislation will link the amount of corn ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of U.S. corn supplies. This legislation sets up a process so that when the USDA reports on U.S. corn supplies towards the end of each year, based upon the ratio of corn stocks to expected use, there could be a reduction made to the RFS mandate for corn ethanol. This is a commonsense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our corn demands. Once a year, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will review the current corn crop year's ratio of U.S. corn stocks-to- use ratio in making a determination of the RFS. Another way to deliver some of this needed relief would be for the House to immediately pass the Senate Farm Bill that passed with bipartisan support in the Senate in June. The livestock disaster provisions originally enacted in the 2008 Farm bill expired in 2011, leaving producers without disaster assistance for the current crop year. The Senate bill strengthens these programs and makes them retroactive to address the current drought of 2012. As of July 17, approximately 73 percent of cattle producing areas were affected by moderate or more intense drought. As I mentioned earlier, the Delmarva peninsula, where a fair amount of the corn is raised for feed for Delmarva poultry, is in a state of drought, as are the regions of the country where the rest of the corn Delmarva poultry uses is shipped in from. Livestock disaster programs are critical as farmers and ranchers experience losses in livestock and grazing land due to extreme heat, drought, and fire. The 2012 Farm Bill provides permanent funding and authority for the Livestock Disaster Programs. Beyond helping livestock and poultry growers, the 2012 Farm Bill also provides much needed assistance to fruit and vegetable growers, too, by expanding crop insurance coverage to these farmers. The bill also allows the Risk Management Agency to conduct research and development on new crop insurance products to expand access to index-based weather insurance products for fruit and vegetable growers. The House appears poised to just kick the can for a year. The House is likely to consider a measure to merely extend the 2008 Farm Bill for a year, while also offering some drought assistance--paid for from cuts to conservation programs. This is a plan that the American Farm Bureau opposes, and demonstrates both the dysfunction of the House--in that they won't simply do what's easiest and best for farmers by taking up and passing the Senate bill--while also ignoring how vital farm conservation is to preventing agricultural disasters. The Senate Farm Bill preserves USDA conservation programs. The Natural Resource Conservation Service, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service, was born out of the tragedy of the Dust Bowl. The disastrous droughts of the 1930s taught us the lesson that we need to do more to protect water and soil resources so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. The 2012 Senate Farm bill conservation programs are critical for keeping America's farmers and ranchers doing what they do best--growing and producing a safe and stable food supply. Crops need healthy soil and plentiful water to grow, and natural disasters like drought have a long-term impact on soil and water quality. The Farm bill's conservation title provides farmers and ranchers access to the tools they need to conserve and keep our Nation's natural resources as resilient as possible, even in the face of drought and other natural disasters. For the good of American agriculture and the American consumer, I urge the House leadership to take advantage of this last opportunity before the August recess to do what is right and pass the Senate Farm bill. My hope is that House leadership will realize that it behooves us, when we go home to our districts during the summer recess and attend State and county fairs, to be able to tell our farming communities that we sent a Farm bill to the President with meaningful reforms and essential disaster relief to help them through these difficult times. Personally, I want to be able to tell my poultry growers that Washington hears their plight. That is why, in addition to urging House passage of the Senate Farm bill, I would also like to see further relief for poultry growers in the form of improved access to corn feed. For decades, America's corn growers were outproducing demand for corn from food producers. While consumers may have benefitted from relatively low corn prices, American corn and grain growers were hurting badly. Since 2007, the tides have been turning significantly. National demand for corn is at an all-time high and corn is likely to reach $9 a bushel in the near future. A growing and hungry Nation, combined with new demands for corn that are the result of technological innovations, have created new uses for corn in the form of ethanol as both a motor fuel additive and in plastics. These new uses, combined with expanded traditional uses, have fueled the upward spike in corn prices. The effects of the 2012 drought are obviously a catastrophe that we cannot legislate away. However, there are actions that the USDA and EPA could take to help improve market access to the corn stocks food producers need to keep feeding America. Senators Hagan, Chambliss, Pryor, Boozman, and I have authored a letter to the EPA administrator calling for the waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard's conventional ethanol production mandate for this year. Doing so would allow food producers to compete fairly with ethanol producers for corn. While ethanol production is down, due to high corn prices ethanol producers are sitting on roughly 2.5 billion production credits, known as RINs (Renewable Identification Numbers), that they could cash in and further reduce the perceived demand for corn and increase the supply available to food producers. I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play in helping our Nation achieve greater energy security. However, the growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at the expense of our domestic food supply. We cannot sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be commercially produced into ethanol. I believe the future of biofuels must be in the development and production of cellulosic and advanced biofuels that are not derived from feedstocks that are part of essential food sources. Because of corn's many uses, it has become a commodity that is in high demand. Assuring our domestic food producers' access to this valuable and increasingly scarce crop is so important to controlling the cost of food in America and maintaining the economic viability of our U.S. food companies. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Hagan, Boozman, Pryor, Chambliss and I in calling on EPA to waive the RFS corn ethanol production mandate and call on the House to pass the Senate's Farm bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3510, introduced earlier today

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 56, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the matter be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it has been 2 years since Congress passed legislation that provided for transparency in the mineral industry. It was a provision that was included in the Dodd-Frank bill. It was included as an amendment on which Senator Lugar and I worked. I wish to thank Senator Lugar for his incredible leadership on this issue-- transparency--as well as so many other issues that affect the security of not only America but global security. The provision is something we worked on to provide transparency in developing countries. It provided a visible sign of U.S. leadership, that we are going to do everything we can to promote good governance around the world; to demonstrate that we understand that for the stability of America, we need countries that have good governance. The United States spends more money than any other country in the world on our national security budget. In fact, we spend more than most of the other countries combined spend on national defense. We have the ability to use our military for our national defense, but it is much better if we can develop stable countries around the world. The way to develop stable countries is to help them build a stable economy, to help them build wealth, and to help them have good governance. It is impossible to see the type of progress we want in the developing countries unless they have good governance. I might say that the more we can help in this regard, the more we promote good governance and economic growth, the better off we will be. Our direct security burdens will be reduced, and we will have new markets, which will create economic opportunities for America. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is the guiding principle of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We used the Helsinki Commission as our implementing arm. The Helsinki Accords that were signed in 1975 between Europe--all of the countries of Europe--the United States, and Canada recognized that it was in our national security interests to support stable countries that respect human rights and have good governance. This is the reason the Cardin-Lugar amendment was so important in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation. Let me explain what it does. It requires mineral companies to list the payments they make to extract the minerals they take out of a country. Whether we are talking about gas or oil, whether it is diamonds or copper--the companies need to divulge their individual payments to foreign countries in their reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC. We did that for many reasons. One reason, quite frankly, is that although many countries in the world have vast sums of mineral wealth, these are some of the poorest countries in the world. We call it the ``resource curse'' because the natural resource wealth of the country isn't just being denied to the people for their economic growth, it is being used to fuel corruption within their own country. So one of the reasons for the provision we incorporated in the Dodd-Frank bill was to provide transparency so that the people of the country, along with the international community, will know exactly where payments are being made for the extraction of mineral wealth in a country. Senator Lugar and I also thought that such information would be important for U.S. investors, too. If someone is going to invest in a mineral company, he or she has a right to know where that company is signing contracts and paying money for access to the natural resource(s). It is also important for U.S. interests. We need stable mineral reserves. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have gone to war over the need for oil. We need stable markets so that we do not jeopardize our own economic progress. So the Cardin-Lugar provision gives us a chance to follow the money, as the saying goes, in a particular country. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, we passed a provision as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation that requires every company that is involved in extracting minerals to list those payments specifically by project in their SEC filings. It was pretty clear as to what needed to be done. We gave the authority to the SEC to issue the necessary regulations. Well, we have been waiting 2 years for these regulations--2 years. We are now well beyond the time limit that was spelled out in the legislation for the SEC to issue its regulations. Yet the SEC still hasn't issued final regulations. I have read the statute over and over again. I helped write the statute. Senator Lugar has read the statute. We do not understand the difficulty. It was not a complicated provision. It said exactly what the companies have to do. So we are somewhat puzzled why it has taken this length of time for the SEC to issue its final regulations. In the meantime, we are being denied the benefit of this law. We are being denied the opportunity to protect our investors. We are being denied the opportunity to follow the money, to help promote good governance abroad. All that has been delayed as a result of the SEC's failure to issue regulations. I must say that it also jeopardizes U.S. leadership. Yes, there are other countries interested in following what the United States is doing. We have heard from Europe, and we have heard from Asia. They want to adopt similar laws. They do not know what to pass because they are still waiting for the SEC to act. So the failure to act isn't just affecting our ability; it is also affecting other countries. Collectively, between Asia, Europe, and the United States, we can pretty much cover all of the international extractive companies and therefore have a real, major impact on transparency on this issue. I might say that one of the criticisms I have heard is about why we have a separate bill. We already have what is known as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, or EITI. There is an international organization that is voluntary. Countries can join. The United States has participated in the EITI. EITI participants help countries with best practices for developing the governance to deal with how they handle their mineral wealth. EITI is an important program. It is a voluntary program. It works well. The Cardin-Lugar provision in the Dodd-Frank legislation complement the EITI. The two work together. Between the two, the EITI and our legislation, there's a way that we can really require companies to make the information available in an open way. The EITI gives developing countries the technical assistance they need to manage their mineral wealth in the most effective way for the benefit of their own people, to elevate their wealth and to have a more sustainable economy. This delay has caused a great deal of concern to many of us. Quite frankly, Oxfam, for example, has filed suit against the SEC for its failure to issue regulations, and I am very sympathetic to that lawsuit. I wish to inform Senators that we have now been told the SEC will finally issue its regulations on August 22, in just a few weeks. SEC officials have formally responded to the Oxfam lawsuit, saying the agency will issue regulations on August 22. I have received a letter from the SEC indicating the same thing. It is long overdue. I am looking forward to seeing the regulations from the SEC. I hope the SEC follows the letter and spirit of the legislation. It is up to Congress to pass the laws. SEC needs to implement the laws under direction and guidance from Congress. We have made it clear that we want openness and transparency. I know some oil companies may not like that, but they do not write the laws, we do. It is up to the SEC now to promulgate the regulations that carry out the intent of our law and help us move forward so that the resource wealth of countries in the developing world become a real asset, a real benefit, as they develop sustainable economies and good governance, which helps global stability and helps the global economy. We will be watching the SEC. I know we will be in recess on the 22nd, but we will be watching the SEC. I hope that Congress and the SEC will be working together and that the United States will continue exercising its leadership, so that we will see other countries follow suit where we really can make a difference in the wealth and growth of countries around the world that for too long have been suffering even though they have enormous mineral wealth. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of the city of Frostburg in western Maryland. Frostburg is located in the mountainous terrain of Alleghany County and sits on the eastern slope of Big Savage Mountain. Frostburg's first settlers arrived during the construction of the National Road in 1811; the first permanent residents settled there a year later, in 1812, which is the bicentennial we are observing September 14-16, 2012. The town was formally incorporated in 1816. It was originally called Mount Pleasant but the name was changed to Frostburg, after Josiah and Meshach Frost. Meshach Frost built the city's first house which later became home to the Stockton Stagecoach Company and prompted the construction of other hotels and accommodations for travelers on the National Road. This traffic along the road contributed to the growth of the town as it became a regular stopping point. Although coal had been discovered near the town as early as 1782, difficulties in transportation made mining in western Maryland impractical. But with the local development of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in the 1840s, coal mining began to flourish, providing tremendous economic opportunities for Frostburg. In 1846, Meshach Frost opened the Frostburg Coal Company and began to send the first large shipments of coal to the east. Only 4 years later, numerous other companies became active in the area, including the Allegany Coal Company, the Maryland Coal Company, and the Washington Coal Company. By 1863, the economy of Frostburg and the surrounding area was firmly tied to the increasingly profitable coal industry. Another industry to develop during this period was the manufacturing of fire bricks from high grade clays found in the area. In 1902, the Big Savage Fire Brick Company was formed and to this day is one of the major manufactures of fire bricks on the east coast. Frostburg State University, founded in 1898, was donated to the State by the citizens of Frostburg and was intended to train teachers for Maryland's public schools. The school grew slowly from an original enrollment of 91 students and has expanded to serve over 6,000 students today. The University has become a major economic engine for the community and a hub for academic and cultural activity. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mayor W. Robert Flanigan and the residents of the city of Frostburg on its bicentennial birthday and 200 years of industry and ingenuity.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, if I might, let me first thank Katharine Beamer for her service to the Senate and to the American people. She has been an incredibly valuable part of my staff, detailed from the Department of State to my Senate office. She has helped me deal with preparations for my responsibility, as the Presiding Officer knows, while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as we deal with the confirmation of ambassadors. It is important to be adequately prepared to deal with the many foreign visitors who come to our office and to deal with foreign policy issues. I particularly want to thank her for her help in the so-called Magnitsky bill, a bill that passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been also supported in the Senate Finance Committee. She has been a critical part of our team in developing the necessary support so that bill could move forward. I want to thank her for her help on the Cardin-Lugar provisions that provide transparency among mineral companies so we can trace the resources of developing countries, allowing those resources to benefit the strength of a country's economy rather than become a curse. And I want to thank Katharine Beamer for her help on a lot of human rights issues she has been involved with, including the issue of Alan Gross. Senator Durbin has spoken on the floor and has brought to our attention the human rights violations of a Marylander who is today in a prison in Cuba. Alan Gross was providing help to a small Jewish community in Cuba. He wasn't doing it in any secret manner. He was trying to provide them a better opportunity to communicate with the Internet. He was very open about what he was doing in Cuba and was doing it in order to advance the ability of a community to keep in touch around the world. As a result of that activity, Alan Gross, a Marylander, was arrested and imprisoned, tried and convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison. His appeal to the Cuban Supreme Court was denied in August of 2011. For the past 2\1/2\ years, since December 3, 2009, Alan Gross has been imprisoned in Cuba--over 2\1/2\ years. Throughout my legislative career, I have worked hard to improve the relationship between Cuba and the United States, particularly among the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. I have worked on ways to ease certain restrictions so we can improve the climate between our two countries. But what the Cuban Government is doing today in continuing to imprison Alan Gross is absolutely outrageous. It violates international human rights standards and it is against any sense of humanity. I am going to continue to speak out about it and urge the Cuban authorities to do what is right. This has gained international attention and there have been efforts made by other dignitaries from other countries to try to get Alan Gross's case heard in a proper manner. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Durbin's extraordinary leadership on this issue. Senator Durbin took the time, when he was in Cuba, to meet with Alan Gross. I have been with Senator Durbin when we have met with Alan Gross's family. I have been with Senator Durbin when we have tried to engage other international diplomats to implore the Cuban authorities on a humanitarian basis to release Alan Gross. There was no reason for his arrest. There was no reason for his conviction. There is no reason for his being in prison today. But one doesn't have to get too much involved in that issue to suggest that the Cuban authorities should release Alan Gross on a humanitarian basis. I say that because his health is in question. Alan's health has steadily deteriorated during his imprisonment. He has lost over 100 pounds, suffers from a multitude of medical conditions, including gout, ulcers, and arthritis, that have worsened without adequate treatment. Of equal concern as his own health are the conditions of his beloved mother and daughter, both of whom are suffering from cancer. The Gross family should not have to suffer through another day of this desperate situation without Alan at home for support. So for all those reasons, we speak out today to once again urge the Cuban authorities to do the right thing as far as human rights and their legal system and release Alan Gross. They should do the right thing from a humanitarian point of view and let Alan Gross come home to his beloved family so he can be supportive of them during this difficult time in their lives. We urge them to do the right thing so we can have a better relationship between the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. They should release Alan Gross because it is the right thing to do. We are going to continue to speak out about this. I know many of us have looked for different ways in which to help the Gross family and we will continue to do that. But the simple, right thing for the Cuban authorities is to release Alan Gross today, and we urge them to do that. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today is the 37th anniversary of the Helsinki process. Starting with the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on August 1, 1975, this process began as an ongoing conference which helped end the Cold War and reunite Europe. It has continued as a Vienna-based organization that today seeks to resolve regional conflicts and promote democratic development and the rule of law throughout the region. While serving in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, it has been a unique and rewarding privilege to engage in this diplomatic process and its parliamentary component as a member and chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, with the goal of improving the lives of everyday people. While they may be citizens of other countries, promoting their human rights and fundamental freedoms helps us to protect our own. It is, therefore, in our national interest to engage in this process. On this anniversary, however, I do want to focus on three U.S. citizens who suffered the ultimate violation of their human rights when they were taken into a field and shot, deliberately murdered, in July 1999 by a special operations unit under the control the Interior Ministry in Serbia. They were brothers: Ylli, Agron and Mehmet Bytyqi. The Bytyqi brothers were Albanian-Americans from New York. Earlier in 1999, they went to Kosovo to fight as members of the Kosovo Liberation Army in a conflict which eventually prompted a NATO military intervention designed to stop Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and his forces. When the conflict ended, the Bytyqi brothers assisted ethnic Roma neighbors of their mother in Kosovo by escorting them to the Serbian border. Accidently straying into Serbian territory, they were arrested and sentenced to 2 weeks in jail for illegal entry. When released from prison, they were not freed. Instead, the Bytyqi brothers were transported to an Interior Ministry training camp in eastern Serbia, where they were brutally executed and buried in a mass grave with 75 other ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Two years later, after the fall of the Milosevic regime, their bodies were recovered and repatriated to the United States for burial. Ylli, Agron and Mehmet were never given a fair and public trial, an opportunity to defend themselves, or any semblance of due process. Their post-conflict, extrajudicial killing was cold-blooded murder. In the last decade Serbia has made a remarkable recovery from the Milosevic era. I saw this myself last year when I visited Belgrade. This progress, however, has not sufficiently infiltrated the Interior Ministry, affording protection to those who participated in the Bytyqi murders and other egregious Milosevic-era crimes. Nobody has been held accountable for the Bytyqi murders. Those in command of the camp and the forces operating there have never been charged. The same situation applies to the April 1999 murder of prominent journalist and editor Slavko Curuvija, who testified before the Helsinki Commission on the abuses of the Milosevic regime just months before. There needs to be justice in each of these cases, but together with other unresolved cases they symbolize the lack of transparency and reform in Serbia's Interior Ministry to this day. Combined with continued denials of what transpired under Milosevic in the 1990s, including the 1995 genocide at Srebrenica in neighboring Bosnia, these cases show that Serbia has not completely put an ugly era in its past behind it. For that reason, not only does the surviving Bytyqi family in New York, as well as the friends and family of Slavko Curuvija, still need to have the satisfaction of justice. The people of Serbia need to see justice triumph in their country as well. I want to thank the U.S. Mission to the OSCE in Vienna, which under the leadership of Ambassador Ian Kelly continues to move the Helsinki process forward, for recently raising the Bytyqi murders and calling for justice. I also want to commend the nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Serbia, Michael David Kirby, for responding to my question on the Bytyqi and Curuvija cases at his Foreign Relations Committee hearing by expressing his commitment, if confirmed, to make justice in these cases a priority matter. On this anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, I join their call for justice.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katharine Beamer, a Department of State detailee from my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Would the Senator yield. Let me thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on this issue. He has been very articulate about preserving jobs and creating jobs in New Jersey and in America. I thank him for once again standing for American workers. I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, for his commitment to bring up the trust fund and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, I thank him for his leadership. Senator Menendez has laid out the issue very clearly. This is an averted tariff. It works against American workers. Cotton, mainly on shirts but other commodities, such as wool and suits--as the Senator pointed out, if someone manufactures the suit or the shirt out of America and imports it into America, costing us jobs, they pay less tariff than if they are an American manufacturer that imports the product to manufacture the product in America. They pay a heavier tariff, which costs us jobs, which makes no sense whatsoever. I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Baucus for understanding this and giving us an opportunity before this expires on the wool trust fund. It is making sure it works effectively. I took the floor last week to talk about English-American Tailoring, located in Westminster, MD. There are 380 union jobs in Westminster, MD. I showed a photograph of seamstresses making suits in America. I think most people thought that photo was taken decades ago, but it was taken this month. This is about how we can preserve jobs in America. They are making the best suits in the world. They are exporting their suits to other countries, but they can't do it unless we have a level playing field. The leadership of the Senator from New Jersey on bringing to the attention of the American people the need to extend and make effective the cotton and wool trust fund is critically important to preserving jobs in Maryland, New Jersey, and in our Nation. Again, I thank Senator Menendez, on behalf of American workers, for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to express my outrage at the recent attack on a tour bus in Burgas, Bulgaria, that killed five Israeli citizens and the Bulgarian driver and injured scores of passengers. This heinous act was obviously the handiwork of terrorists who prey on innocent civilians in order to shock and horrify the world and try to rally some to a twisted, violent ideology. The terrorists must be stopped. I am equally outraged by the fact that the Burgas attack appears to be the latest in a series of attacks on Israeli citizens. There have been several since the beginning of this year alone, two aimed at Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia in February, as well as a foiled plot against tourists in Cyprus the week before the tragedy in Burgas. The attacks targeting Israeli Embassy personnel in India and Georgia fell on the 18th anniversary of a suicide bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people. Argentine authorities blamed that attack on Hezbollah operatives. All of these attacks have the hallmarks of Iranian involvement or plots by their surrogates. The day after the attacks in India and Georgia, Iranian nationals involved in a bomb-making plot in Thailand were arrested after they accidentally detonated their homemade explosives, severely injuring one of the perpetrators. Thai officials reported that the improvised explosives found in Bangkok were the same as those used in India and Georgia. I understand that the investigation of the Burgas attack is ongoing and the United States and other countries are working closely with Bulgarian officials. White House counterterrorism chief John Brenan has visited Bulgaria, and, while he did not implicate Iran or Hezbollah in public statements he made while there, he pointed out that both Tehran and its Lebanese surrogate have been implicated in attacks on civilians in the past. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Israel has ``fully substantiated intelligence'' that the Burgas attack was carried out by Hezbollah. I have not seen that information, but I think that based solely on press reports of results thus far in the investigations of these attacks, one can reasonably conclude that Iran and Hezbollah have been involved--further evidence of Iran's longstanding use of political violence and sponsorship of terrorism to achieve its goals. According to a recent edition of the Jewish Press, the Director of Israel's Mossad and the Chief of its Shin Bet have said that Iran and Hezbollah have tried to commit terrorist attacks against Israeli diplomats, businessmen and tourists in over 20 countries during the past 2 years. We must stand with the people and the Government of Israel. We must lead the international community in redoubling efforts to assist Israel, and all countries on whose soil these heinous acts are committed, in tracking down the terrorists and bringing them to justice and continue to work to prevent such attacks in the future. I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support our government's work with Israel and the international community to counter Iran's insidious network of terror.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the tremendous progress we have made thus far, and the need to do even more if we are going to stop this devastating disease in its tracks. The fight against HIV/AIDS has been a long one. In more than 30 years, approximately 26 million people have died from AIDS, and there are still an astounding 7,000 new infections every day. But our commitment to combating this disease is making important strides. In the past decade, new HIV infections fell 20 percent, thanks in large part to the lifesaving antiretroviral treatment we and our partners are making available in every corner of the world that AIDS touches. We know that relatively healthy people with HIV who receive early treatment with antiretroviral drugs are 96 percent less likely to pass on the virus to their uninfected partners. So treating these individuals not only allows them to live their lives in dignity but is also an important key to prevention. In my home State of Maryland, the Jhpiego program has spent decades addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. Jhpiego has made enormous strides in prevention of mother-to- child transmission, increasing counseling and testing and providing greater access to antiretroviral drugs. Jhpiego has integrated HIV/AIDS services with tuberculosis, cervical cancer, malaria in pregnancy, family planning and maternal and child health services, to address the problem of coinfection among HIV/AIDS patients and to reach as many people as possible. These integrated services represent the future of our health assistance. We have learned from programs like Jhpiego's what our best practices should be so that we are innovators in prevention, care, and treatment. I am pleased that Jhpiego and groups like it from across the globe are coming together for this week's AIDS 2012 conference in Washington, DC. This conference is the largest gathering of professionals working in the field of HIV in the world and will bring together more than 20,000 people from more than 120 counties all working together to create a blueprint for combating HIV/AIDS. I can only imagine the exciting new synergies that will develop when so many innovative, committed individuals are in the same room. Among the presenters are luminaries from the public, private, and multilateral sectors such as President Bill Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and former U.S. First Lady Laura Bush, Her Highness Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidib, Sir Elton John, Whoopi Goldberg, and Bill Gates. This is the first time the United States has hosted the conference in two decades, and I believe it is the right moment for us to be showcasing our strong bipartisan effort to bring the AIDS epidemic to an end. The United States has long been a leader in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Development Assistance, I am proud to note that from 2004 to 2010 the United States spent more than $26 billion on bilateral funding to fight AIDS. From my experience leading this subcommittee, I know that dedicated government experts from an array of U.S. agencies are involved in the fight, as are thousands of nonprofits and community organizations. Yet despite the progress that the numbers and statistics tell us, the story on the ground is still heartbreaking, and now is not the time to rest on our laurels. International anti-AIDS funding has not increased significantly since 2008. In places like the Congo, for example, doctors are only able to supply antiretroviral drugs to 15 percent of the people who need them. Globally, just 8 million of the 15 million treatment-eligible patients in AIDS-ravaged poor regions of the world are getting antiretroviral drugs. We must do better. We must do better to improve the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS, and we must do better to save the lives of their loved ones. Some experts believe that ``fatigue and forgetting'' are two of the reasons we have not reached more people. Though we have been working on treating this disease for decades, we still have an overwhelming number of infections to treat. But the good news is that scientists now believe we have the tools to make serious progress in the fight against AIDS. Scientific advances over the last year have been remarkable, and we can't afford to abandon the fight and to lose momentum now. In a recent Washington Post article, Michel Sidibe, Executive Director of UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS, said, ``The previous generation fought for treatment, our generation must fight for a cure.'' I am proud that in just the last year, the National Institutes of Health has increased spending on cure-related research by $56 million. This is a step in the right direction, and I want to see us do more. I stand with the entire HIV/AIDS medical community in renewing the call to prevent, treat, and cure HIV/AIDS. Let's use the opportunity of this historic gathering to renew our call to work on creating an AIDS-free generation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Hala Furst, a Presidential Management Fellow on detail to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 3414.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have taken the floor before to talk about the health care reform bill, to comment on the Supreme Court decision, which I believe history will show was clearly the right decision. It was the right decision on the law giving the Congress the power to legislate in an area where there is a national need, as the legislature did in the 1930s with Social Security and in the 1960s with Medicare. The health reform proposals that were adopted by Congress are within the purview of the legislative branch of government. The Supreme Court upheld that right in that decision. I also said it was the right decision because it allows us to move forward on a path toward universal coverage, where all Americans are guaranteed access to affordable health care. America will now join all of the other industrial nations of the world to say health care is a right, not a privilege. The legislation that was passed, the health reform bill, has already helped American families. Let me talk about an area--I could talk about many--about what it has done in protecting our consumers against the practices, the arbitrary practices of health insurance companies. We already are seeing that it is in effect where families are being able to take advantage of the fact there are no longer any lifetime caps on health insurance policies. By 2014, we will eliminate annual caps on benefits on health insurance plans. We already have seen for our children the elimination of preexisting conditions, so our children can get policies without having restrictions on what is covered and what is not covered. By 2014 we will see that the preexisting conditions for everyone will no longer be an obstacle to full insurance coverage. That is particularly important for women, where we know at times they have been held to a preexisting condition because of a pregnancy or being the victim of domestic violence. We have seen discrimination in premiums against women. That no longer will be the case. I could talk about many Marylanders who are happy today because they can stay on their parents' insurance policies--the fact that they are over the age of 21. They can now stay on that policy until age 26. I want to talk about one other aspect of this law that may not be quite as familiar to our constituents. This provision will take effect on August 1, but we already are seeing the benefits. What I am talking about is the 80-20 rule, where health insurance companies must give value for the premium dollar to the beneficiary. At least 80 percent of the dollars we pay for premiums must go for benefits. Let me share with you a letter I received from one of my constituents. She wrote: I recently had a pleasant surprise. . . . two checks from my health care [insurer] that were rebates on premiums paid. I am someone who has to buy individual health coverage and have been doing so for the last 8 years. The premiums are high and the deductible is high--so I am essentially paying a high price for catastrophic coverage while still paying for individual doctor visits, prescriptions, etc. It is frustrating, but the choices are limited and expensive for individual coverage, and you don't really know how good your coverage is because you don't use it unless you have a major medical event. My premiums go up every year despite the fact that I don't file claims. This month I received a check in the amount of $139 from my current [insurer] and over $300 from a previous [insurer]. Both checks were rebates as a result of the new health care act. I did not realize it, but the act requires insurance companies to use 80% of the premiums they collect on health care costs. . . . and neither of them hit that percentage and were thus required to provide a refund. Wonderful! The bill is so complicated that I do not understand a great deal of it--but am very pleased with this aspect which seems to go a long way in helping keep health care costs reasonable and prevent consumers from being gouged . . . So thanks to the Senator and all who helped with this health care act. I bring this to my colleagues' attention, because there are going to be millions of American who are going to be getting rebate checks, and some are going to start scratching their heads, wondering where it is coming from. They are going to be saying: Gee, I guess I made a mistake in the premiums I paid. They are returning them. They are getting those checks because of the passage of the health reform bill, and the provision in the health reform bill that requires insurance companies to give value for the premium dollars we pay. That protection is now the law of the land. Thanks to the acts of Congress and President Obama, and the Supreme Court upholding the law, those rebates are going to be received. The number of people in the country is 12.8 million Americans who are going to get rebate checks worth about $1.1 billion. Average rebate: $151. That is real money for people who are struggling with their health care needs. I am proud that in the State of Maryland, there is going to be $27 million made available to 141,000 Marylanders, with an average rebate of $340 for those who get rebates in my State. Let me break this down a little bit further. In the individual market, like the person I received the letter from, the rebates for the people in Maryland will actually average a higher amount. They will average $496. I think that speaks to the fact that insurance companies have hedged their bets in the individual market. They tell us that, you know, we have got to charge a lot more because we do not know what we are getting, when in reality they are making a lot more money in the individual market. So for the people of Maryland, 38,000 of them are going to get, on average, close to $500 in rebates thanks to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, thanks to the passage of health reform, and thanks to the Supreme Court upholding our right to do it. The same thing is true in the small group markets where we find that there will be 3.3 million Americans getting rebate checks who are in the small group markets. These are the markets, of course, in which again the options were not as great, more difficult, because of insurance carriers not being as anxious to insure people in small group markets as they are in the larger markets. The average rebate per family will be $174. In Maryland that number again is higher, $310 for the 13,000 people in Maryland. It also applies to those in the large group markets. These are the large plans. They also are going to see rebates because the insurance carriers charged excessive fees. And they are going to get premium dollar rebates. Some 5.3 million Americans in these large plans will see rebates that average $135. In my State of Maryland, it will be 89,000 people, with rebates averaging $268 a family. These are 1-year numbers. These continue every year. So let me tell the people of Maryland and the people of this country what you can expect. You might get a check that will be delivered to you in the mail. It will be a rebate check. That is as a result of the passage of the health reform bill. You might also see a deposit into the account that automatically pays for your health premiums, because the insurance carrier can make a direct deposit into the accounts which are paying for these premiums. It is possible you might find a reduction in future premiums. They can use it to reduce your future premiums, but they have to let you know that, so you realize you are getting the rebate, but it is being applied against future premiums. Or if the employer is paying the premiums, the rebates will go to the employer, but the employer must use it to benefit your plan. They cannot use it for themselves. It is used to help again the beneficiary. You will get notice of that. My purpose again is to make it clear that you would not have gotten these rebates but for the protections that are in the Affordable Care Act. I know my colleague from Vermont and I have been on the floor many times pointing out that all Americans, not just those who do not have insurance today, not just those who might have been discriminated against because of preexisting conditions, not only that 24-year-old who is now on her parent's policy, but all Americans have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, the protections that are in it. Now millions who thought they were being treated unfairly by their insurance companies are going to be able to get rebates because of excessive premiums. The rule works in combination with another provision of the law that requires rate review to ensure premium increases are reasonable. In other words, we have put into the law protections against unreasonable increases in your premiums. Insurance companies are now required to justify any premium increases of 10 percent or higher. Most States now have the authority to determine whether these increases are excessive, while HHS reviews rates in States that do not operate under effective rate review programs. That is how federalism should work. States have an opportunity to act. If they do not have adequate review, we have national backup and protection to make sure the rate reviews are being handled in the appropriate way. So as our constituents start to get the benefits-- another benefit of the health reform bill, and there are many more that are starting to take effect, and we will hear about some more of those next week, on August 1--I wanted my constituents of Maryland and my friends around the Nation to know we have provided that you get value for the premium dollar you pay for your health insurance. We back that up with enforcement, so if there are excessive premiums being charged, the insurance carriers must rebate those premiums to you. Millions of Americans will get the benefit, starting now. We are pleased that this type of protection is in the Affordable Care Act. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank, first of all, my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. I happened to be on the Senate floor and listened to my Republican colleagues as they were talking about the estate tax. I think we have to clarify what this legislation is all about that we will be voting on in a few minutes. It is an effort to fully protect about 98 percent of Americans from the uncertainty as to whether their income tax will go up on January 1. That is what this bill is about. There are a lot of other problems we have, including the fiscal cliff we have been talking about. I understand the concerns we have with the estate tax. We have a problem with the physician reimbursement under Medicare. We have problems with the sequestration orders and the impact it would have on all of our agencies whether it is national security or the domestic budget. We have concerns about extending tax provisions for the energy sector of our economy. We have the uncertainty of whether we will extend the unemployment insurance additional benefits. All of those are legitimate concerns. I hope the Republicans and Democrats will come together to deal with the deficit. That is what we should do. I can tell everyone I have been one of those Senators meeting with Republicans, meeting with my Democratic colleagues, and that is what we want to do. We want to give predictability to the American people about a credible plan to deal with our deficit. I was proud to be one of the Democrats on the Budget Committee in the Senate. The Presiding Officer helped to say let's use the Simpson- Bowles model to try to get a bipartisan agreement on a budget document much earlier this year so we could come forward with a credible plan to deal with the deficit. We are now just a few weeks away when Congress is likely to go out of session for the November elections. We have heard in the House they are talking about leaving the third week of September. So what we are trying to do--and this is a pretty simple bill--is to say for the overwhelming majority, 98 percent, let's at least give the certainty to the people of our country so they know on January 1 their tax rates will not go up. Why do we want to do that? Because predictability gives confidence. Confidence allows people and consumers to buy and helps to grow our economy. That is why we do it. Sure, it is frustrating we can't deal with everything right now. We want to deal with everything, but we are not going to be able to come to that political agreement. Can't we at least come to the agreement to protect the vast majority of the taxpayers of this country? The bill we will be voting on very shortly says we would not let the personal income tax rates go up for those whose incomes are up to $250,000. As Senator Boxer pointed out, every income-tax payer gets the advantage of it. If you make $1 million, you get the lower tax rates on the first $250,000. That way everyone gets the advantage. We also protect the refundable child tax credit because we know American families depend upon that refundable tax credit. I want to thank the majority leader for putting this into the bill. That is part of a family's planning process to know whether they can buy consumer goods. We included that in the legislation that we will have a chance to vote on. We included the American opportunity tax credit. The Presiding Officer is very involved in that. That is to help families afford college education. I was at a university meeting over the weekend and looked at the debt that our college graduates are inheriting as they go through college. Well, we extend in this bill the help we give to working families to be able to afford a college education for their children, which helps to build this great Nation. It helps to make us more competitive. We have also included in the legislation the small business expenses because we want to give predictability to small businesses to go out and buy capital assets so they can turn around and help our economy grow. So I just wanted to point out some pretty simple choices. Do we believe we should give the predictability that I think everybody agrees on? Why can't we keep the bill simple and get it done? My Republican colleagues want to find some way to be able to vote no to help the overwhelming majority of the people in this country. I will say this again. If you make $1 million, you are going to get $6,000 of relief under this bill. Isn't that enough? Then let's come together and hopefully use the remainder of this year or early next year to get a credible plan and get our deficit under control. Let's give confidence to the American people so we will not face that fiscal cliff, and we will get our job done. The purpose of this is to create jobs. We need to create more jobs in our country. I wish to share with my colleagues this photograph that was taken. I will ask my colleagues where they think this photograph took place, with many people sewing and manufacturing clothing. We can see the U.S. flag there. The next question is, When do my colleagues think this photograph was taken? The 1920s? The 1930s? I remember growing up in Baltimore and seeing all of the different clothing manufacturers located in my city. So perhaps this is a historic photograph. It is not. It was just recently taken in Westminster, MD. It is the English American Tailoring Company, with 380 jobs, producing the finest suits in the world. I show this photograph to demonstrate that we can succeed in manufacturing in America. In the last 28 months, we have seen an increase of 500,000 jobs in manufacturing in America. That is the largest growth since 1995 in our country. We have to fight for the jobs and keep our jobs here in America. I had a chance to talk with English American Tailoring Company union employees. They are happy not because they are happy to have a job-- everyone is happy to have a job--they know they have a good job in a company that cares about them, and they take pride in what they are making. Make it in America. In Maryland, in the United States, we have a company that makes the best custom suits in the world because they are American made and because they have the best technology and the best quality of any company in the world. Let me tell my colleagues something else that might surprise them. They had a 15-percent increase in sales this year. They added an additional 50 employees this year. They are now making plans to break ground on a training facility in Westminster, MD. They have confidence in their ability to produce the right product for America and to create the jobs and keep the jobs here. We have done this over and over in America. I know my colleagues have taken the floor to talk about the auto manufacturing industry, with the best sales in 5 years. Chrysler's sales have increased 34 percent; General Motors is up 12 percent; Ford is up 5 percent; 10,000 new jobs at Ford Motor Company; 4,000 coming from Mexico back to the United States. Make it in America. Our U.S. auto manufacturers are making it in America. We can create more jobs if we just create the right climate. We need to help small business. I agree that is where most of the job growth will take place. That is where most of the new innovation comes from. So why don't we take up sensible legislation that the majority leader talked about that would reward small companies that are creating more jobs by giving tax credits? I am also proud of a provision in that bill to increase surety bonds for small companies so they can compete. That is what we should be doing. We need trade policies. I want to give another bit of good news. I see Senator Nelson is on the floor, and he was instrumental in the citrus trust fund. But we have the wool trust fund and the cotton trust fund also approved by the Senate Finance Committee. Why is that important for this contract we have here? This company, English American Tailoring, makes quality suits, but they have to import the wool because the wool is not available in America. Here is what happens. The tariff today on that wool coming into America is higher than the finished suit, if it was imported into America, which encourages manufacturing outside of America. That makes absolutely no sense at all. That is why we have a wool trust fund--to correct this inverted tariff so that we can make it competitive to manufacture in America. That is why we have it. I am proud that by a unanimous vote, we are recommending that from the Senate Finance Committee. I hope we can find the cooperation on this floor to get that done. I also want to make sure that the citrus industry in Florida is taken care of, so we take care of the citrus trust fund and the cotton trust fund. Shirts are manufactured today--my friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, helped on this, and Senator Schumer helped a great deal with the wool trust fund. We make cotton shirts in New Jersey. We can make those shirts because we can manufacture more efficiently than other countries, but we can't have an inverted tariff. We can't afford to make it more expensive to manufacture than import. That is what that is about. These are commonsense policies. We need tax policies that make sense. Senator Stabenow has been working hard on the Bring Jobs Home Act so that we actually reward companies that bring their jobs back to America and we don't allow taxpayers to foot the bill for those who want to take their jobs overseas. The bottom line is that we can make it in America. We can make it in America. We are doing that in Maryland, and we are doing it throughout the country. We need sensible policies. We also need the confidence of consumers about the take-home pay they are going to have in order to be able to buy the suits manufactured by English American Tailoring or other companies in our community or to buy a car manufactured here in America. They want to do that, but they need the confidence. So don't complicate the bill we are going to be voting on in 1 hour. Don't make it that difficult. It is a pretty simple bill. It says whether we are going to fully protect 98 percent of Americans from seeing their tax rates go up and their paychecks go down on January 1 and help every American, regardless of their income, with the first $250,000 of taxable income. I hope we will then make a commitment, Democrats and Republicans, to put aside our partisan differences and listen to each other and come up with a credible plan that answers not just the issues--the only issue raised by my Republican colleagues, which is the estate tax--but also answers the questions of our physicians for Medicare and answers the problems of our people who depend upon government, the sequestration orders. Let's get it together and get all of that done, but let's not let the traditional partisan differences stop us from protecting 98 percent of Americans, so that companies such as English American Tailoring can continue to expand and create more jobs here in America to help our economy grow because people will be willing to buy the suits, knowing there is some confidence in the Tax Code that allows them to plan for their future. I urge my colleagues to support the efforts we are going to vote on in a few moments. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Eickenberg, from Senator Merkley's staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act. I am introducing this bill because I have grave concerns about the impacts the Federal mandate for corn ethanol production is having on the price of food in this country and the cost of domestic food production. Corn is a staple of the modern American diet that has become a ubiquitous ingredient or additive in most of our food and it is fed as feed to nearly all livestock animals. The fact is, most meals Americans consume either has corn as an essential ingredient or consist of ingredients that required corn to produce. From milk, to eggs, to beef to poultry, to bread, to soft drink, and most prepared frozen meals corn--is essential to American food. The first section of Michael Pollan's 2006 Best Seller The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals is titled ``Industrial Corn'' and it explains just how omnipresent corn, in some form or another, is in American diets. For better or for worse, the vast majority of the food found on American supermarket shelves is made from processed corn. When it comes to the animal proteins Americans consume most of these animals were raised on corn diets. For decades, America's corn growers were out producing demand for corn and food producers, and consumers benefited from relatively low corn prices that ranged around $2 a bushel. While consumers may have benefitted from these prices, American corn and grain growers were hurting badly. Since 2007, the tides have been turning significantly. National demand for corn is at an all-time high and corn futures project corn reaching $8 a bushel in the near future. A growing and hungry nation combined with new demands for corn that are the result of technological innovations have created new uses for corn in the form of ethanol as both a motor fuel additive and in plastics. These new uses, combined with expanded traditional uses have fueled the upward spike in corn prices. Corn growers have benefitted tremendously from the increased demand and high corn prices. Ethanol producers have enjoyed a variety of government supports mandating levels of ethanol production which have helped them weather high corn prices paying a high price for corn feedstocks is relatively easy when you have enormous production tax credits and a federally mandated market for your product. Food producers, including livestock and poultry producers, who use tremendous amounts of corn to raise their livestock and produce food, do not have the luxury of a mandated market for their products. In Maryland, our number one agricultural product is poultry. Poultry production is far and away the top employer on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Maryland poultry is hurting and it is because they are competing with big oil, and other non-traditional users, for corn. Corn is vitally important to raising chickens. Unlike other livestock, like cattle or hogs which are ruminants that can eat a variety of different types of feed, chickens' diets are limited to corn. Feed makes up more than 73 percent of the cost of raising poultry and when corn reaches $6.50 or $7.00 or even $8.00 a bushel that cost goes even higher. I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play in helping our nation achieve greater energy security. However, the nurturing and growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at the expense of our domestic food supply. In other words, we cannot sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be commercially produced into ethanol. I also believe that as global demand for oil increases, driven by increased mobility and affluence spreads in the developing world, renewable biofuels will compete well with oil and that the government supports we have in place will not be necessary because pure market demand for less expensive and cleaner burning fuels like ethanol will drive growth in biofuel production, not government mandates. Because domestic food production is reaching a state of crisis driven by the increasing cost of inputs, like corn, that the food producers have to unfairly compete with industries that are operating with under government production mandates I am introducing legislation today that offers a simple change to the Renewable Fuel Standard that will help provide our domestic food producers access to corn. This legislation will link the amount of corn ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of U.S. corn supplies. This legislation sets up a process so that when the USDA reports on U.S. corn supplies towards the end of each year, based upon the ratio of corn stocks- to expected use, there could be a reduction made to the RFS mandate for corn ethanol. This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our corn demands. Once a year, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will review the current corn crop year's ratio of U.S. corn stocks-to- use ratio in making a determination of the RFS. By the end of November the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will make an official determination of the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, corn ethanol mandate for the following calendar year, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's November World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate report to determine the U.S. corn stocks-to-use ratio. The administrator shall provide for a waiver for the RFS for the following calendar year according to the calculated stocks to use ratio as directed. Such a waiver, if required, shall be included in the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Register notice regarding the RFS for the following calendar year. The required waiver, if any, will take effect January 1 of the new calendar year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Waiver to the Renewable Stocks-to-Use Ratio Percent Fuels Standard for Corn Ethanol ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Above 10.00............................... no adjustment 10.00 to 7.50............................. 10 percent reduction 7.49 to 6.00.............................. 15 percent reduction 5.99 to 5.00.............................. 25 percent reduction Below 5.00................................ 50 percent reduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe the future of biofuels must be in the development and production of cellulosic and advanced biofuels that are not derived from feedstocks that are part of essential food sources. As a supporter of bringing cellulosic and advanced biofuels to market, my legislation explicitly states that it ``shall not affect the volume of advanced biofuels required under'' the Renewable Fuel Standard. This will leave intact the advanced biofuels production mandate which I believe is critical to growing this still nascent and beneficial fuel product to commercial viability. Because of corn's many uses it has become a commodity that is in high demand. Assuring our domestic food producers' access to this valuable and increasingly scarce crop is so important to controlling the cost of food in America and maintaining the economic viability of our U.S. food companies. I urge my colleagues to support U.S. food producers and families working to put food on the table by co-sponsoring the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act. 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 proud to introduce the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act. I am introducing this bill because I have grave concerns about the impacts the Federal mandate for corn ethanol production is having on the price of food in this country and the cost of domestic food production. Corn is a staple of the modern American diet that has become a ubiquitous ingredient or additive in most of our food and it is fed as feed to nearly all livestock animals. The fact is, most meals Americans consume either has corn as an essential ingredient or consist of ingredients that required corn to produce. From milk, to eggs, to beef to poultry, to bread, to soft drink, and most prepared frozen meals corn--is essential to American food. The first section of Michael Pollan's 2006 Best Seller The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals is titled ``Industrial Corn'' and it explains just how omnipresent corn, in some form or another, is in American diets. For better or for worse, the vast majority of the food found on American supermarket shelves is made from processed corn. When it comes to the animal proteins Americans consume most of these animals were raised on corn diets. For decades, America's corn growers were out producing demand for corn and food producers, and consumers benefited from relatively low corn prices that ranged around $2 a bushel. While consumers may have benefitted from these prices, American corn and grain growers were hurting badly. Since 2007, the tides have been turning significantly. National demand for corn is at an all-time high and corn futures project corn reaching $8 a bushel in the near future. A growing and hungry nation combined with new demands for corn that are the result of technological innovations have created new uses for corn in the form of ethanol as both a motor fuel additive and in plastics. These new uses, combined with expanded traditional uses have fueled the upward spike in corn prices. Corn growers have benefitted tremendously from the increased demand and high corn prices. Ethanol producers have enjoyed a variety of government supports mandating levels of ethanol production which have helped them weather high corn prices paying a high price for corn feedstocks is relatively easy when you have enormous production tax credits and a federally mandated market for your product. Food producers, including livestock and poultry producers, who use tremendous amounts of corn to raise their livestock and produce food, do not have the luxury of a mandated market for their products. In Maryland, our number one agricultural product is poultry. Poultry production is far and away the top employer on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Maryland poultry is hurting and it is because they are competing with big oil, and other non-traditional users, for corn. Corn is vitally important to raising chickens. Unlike other livestock, like cattle or hogs which are ruminants that can eat a variety of different types of feed, chickens' diets are limited to corn. Feed makes up more than 73 percent of the cost of raising poultry and when corn reaches $6.50 or $7.00 or even $8.00 a bushel that cost goes even higher. I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play in helping our nation achieve greater energy security. However, the nurturing and growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at the expense of our domestic food supply. In other words, we cannot sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be commercially produced into ethanol. I also believe that as global demand for oil increases, driven by increased mobility and affluence spreads in the developing world, renewable biofuels will compete well with oil and that the government supports we have in place will not be necessary because pure market demand for less expensive and cleaner burning fuels like ethanol will drive growth in biofuel production, not government mandates. Because domestic food production is reaching a state of crisis driven by the increasing cost of inputs, like corn, that the food producers have to unfairly compete with industries that are operating with under government production mandates I am introducing legislation today that offers a simple change to the Renewable Fuel Standard that will help provide our domestic food producers access to corn. This legislation will link the amount of corn ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of U.S. corn supplies. This legislation sets up a process so that when the USDA reports on U.S. corn supplies towards the end of each year, based upon the ratio of corn stocks- to expected use, there could be a reduction made to the RFS mandate for corn ethanol. This is a common sense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our corn demands. Once a year, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will review the current corn crop year's ratio of U.S. corn stocks-to- use ratio in making a determination of the RFS. By the end of November the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will make an official determination of the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, corn ethanol mandate for the following calendar year, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's November World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate report to determine the U.S. corn stocks-to-use ratio. The administrator shall provide for a waiver for the RFS for the following calendar year according to the calculated stocks to use ratio as directed. Such a waiver, if required, shall be included in the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Register notice regarding the RFS for the following calendar year. The required waiver, if any, will take effect January 1 of the new calendar year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Waiver to the Renewable Stocks-to-Use Ratio Percent Fuels Standard for Corn Ethanol ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Above 10.00............................... no adjustment 10.00 to 7.50............................. 10 percent reduction 7.49 to 6.00.............................. 15 percent reduction 5.99 to 5.00.............................. 25 percent reduction Below 5.00................................ 50 percent reduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I believe the future of biofuels must be in the development and production of cellulosic and advanced biofuels that are not derived from feedstocks that are part of essential food sources. As a supporter of bringing cellulosic and advanced biofuels to market, my legislation explicitly states that it ``shall not affect the volume of advanced biofuels required under'' the Renewable Fuel Standard. This will leave intact the advanced biofuels production mandate which I believe is critical to growing this still nascent and beneficial fuel product to commercial viability. Because of corn's many uses it has become a commodity that is in high demand. Assuring our domestic food producers' access to this valuable and increasingly scarce crop is so important to controlling the cost of food in America and maintaining the economic viability of our U.S. food companies. I urge my colleagues to support U.S. food producers and families working to put food on the table by co-sponsoring the Renewable Fuel Standard Flexibility Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have taken to the floor of the Senate on previous occasions to talk about our aging water infrastructure and the need for financing. I have talked about the State revolving funds, which are the principal funding sources for our local governments' ability to upgrade their water infrastructure. I have talked about the need for safe drinking water and how that is being compromised. I have also talked about the way we treat our wastewater and the health risks involved in an aging infrastructure. And when I have taken to the floor on different occasions to talk about the consequences of our failure to act, I have made it clear if we move forward with water infrastructure projects it will not only provide the type of infrastructure we need for public health but it will also create jobs and opportunities in our communities. I have the honor of representing the State of Maryland in the Senate, and we have some very aged communities in Maryland. One of those, of course, is my home city of Baltimore, where the water infrastructure is as historic as some of its buildings--well over 100 years old. And although I have talked about this issue before, I want to bring to the Senate's attention that this past Monday, in Baltimore, a 120-year-old water main broke, creating a massive crater in downtown Baltimore on one of the busiest streets in our city. I have been told it will take a couple of weeks before that can be fixed. I have also been told that, as a result, downtown Baltimore was flooded, sending thousands of workers home and costing businesses countless loss of revenue. One might say: Well, these things happen. But in Baltimore we have a water main break at the rate of about two or three a day, costing a great deal of money because our city workers have to go out, dig it up, and cut off water service to homes and businesses, which are inconvenienced by not having the ability to get water. And we experience this expense again and again. What we need to do is upgrade our water infrastructure. We all understand that. We need to make that investment. These major water main breaks are becoming more and more a reality. In 2008, we saw River Road in Bethesda turn literally into a river. We had to use helicopters to rescue people because of a water main break. In October 2009, we had a major break in Dundalk, MD, outside Baltimore, which flooded thousands of homes, causing incredible inconvenience to that community. One year ago, not far from where we are right here, we saw a major water main break in Prince George's County, closing the Washington beltway and causing a lot of homeowners to be without water for an extended period of time. The water infrastructure in this country is in desperate need of new attention and greater investment. That is true in our wastewater treatment facility plants and it is true in the way we transport our clean water. Wastewater treatment plants are critically important in preventing billions of tons of pollutants each year from reaching America's rivers, lakes, and coastlines. These facilities prevent waterborne disease and make our water safe for fishing and swimming. Similarly, some 54,000 community drinking water systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million Americans, keeping water supplies free of contaminants that cause disease. The ongoing degradation of these systems puts our human health directly at risk. Many of our water and wastewater systems are outdated, with some components across the country over a century old. This aging infrastructure contributes to the 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows that occur in the United States per year--75,000 sewage overflows a year in the United States. It causes an estimated 5,500 annual illnesses due to these contaminations which occur on our beaches and in our streams and lakes where American families vacation. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that more than $630 billion will be needed over the next 20 years to meet the Nation's drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs. As chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, I held a hearing where we brought in some of our local officials to talk about some of these needs. They told us they can't possibly do this with the resources they currently have available, that they need a Federal partner--they need a stronger Federal partner--and they need a Federal Government that will give them new innovative tools in order to deal with these critical needs. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore testified she would like to see some form of trust fund established so we can leverage money and make these types of investments. She pointed out--which we already know--that for the money we spend on water infrastructure we will cause a multiplier effect. By a ratio of 3-to-1, it actually creates more money in our economy. If we put $1 billion in water infrastructure improvement, it creates $3 billion of economic activity in our communities, allowing us to create more jobs at the same time we improve our water infrastructure for public health and for economic development. This makes sense. We need to do this. I don't know how many more times I will have to come to the floor of the Senate and point out these horrible water main breaks that are occurring all over. What is happening in Baltimore--what is happening in Maryland--is happening in every one of our States. This is not a one-State problem. This is a national problem. People are outraged by these situations, and they are going to be more outraged when they realize their public health is at risk and the availability of safe drinking water is at risk, as well as the inconvenience that is caused when their basements are flooded or they can't get to their businesses or have to leave their businesses early or pay additional local taxes in order to repair the damage done as a result of the failure to replace aged infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to work together on this issue. Let's make sure we have a budget that makes sense for this country but that allows us to invest in the types of investments that are important for America's future. We have talked about that with transportation infrastructure, we have talked about that with energy infrastructure, but the same thing is true with water infrastructure. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide the tools and resources that will allow our economy to grow and our local governments to upgrade their water infrastructure systems. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me compliment Senator Stabenow for her leadership as chair of the Agriculture Committee. I want the Senator to know I was on the phone yesterday with our soil conservation district managers talking about the provisions that are in the Senate bill, and I wish to personally thank the Senator from Michigan for reaching out to all of us. Our negotiations were tough, but they were fair, and I believe the reforms the Senator has in the bill will help our region and all the regions of our country deal with the underlying problems of agriculture in America. So I particularly wish to thank her for that. The process she followed is how the legislative process should work: a very open process, a very bipartisan process. We have a good product, and I hope the House will bring forward a bill and get it to conference so we can continue the dialogue. It is important to give the predictability to farmers that this 5-year reauthorization provides. So I thank the Senator from Michigan for her extraordinary leadership in this area on behalf of the agricultural community of my State of Maryland. I really came to the floor to talk about another one of the efforts of the Senator from Michigan today; that is, the Bring Jobs Home Act. I thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership on this bill as well. Senator Stabenow understands that outsourcing is devastating to our country. Americans understand that. Marylanders understand that. When we are outsourcing, we are losing jobs. Families are devastated by outsourcing. What is most shocking is that our laws encourage companies to take jobs out of America. Our Tax Code should encourage companies to keep their workers in the United States. We need to make it in America. I think we were all shocked to hear about the U.S. Olympic team and the fact that they are going to be outfitted by clothing manufactured in China. That is outrageous. It never should have happened. We can make it in America. I must tell my colleagues, I hear from people in Maryland all the time--and I am sure the Presiding Officer hears the same thing in New Mexico, as does my colleague from Colorado as well. When we get a call from a call center, we think the person is in our neighborhood talking to us about a local issue. Then we discover that person is halfway around the world pretending to be our neighbor and friend or representing a local business, when in reality we have outsourced that service--not we, the company has outsourced it--and the worst thing is they don't tell us about it. They are misleading the consumers, and I know we have some legislation to correct that. That is outsourcing. That is costing America jobs, and it is wrong. We can compete. Americans can compete with any other workforce in any other country, as long as we have a level playing field. So we want to make it in America. Yes, we can. First, let me talk about some success stories. Not too long ago I visited Marlin Steel in Baltimore City. This is a steel wire manufacturer that uses raw material from America and manufactures its product in America, in Baltimore City, a high-quality wire steel product. They sell their product in America, export their product to other countries, and create more jobs in America. That is a success story. A lot of people have given up on steel. We can't give up on steel. We need to make it in America. Let me tell my colleagues about another success story. Tomorrow I will be at English American Tailoring, which is located in Westminster, right near Baltimore, in Maryland. They manufacture suits in America. They make it in America. We are able to do it. All they ask for is a level playing field. We took some steps in the Senate Finance Committee yesterday to provide that level playing field by what we call the wool trust fund, which deals with inverted tariffs. We must make sure our laws are fair. The shocking thing about clothing is it actually has higher tariffs on the raw material--making it impossible to manufacture in America--than the finished product coming into America. We correct that with the wool trust fund. We need to make sure we have a level playing field. Let me tell my colleagues another success story, about Pacific Trade International. This is a success story. This company was located in Asia, an American company located in Asia, making candles known as the Chesapeake Bay Candles--being made in Asia. Well, this is a success story. They are back in Maryland. They are located in Glen Burnie, MD, in the United States of America, making those candles, selling them to Kohl's and Target and other retailers, creating 100 jobs that are now in my State of Maryland as a result of this company bringing jobs back to America. In the last 28 months alone, we have seen 500,000 new manufacturing jobs in America. We have talked about the U.S. auto manufacturing industry and how we have seen that industry take off because we can make it in America. That brings me to the efforts of Senator Stabenow and others on the Bring Jobs Home Act. It is shocking--and I think the people in Maryland and around the Nation are shocked--to understand that our Tax Code actually encourages companies to take jobs overseas. American taxpayers are actually footing the bill because, under current law, if an American company decides to take its jobs and export them overseas, the moving costs are deductible per our Tax Code. Why do we allow that? Why do we ask the taxpayers to subsidize moving jobs overseas? Well, the Bring Jobs Home Act says: Let's get rid of that tax deduction. Instead, let's make sure if companies bring jobs back to America, yes, we will consider those necessary expenses. We don't consider it necessary business expenses to export jobs. And we will give them some additional help with a 20-percent credit. This is what we should be doing: creating policies that encourage keeping jobs in America. Make it in America. Yes, we can. We are going to have a chance to bring this bill forward, and I hope my colleagues will support it. Then let's try to move this bill quickly. This is a pretty simple bill which does three things: It eliminates the deduction for moving jobs overseas, it makes sure we have that deduction if companies bring jobs back home, and we provide a credit as part of the cost to bring the jobs back home. It is very simple. Why don't we keep it that way. Why don't we just pass this bill by itself and do something about creating jobs in America. I say to my colleagues, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all know we have to keep jobs in America. This is a simple bill. Let's get it done. Let's not confuse it or mix it with other issues. Let's show the American people we can act in the best interests of our country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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