Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have taken the floor of the Senate--and when I was a Member of the House, the floor of the House--to talk about circumstances that are occurring somewhere in the world where people are being killed, displaced; people are being uprooted simply because of their ethnicity. Ethnic cleansing has occurred around the world. I have taken the opportunity to put a spotlight on it in an effort to say that the civilized world needs to bring an end to those types of crimes against humanity. I have used the opportunity as a member of the Helsinki Commission, and now as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, to point out what America's priority needs to be, and that is to be a leader in the world to prevent ethnic cleansing.

Many of us believed, after World War II, that the world would never again allow circumstances wherein people were killed simply because of the ethnic community to which they belong. I have spoken about Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Syria, and now we see the same thing happening again in South Sudan.

I just came from a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was convened to discuss the crisis in South Sudan with two witnesses: the Honorable Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of African Affairs, and the Honorable Nancy E. Lindborg, Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance. These two witnesses were giving an update to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as to the circumstances in South Sudan and what we can do to try to bring about a resolution.

I rise today to discuss the deteriorating circumstances in South Sudan. As some of my colleagues may know, ongoing political tensions between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and forces loyal to the former Vice President Riek Machar, coupled with preexisting ethnic tensions, erupted in violence the night of December 15. I join the President and Secretary Kerry in calling for an immediate end to the violence in South Sudan. Currently, it is estimated that nearly 200,000 people have been internally displaced as a result of the conflict, with another 32,000 having fled to neighboring States. The U.N. estimates that thousands of Sudanese people have been killed since December 15. Let me just remind my colleagues that three years ago today the people of South Sudan started a voting process that later that year led to their independence as the youngest new country in the world.

Our U.S. Ambassador, Susan Page, has remained in Juba, along with a security detail and minimum key personnel. I thank her; it is very courageous of her to remain in South Sudan so we have our leadership on the ground to try to help the people. I applaud her bravery and sacrifice and those who are with her.

The worsening violence has spurred a humanitarian crisis. The President has nominated Ambassador Booth to be our ambassador to that region to try to get a peace process started. He is currently in Ethiopia trying to get the international community to respond to a political solution to South Sudan. The international community has responded rapidly, including by working to significantly expand the size of the U.N. mission in South Sudan, but since the evacuation of foreign aid workers, most humanitarian agencies and the international NGOs are heavily reliant on brave South Sudanese staff who put their lives at risk to help their people.

These are large numbers for the country of Sudan--the number of people displaced and the number of people killed. Let me share with my colleagues one of many examples of the crisis and how it has affected people in that region.

I recently learned that at the onset of the December clashes, one local staff person from an American NGO was rounded up, along with seven members of his family, and taken to a police station in Juba. He ultimately escaped to the U.N. compound, but his family was killed, along with more than 200 others. He is from the Nuer ethnic group, which now lives in fear of ethnic targeting by members of the country's security forces from another ethnic group, the Dinka. Media reports also suggest that individuals in uniforms have entered the U.N. bases in several locations and forcibly removed civilians taking shelter there. On December 21, two U.N. peacekeepers were killed after a group attacked a U.N. peacekeeping base that was sheltering 20 civilians.

There is no safe harbor today in South Sudan. The U.N.'s base can be overrun, and people killed because of their ethnicity. The international community must respond.

I remain extremely concerned at the reports out of South Sudan, all of which suggest serious crimes against humanity are occurring in the country. The world cannot stand by and bear witness to another ethnic cleansing as we have seen in so many other places around the world. We must do all we can to ensure a peaceful resolution of the crisis and accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity in South Sudan.

Our first priority is to get peace on the ground, to stop the killings, so people can live in peace. We need to work with the international community so humanitarian aid can get to the people who need it--and that is very challenging considering that international

NGOs cannot operate today in South Sudan--and we must hold accountable those who have committed crimes against humanity. We have said it over and over, but unless we hold accountable those who have perpetrated these atrocities, we will see it again and again. U.S. leadership is critically important to make sure that we document what has taken place and that we bring to justice those who are responsible for the crimes that have been committed.

There is no question that a solution to the crisis in South Sudan must be political and not military. We understand that. South Sudan again is at a crossroads, and after coming so far, it must choose to renounce violence immediately and pursue a path of peaceful reconciliation.

I am encouraged that President Kiir and former President Machar have sent negotiators to Ethiopia to participate in mediation talks. While these talks are a good first step, in the interim the violence must end, and both sides must be committed to negotiating in good faith. It is my hope these talks can bring about the bright future so many South Sudanese aspire for. The people of South Sudan deserve to understand the true meaning of safety and security, of peace, and prosperity. The United States stands with the people of South Sudan through these difficult times. We must pledge to continue to support those who seek peace, democracy, human rights, and justice for all of the citizens of the world's newest nation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Situation in Sudan.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 9, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Madam President, staff turnover is part of life in the Senate, just as it is in any other institution. But some departures are particularly bittersweet. Today is the last day Helen Eleanor Freeman will be working in my office; she is retiring after more than 23 years of faithful--and joyful service--to me and to former Senator Paul Sarbanes, to the Senate, and to the people of Maryland.

Her name is Helen Eleanor Freeman, but throughout the Senate and beyond Capitol Hill, everyone knows her as Nellie. She is an avid volleyball player and her recreational activity led, through another player, to her first job in the Senate, with Senator Sarbanes, in 1989. When Senator Sarbanes retired and I was elected to replace him, he was adamant that I must hire Nellie as I filled out my Senate staff. He told me, ``There is no one quite like Nellie,'' and over the past 7 years I have been fortunate to have Nellie on my staff, I certainly have come to agree with that assessment. Nellie is unique. She is the ``glue'' that holds our office together. While I am happy for her, I am sad she will be leaving the office and I know the rest of my staff shares that assessment.

Nellie is an avid fan of the local teams, especially the Baltimore Orioles. So I will use a sports analogy from baseball. Nellie is like the super utility infielder--the person who can play any position well, the consummate team player. Name just about any task or function in the office, and Nellie has performed it--manning the phones, sorting and responding to constituent correspondence, helping to select, train, and supervise the interns--you name it and Nellie has done it.

So there are the official duties and there are the unofficial duties. With regard to the unofficial duties, Nellie has been the go-to person when it comes to organizing office parties to celebrate birthdays, afterhours social events, staff book clubs, and so forth. That is the ``glue'' I was talking about a moment ago. The Senate can be a difficult place in which to work, both for Senators and staff. Nellie has played a critical role in helping my staff feel more like a welcoming family and that redounds not only to my benefit, but to the benefit of the Senate.

Nellie is unfailingly calm, courteous, solicitous, kind, and happy. Her personality shines through and her cheerfulness is infectious, much appreciated, and an example for all of us. Nellie makes friends with everyone: constituents, colleagues, other Senate staff, Senators. She makes it easier and more pleasant for everyone to work here. That is no small accomplishment.

Nellie is retiring today, but she is far from having a ``retiring'' personality so I know she will remain as busy and engaged as ever. She has volleyball and book clubs and volunteer activities and the Orioles. During the season, I didn't need to read the sports page to determine whether the Orioles had won the night before. If they had won, Nellie would be at work in the morning resplendent in black and orange attire.

Most of all, Nellie has her beloved husband Bob Ham and the rest of her large family--her parents Bob and Molly Freeman; her siblings David, Mary, Emily, and Teddy; in-laws Jessica, Andy, and Nadia; and her nieces and nephews Rachel, Zach, Francesca, Koby, Saul, Ben, Molly, and Amelie and most of them live in the area. It is a big, raucous family filled with the same love and good cheer Nellie exudes.

So to Nellie Freeman on the occasion of her retirement after more than 23 years of serving the people of Maryland and all Americans, thank you for your exemplary service and, above all, thank you for your friendship. Go O's!

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

Mr. President, let me first comment about the National Defense Authorization Act. It is an important bill for us to pass, and I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe for the manner in which they worked on this legislation, bringing it together in the committee. It was a bipartisan bill. As it came to the floor it maintained that focus on helping our troops and helping preserve our national security. As we were starting to consider amendments, I think some cooperation was there. Unfortunately, we lost track of being able to consider amendments in a somewhat normal course.

But the bill before us represents a bipartisan effort to make sure we provide the men and women who are defending our Nation the tools they need in order to carry out their mission, and we give them the support they deserve for serving their country. So this bill is a critically important bill, and I am glad that with the earlier vote, we are on track to send this to the President for his signature before the end of the year. It is very important. The bill provides many important provisions for the health care of our troops, many important provisions for their compensation, and it is important we get that done before January 1.

The bill also provides the tools they need and the direction they need in terms of foreign policy in our military.

I wish to thank the committee. Several of the suggestions I made during the committee process were incorporated in the bill that came to the floor. I have the honor of chairing the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and serving with the distinguished Presiding Officer who also serves on that subcommittee. In that capacity we worked with the committee to deal with some of the issues in that region, provisions dealing with the health care of our military personnel and many of the other issues. I am glad to see the committee did incorporate some of the concerns that had been expressed.

Two specific amendments I had noted during the amendment process have been incorporated in the bill that is before us. One deals with health care and the other deals with parity between our civilian workforce for the Department of Defense and our contract workforce. I appreciate that those two amendments have been incorporated into the bill we have before us.

Similar to many of my colleagues who have come to the floor, I am disappointed. On any bill that comes forward that is a bipartisan bill there are compromises and there will always be disappointments about not being exactly everything you want it to be.

That is understandable. What is very disappointing is that we didn't have a chance to offer many amendments that are not controversial. The only way an amendment could get on after it came through the committee was through a clearing process, and I think there are many other amendments that could have gotten into this bill that would have been important, but I will look for other opportunities.

I had three amendments that I will mention now that I will look for other opportunities to advance. One comes directly out of the subcommittee I chair, and that deals with maritime security issues in the China seas. That is a powder keg, where China most recently took steps in regard to airspace that only made that situation even more tense. The maintaining of maritime security is critically important to the United States. It is the major shipping lane for commerce not only in that region but globally, and it is an area that could bring about unfortunate conflicts between many countries in that region which could mushroom into active situations. So maritime security is a very important issue, and the United States has taken a very active position on that to say: Look. These matters have to be talked about directly by the countries involved in a peaceful manner, not in an intimidating manner. The amendment I offered would have furthered the Senate in supporting that position.

I was also disappointed not to be able to offer an amendment which dealt with the accountability particularly of Assad in Syria but also of those who have committed war crimes in Syria. The Presiding Officer knows of the testimony we have had in regard to the gross violation of human rights by government officials in Syria and the numbers of people who have been killed and have suffered as a result.

The War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague should have the ability to deal with these types of issues, and the amendment I offered asked that the United States work for full accountability for those who have violated international standards in regard to war crimes.

A third amendment I had offered that did not get in because of reasons I just mentioned was an effort that many are working on to form a partnership between the United States and Vietnam in regard to education programs--higher education. We have a way to do that. Senator McCain was very helpful to me in trying to advance this, and we will look for another opportunity to get that done because I think it is critically important.

Many of us understand we have to improve the relationship between the United States and Vietnam, but Vietnam needs to deal with its human rights violations. It needs to deal with its good governance. One way we can help this is by dealing with institutions that promote democracy, and that is, of course, higher education.

So while I am looking forward, with regard to all those areas, to finding other vehicles where we can deal with the issues we were not able to deal with through the amendment process, I would ask our colleagues to get this bill to the President so he can sign it before the end of this year.

Thanking Elise Mellinger

Mr. President, I would also like to make a few comments about Elise Mellinger. As I mentioned earlier, Elise is a Pearson Foreign Service officer fellow. Let me explain what that means. She is an experienced member of the Department of State's Foreign Service. She served in India, Indonesia, and Singapore. She is a person who has served our country for many years, and she is a career diplomat at the State Department.

For the past year, she has been assigned to my Senate office and has acted as a valuable member of my staff. That helps our career diplomats understand the congressional process better, but it also gives us the opportunity to have an experienced individual who truly understands the workings of diplomacy to be in our offices and help us carry out our responsibilities.

In Elise's case, that was particularly helpful to me because at the beginning of this year I took on the new responsibility as the chair of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee. Throughout my career in Congress, I have spent a lot of time in Europe. I have chaired the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and I have traveled extensively to Europe, but it was a new venture for me to chair the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee. Elise Mellinger brought me the expertise so we could--the Senate and the Committee on Senate Foreign Relations--carry out our responsibility in regard to congressional oversight and initiatives in regard to that region of the world.

As a result of her hard work, we were able to have numerous hearings in 2013 on the rebalance to the Asia initiative President Obama brought forward, and to talk about many of the issues in that region of the world, from the maritime security issues I have already

talked about to environmental issues, to dealing with North Korea, a huge problem with not only their nuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, which is unacceptable, but the human rights violations in that country and how the people are being treated as far as economic growth, and the list goes on and on.

Vietnam is a major country of interest. We have been able to be involved in that. We had a hearing on the typhoon in the Philippines that Elise Mellinger was critically important in helping us put together in a matter of days so we could become knowledgeable as to what was happening with one of our allies in that region--the Philippines--and what we could do and what the international community and the private sector could do in order to help the people of the Philippines. I traveled to that region, and Elise Mellinger was extremely important in preparing me for that trip.

So I just wanted to share with my colleagues this program we have, where we have executive employees, career diplomats who come and work in our offices so we can work together and advance foreign policy in the United States. There should not be a difference between the executive and legislative branches in regard to our objective with foreign policy. Of course, we have oversight; of course, we have separation of powers; and for the entire year Elise Mellinger was in my office she was a 100-percent loyal person among our staff to carry out that responsibility. As I said to her earlier, I hope it does not affect her career when she goes back to the State Department, and I know it will not.

I was very fortunate, indeed the Senate and I believe the American people were very fortunate, that Elise spent the year in service to her country through the Senate. She will be leaving very shortly, at the end of this month. So I wish to thank her, her family, her husband, Elliott Wu and her daughter, Eitana Wu for sharing Elise Mellinger with us. We wish her well. We are going to miss her. She is going on to return to the Canadian desk within the State Department before she accepts her next mission that will most likely be outside the United States.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Senate, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to Elise Mellinger.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elise Mellinger, a State Department Foreign Service officer currently serving as a Pearson fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of Senate consideration of H.R. 3304, the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, am I correct we are in postcloture time now?

Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the budget agreement that was negotiated by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan and the work they did, but I first wish to relate to my colleagues conversations I had with numerous Marylanders over this past weekend-- people I didn't know who came up to me and said how pleased they were that Congress was on the verge of getting something done--something that will make a difference in our budget over the next 2 years. They were pleased that Democrats and Republicans were actually able to reach a compromise and that we were actually able to get our business done in some regular order. They were hopeful that it would not only make a difference in the budget of our Nation this year and next, but that it was a sign that Democrats and Republicans were prepared to work together to do the people's business. They were pleased this was truly bipartisan--a real compromise--something we haven't seen enough of in this Congress.

The American people understand that the Congress is controlled--the House by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. They understand that. What they do not understand is how we have not been able to get together and compromise on our differences in order to move forward on the important issues of our time. They are very encouraged by this action.

So I intend to support the final vote on the budget agreement, and I hope my colleagues will support this agreement. It provides the framework for appropriations bills for the next 2 years without sequestration. That is regular order. The appropriations committees can now meet and decide the policy of our country through the appropriations bills as to where we believe priorities should be on Federal resources.

It allows us to operate, hopefully, without a continuing resolution. The number of continuing resolutions that we have passed indicate a failure because when we pass a continuing resolution, we do not adopt the priorities for the current time. Instead, we just freeze in prior years' priorities. We now have the opportunity to enact priorities that are important today, recognizing that some of the past spending is not necessary and there are other areas that we need now to adopt, considering the changes in our own communities and considering the international changes.

It allows us to operate without the fear of a government shutdown. Before I said a fear of a government shutdown because we thought we would not see a government shutdown, but as we know, in October we saw a government shutdown, and we saw people who were hurt, and we saw our economy that was hurt as a result of that shutdown. Now this budget agreement gives us the opportunity to use regular order so we can pass appropriations bills or an omnibus bill that sets current priorities. It allows us to do that without the fear of closing government, which is inefficient, costly, and harms our economy and people.

The framework that was adopted in this budget agreement allows us to protect our Nation's seniors, disabled children, and the disadvantaged. The resources can be made available to deal with our most vulnerable to allow us to move forward as a nation, and it shows we can work together.

So I strongly support this budget agreement. I do so but I want to express my disappointments. I am sure that every Member of the Senate will have disappointments. But I am concerned about what is included in this budget agreement and what is not included, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about it.

I am disappointed that this is a 2-year agreement, that it does not completely remove sequestration. I think all of us would acknowledge that sequestration is something we do not want to see in effect because it is mindless across-the-board cuts. It does not set priorities. We are responsible to set priorities. If you ran into a problem with your own home budget in your family, if you lost some income, you would not cut every expenditure item identically. You would make decisions. You would make sure your family had a roof over them. You would make sure they had food on the table. Maybe you would postpone a weekend trip. You do not treat every expenditure the same. Sequestration treats every expenditure the same.

The good news in this budget agreement--the good news--we do not worry about that for the next 2 years. The bad news: It returns after 2 years. I know Senator Murray has worked very hard to get rid of sequestration. I know she is going to continue to work on that as the chair of the Budget Committee and, as I said earlier, I applaud her greatly for being able to reach an agreement with the Republicans, particularly in the House. But I would hope we could get rid of sequestration once and for all. Unfortunately, this budget agreement does not do it. It is for only 2 years. I would have liked to see a long-term budget agreement.

On that, I would like to see us enact a long-term budget agreement. We talk frequently about the fact that one of the most damaging parts to our inaction is uncertainty. When businesses have to make decisions and individuals have to make decisions, the uncertainty of our Federal budget causes them harm, extra costs, anxiety. We need a long-term budget agreement, the so-called grand bargain. Yes, we will get an agreement for these 2 years, but it does not take us beyond that. We all understand we need a responsible budget, one that deals with the investments that are important for job growth, but also reduces the budget deficit.

I know Chairman Murray has mentioned this frequently, but let me just repeat this. During the past 2 years, we have reduced the deficit by $2.8 trillion. We have done a good job in reining in the Federal deficit. That is over the period of fiscal years 2014 to 2023, and that is before sequestration.

So when you go back to Simpson-Bowles and the amount of deficit reduction we were trying to get, we are about three-fourths of the way there in reducing the deficit. Yes, we have to do more. We have to continue to reduce the deficit. But let us acknowledge that we have done a pretty good job in reining in the Federal deficit, and I applaud the Chair of the Budget Committee for her leadership in that regard.

We also must allow for critical investment for job growth. We are in a global economy today. We have to invest in modernization. We need new investments in energy in this country. We need transportation investments, not just in roads and bridges, but in transit systems. We need to invest in education. Education is the great equalizer in America. We are in a global competition. We know we are behind in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and math. We have passed legislation to try to catch up. We have to fund those initiatives. The Federal Government has to be an active partner in education.

I can mention many agencies, but I always like to mention the National Institutes of Health, which happens to be headquartered in my State of Maryland. It is very important to New Jersey, the Presiding Officer's State, and very important to every part of our country. Why? Because they do the basic research which is the building block for the type of technology growth which is critically important in America.

We have the best trained people here in America. We need to invest in the basic research so we can continue to lead the world. Yes, the budget for NIH has not been as strong as it needs to be. We have to invest more money in that.

There are many reasons we need a long-term budget agreement. We need it for predictability, so we do not govern from one manufactured crisis to another manufactured crisis. But we

also need it so we can invest in critical investments for job growth in America. That is another reason why I hope we are able to build on this 2-year agreement for a longer-term budget agreement.

We also need to protect the safety nets as we do that. We need a balance here, and those who are most vulnerable need to be assured their government is on their side to help them, whether they are our seniors, whether they are people with disabilities, whether it is young people who need an opportunity to be able to take advantage of the opportunities in America.

We need to enhance the protection of our environment for future generations and have an energy policy that makes sense not only for America's security and environment but also for our economy.

So a balanced agreement for a long-term budget, which is not in this agreement, would give us that predictability, would give us that ability to move forward. To do that we need to deal with mandatory spending. This budget agreement deals with discretionary spending. It does not deal with mandatory spending.

We have taken steps to move in this direction. The passage of the Affordable Care Act puts in place a manner in which we can deal with health care costs, by reducing the growth rate of health care expenditures, by dealing with the readmissions to hospitals, by managing complicated illnesses, duplicative tests, getting people out of the emergency room into our clinics and into preventive care, having seniors take advantage of preventive health care because they do not have to pay a copayment that they could not afford.

These are ways we improve what we call the delivery system of health care in America, where you bring down the costs of health care. That is the best way to bring down the mandatory spending accounts in Medicare and Medicaid--reduce health care costs. We need to do more of that. We need to reduce the cost of our mandatory spending in this country. We could have done more, and this budget agreement did not deal with that.

Then there is the issue of revenue. I am going to talk about revenue because I was proud to be part of the Congress that balanced the Federal budget when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. Do you know what we did back then? We brought in more revenue, we reduced spending, and we balanced the budget. What happened? Our economy took off. We were not only growing jobs, we were growing good-paying jobs, and the standard of living for all Americans went up. We have to get back to that.

We are spending too much today, and we do not have enough revenue. Yes, this agreement takes care of reducing some spending, but not all, and does virtually nothing about revenues. We have to get back to that. We can bring in the revenue necessary to balance the Federal budget by reforming our Tax Code. There has been some great work done in the Senate Finance Committee I am privileged to serve on--Democrats and Republicans taking a look at our Code to see ways we can make more sense out of our Tax Code. We can do things about it.

Let me just remind my colleagues that we spend more money in the Tax Code than we do through all the appropriations bills. We spend more in our Tax Code. Over $1 trillion a year is spent in our Tax Code. These are tax breaks that go to some but not all taxpayers.

So there is no need to raise rates. All we need to do is close loopholes and be more critical of how we spend our money in the Tax Code, as we do on the appropriations side. Every dollar we spend on the appropriations side is scrutinized all the time. We need to do the same on the tax side. Quite frankly, Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch have worked out a way that the members of the Finance Committee can take a look at some of those. I think we can reach some agreements on areas of the Tax Code that are not high priorities that can reduce the revenue hemorrhaging we have. Put another way, if we eliminated all the tax breaks that are in the Tax Code, our rates could be one-half of what they are today--one-half of what they are today.

So we not only can bring in the revenue necessary to balance our Federal budget and allow for the types of investments that are important for job growth, we can actually reduce the rates for a large number of Americans. Unfortunately, that is not in this budget agreement. To me, that is a disappointment, that we are not dealing with the balance that is necessary for a long-term budget agreement.

Then there is one other area I want to talk about, and it is not going to be a surprise to my colleagues--a couple of areas I want to talk about, one of which is the Federal workforce.

This agreement provides for a 1.3-percent increase in retirement contributions for new hires under Federal service. That is on top of an increase that was just done a year ago on the extension of the payroll tax, where we increased the retirement contributions for new hires. We also, in this budget agreement, have a reduction in the COLA increases for military retirees.

I think that is regrettable. I do not believe that should have been in this budget agreement. Our civilian workforce has already contributed. When you add up what will be done by retirement contributions, that is going to be over $20 billion. We have had 3 years of a pay freeze. We have a way in our law where we make adjustments to our civilian workforce pay each year that reflects not the cost of living, something less than the cost of living. Our Federal workforce has seen a freeze. They have not gotten that for the last 3 years. That is close to $100 billion in contribution to the deficit. They have already done that. So they have contributed already about $120 billion-plus, and that does not include--does not include--the fact that many of our Federal workforce have had to endure furloughs as a result of sequestration and government shutdowns.

So our Federal workforce has contributed. These are predominantly middle class families, a large number of veterans, a large number of women, a large number of minorities. They have contributed more than any other group of working Americans already in dealing with this deficit reduction, and I find it very regrettable that this retirement contribution provision was included in the budget agreement.

Let me just quote, if I might, from the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service that commented to Senator Murray and Representative Ryan during the budget negotiations. I quote this for what they say because I think it expresses my view and I hope the view of all the Members of the Senate:

As you work to put our federal government on a sustainable

fiscal path, we encourage you in the strongest possible terms

to treat the federal workforce as the considerable asset that

it is, and ensure it is appropriately trained, compensated

and resourced to serve the American people with excellence

for the long term.

The federal civilian service is smaller today on a per

capita basis than at almost any time since the Kennedy

Administration--yet its responsibilities are greater than

ever. Rather than asking how to make the federal workforce

smaller or less expensive, Congress should be asking what we

need the Federal Government to do, and what it will take to

ensure that we have a workforce with the necessary skills in

appropriate quantities to execute those responsibilities with

maximum effect at a reasonable expense.

Proposals to freeze federal pay, change retirement

contributions or reduce the workforce through attrition do

nothing to improve the capacity and performance of the

federal government and those who serve in its civilian

workforce. These proposals are easy and expedient, but they

miss the opportunity to make real and sustained improvements

in how the Federal Government manages its people.

I could not agree more with those comments. We have a smaller workforce today, asked to do more extremely important work. These are people who are protecting our food supply. These are the great scientists who are doing the research to give us what we need, new technologies in health care. These are people making sure our seniors get the services they so richly need and deserve. These are people who are on the frontline in so many different ways.

Our responsibility is to make sure they have the resources to carry out their mission. Yes, we make value judgments as to what are the priorities, but to put our class of Federal workers through additional cuts, to me, is wrong. I regret that was included in the budget agreement.

I also wish to mention I was disappointed that we were not able to use

this last train that will reach the finish line before we recess to extend unemployment insurance. Some 1.3 million workers are in danger of losing benefits come January 1. In 2014, as many as 4.7 million workers will not be getting the extended benefit, 83,000 of whom are located in my State of Maryland.

Let my point out, I know the unemployment rates are getting lower. We are all working to make sure to get them as low as we can. But they are still substantially higher than they were when we first recognized that we needed to have extended Federal unemployment benefits because of the softness in our economy. Particularly for those who are long-term unemployed, it is extremely difficult to find a job. If you are unemployed and you are looking for work, it is tough out there.

So the right thing for us to do is to continue these benefits for people who are actively looking for work and cannot find jobs. This is an insurance program. The moneys have been collected during good times so that we pay during these times. The money is there. We need to make sure those benefits are continued. I was disappointed it was not included in the legislation. It will help our economy grow.

There are more and more economic studies that show every dollar we make available in unemployment compensation returns much more to our economy in job growth. So this is hurting ourselves by not extending it, plus we are hurting millions of Americans who are going to be more vulnerable in trying to keep their families together during these very challenging times.

Let me conclude by saying that as I said in the beginning, this is an important budget agreement to get approved. I strongly support it. I applaud the leadership of Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan in bringing us to this moment. My constituents believe this is a very important step forward, showing that we can compromise and work together and get our work done.

In a few days we will bring the first session of the 113th Congress to a close and leave Washington to spend the holidays with our families and friends. I hope each one of us will use that time to reflect on the extraordinary privilege of being a Member of Congress. I hope each one of us will reflect on the extraordinary challenges our Nation faces. I hope each one of us will come to the conclusion that we can do extraordinary things if we work together. The American people demand and deserve no less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Department of the Interior and Department of Energy Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public

Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 4 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Navy Yard Tragedy: Examining Physical Security for Federal Facilities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Small Businesses and Promoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Federal Arbitration Act and Access to Justice: Will Recent Supreme Court Decisions Undermine the Rights of Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses?''

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 17, 2013, at 2 p.m., to hold a African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Responding to the Humanitarian, Security and Governance Crisis in the Central Africa Republic.''

Madam President, earlier this year I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing on the situation in Hungary. Today, I would like to revisit some of the issues addressed by our witnesses.

Since the April 2010 elections, Hungary has undertaken the most dramatic legal transformation that Europe has seen in decades. A new Constitution was passed with votes of the ruling party alone, and even that has already been amended five times. More than 700 new laws have been passed, including laws on the media, religion, and civic associations. There is a new civil code and a new criminal code. There is an entirely new electoral framework. The magnitude and scope of these changes have understandably put Hungary under a microscope.

At the Helsinki Commission's hearing in March, I examined concerns that these changes have undermined Hungary's system of democratic checks and balances, independence of the judiciary, and freedoms of the media and religion. I also received testimony about rising revisionism and extremism. I heard from Jozsef Szajer, a Member of the European Parliament who represented the Hungarian Government at the hearing. Princeton constitutional law expert Kim Lane Scheppelle, Dr. Paul Shapiro from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Sylvana Habdank- Kolaczkowska from Freedom House presented compelling testimony.

Unfortunately, developments in Hungary remain troubling.

Even though Hungary's religion law was tweaked after the Constitutional Court struck down parts of it, it retains a discriminatory two-tier system. Moreover, the Parliament is empowered with the extraordinary and, for all practical purposes, unreviewable power to decide what is and what is not a religion.

This month, the government announced it is launching an investigation into the Methodist Evangelical Church, a church persecuted during communist times. Today, the Methodist Evangelical Church is known for its outreach to Roma, work with the homeless and is one of the largest charitable organizations in Hungary. As I noted at the Helsinki Commission hearing in March, it is also one of the hundreds of religious groups stripped of official recognition after the passage of Hungary's new religion law.

The church has now complied with submitting the necessary number of supporters required by the law and, as a reply, the government has announced an unidentified ``expert'' will conduct an investigation into the church's beliefs and tenets. This step only reinforces fears that parliamentary denial of recognition as a so-called ``Accepted Church'' opens the door for further repressive measures.

Veneration of Hungary's wartime regent, Miklos Horthy, along with other anti-Semitic figures such as writer Jozsef Nyiro, continues. In November, a statue of Hungarian Jewish poet Miklos Radnoti, who was killed by Hungarian Nazis at the end of 1944, was rammed with a car and broken in half. At roughly the same time, extremists staged a book burning of his works along with other materials they called ``Zionist publications.'' At the beginning of December, two menorahs were vandalized in Budapest.

Reflecting the climate of extremism, more than 160 Hungarian nationals have been found by Canada this year to have a well-founded fear of persecution. Almost all are Romani, but the refugees include an 80-year-old award winning Hungarian Jewish writer who received death threats after writing about anti-Semitism in Hungary, and was stripped of his honorary citizenship of Budapest on an initiative from the far- right Jobbik party, supported by the votes of the ruling Fidesz party.

While there are many who suggest the real problem comes from the extremist opposition party Jobbik, and not the ruling government, it seems that some members of Fidesz have contributed to a rise in intolerance.

I am particularly troubled that the government-created Media Council, consisting entirely of Fidesz delegated members, has threatened ATV--an independent television station--with punitive fines if it again characterizes Jobbik as extremist. If you can't even talk about what is extremist or anti-Semitic in Hungary without facing legal sanctions, how can you combat extremism and anti-Semitism? Moreover, this decision serves to protect Jobbik from critical debate in the advance of next year's elections. Why?

Other new measures further stifle free speech.

Unfortunately, and somewhat shockingly, last month Hungary amended its defamation law to allow for the imposition of prison terms up to 3 years.

The imposition of jail time for speech offenses was a hallmark of the communist era. During the post-communist transition, the Helsinki Commission consistently urged OSCE countries to repeal criminal defamation and insult laws entirely. In 2004, for example, the Helsinki Commission wrote to Minister of Justice Peter Barandy regarding the criminal convictions of Andras Bencsik and Laszlo Attila Bertok.

This new law, raced through under an expedited procedure in the wake of a bi-election controversy in which allegations of voter manipulation were traded, was quickly criticized by the OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media. I share her concerns that these changes to the criminal code may lead to the silencing of critical or differing views in society and are inconsistent with OSCE commitments.

Hungary was once held up as a model of peaceful democratic transition and is situated in a region of Europe where the beacon of freedom is still sought by many today. I hope Hungary will return to a leadership role in the protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy.

Madam President, today I wish to salute Dr. Levi Watkins, Jr., a renowned cardiac surgeon who will retire at year's end from Johns Hopkins Medicine. During his 4-decade-long career, Dr. Watkins has had a profound impact on American health care--through the countless patients he has treated, the students he has recruited and mentored, and the cultural diversity he has advanced.

Levi Watkins, Jr. grew up in Montgomery, AL, the third of Dr. and Mrs. Levi Watkins, Sr.'s six children. At the Alabama State Laboratory High School, Watkins excelled in academics and athletics: he graduated valedictorian and was selected for the Montgomery All-Star basketball team. It was in Alabama that he witnessed the early days of the civil rights movement. As a member of the First Baptist Church of Montgomery, Watkins developed a close friendship with his pastor, the Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, and later he attended Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where he was introduced to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the King family.

Watkins majored in biology as an undergraduate at Tennessee State University, where he was elected president of the student body and joined Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Alpha Kappa Mu honor society, Beta Kappa Chi honor society, and many other notable organizations. Watkins also led many student movements on campus and graduated with highest honors.

Dr. Watkins' medical career has been one of monumental firsts. In 1966, he integrated the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine as the first African-American student ever admitted. He was later selected to become a member of Alpha Omega Alpha medical honor society. Watkins arrived at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1970 as a general surgery intern and became the first African-American chief resident in cardiac surgery in the institution's history. There, in 1980, he performed the world's first implantation of an automatic heart defibrillator in a human--a procedure that is now performed worldwide and has since saved tens of thousands of lives. In 1991, Dr. Watkins became the first African- American at Johns Hopkins promoted to full professor of cardiac surgery. He was named the first African-American associate dean in the School of Medicine and established the nation's first postdoctoral association, helping to revolutionize the culture of postdoctoral education in the United States. Today, there are more than 50 such associations across the nation.

Dr. Watkins has been a fierce advocate for fairness and diversity. He joined the Hopkins School of Medicine's admissions committee in 1979, and began recruiting minority applicants and sponsoring an annual welcoming and networking reception for new students. In 1982, he founded the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemoration at Hopkins, an annual event that has brought an illustrious array of speakers to Baltimore, including Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Stevie Wonder, and Taylor Branch.

In October 2002, Vanderbilt University established a Professorship and Associate Deanship in his name; in October 2005, Dr. Watkins' portrait was unveiled at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine honoring his life's work; and, in 2008, Vanderbilt bestowed upon Dr. Watkins its ``Most Distinguished Alumnus Award.''

Since 2006, when he stopped performing surgery, Dr. Watkins has remained a powerful presence and an important influence on Johns Hopkins and the city of Baltimore. In December 2008, he was honored by the National Black Caucus of State Legislators with the Nation Builders Award, along with President-Elect Barack Obama, and James H. Meredith. In January of 2012, he was appointed co-chair of Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's transition team for health and human services.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. Levi Watkins, Jr. well as he embarks upon the next phase of his lifelong journey to improve the health and well-being of others.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of International Human Rights Day. Sixty-five years ago, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which serves as a foundation for human rights initiatives internationally, and is an enduring guide for human rights advocates around the globe.

On this annual celebration of International Human Rights Day we all

mourn with heavy hearts the loss of Nelson Mandela, a man who devoted his life to promoting human rights, freedom, and harmony.

Humanity has lost one of its greatest leaders with the passing of Madiba, or ``father,'' as he was lovingly called. My prayers go out to his family and all the people of South Africa. He was a personal hero of mine, and of those who work to uphold human rights around the world. He led his nation not only in overcoming the divisions of racism, but in reconciling and healing. Throughout his life Nelson Mandela never stopped fighting for the oppressed, speaking out for the voiceless, and given hope to the hopeless. One of the greatest leaders may have left this world but the lessons he taught us about human dignity, sacrifice, perseverance, and perhaps the most powerful lesson of all-- forgiveness--will live on forever.

In 1964, Nelson Mandela was convicted of treason and sentenced to life in prison for his part in the fight for racial equality in apartheid South Africa. At his trial Mandela said:

I have fought against white domination, and I have fought

against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a

democratic and free society in which all persons live

together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an

ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs

be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Thankfully Mandela did not die during his years of imprisonment, and instead after enduring the unthinkable with grace and dignity, he emerged to lead a country to self determination, reconciliation, and forgiveness.

In 1990, when Nelson Mandela was finally released after 10,000 days of imprisonment, his spirit was stronger than ever. Ten thousand days in prison were not enough to break his spirit and his devotion to the freedom of all people. In his autobiography, Mandela wrote ``. . . to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.''

And that he did. His democratic ideals were unwavering. He led by example, living a relatively modest life, refusing to reside in the presidential mansion, and serving only one term as South Africa's first black President.

Mandela's influence on the continent, and indeed around the world, does not end with his passing. His story and moral courage has changed countless lives forever. As he once said, ``the true test of our devotion to freedom is just beginning.'' State and Federal lawmakers across the United States looked to Mandela as an inspiration when crafting laws that mandated divestment from South Africa's cruel Apartheid regime. I had the privilege of serving as speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates when we passed such legislation. Years later, our Nation is still striving to follow in Mandela's footsteps and fully realize his dream of peace and equality for all of mankind.

As President Obama said, Mandela ``took history in his hands, and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice.'' And so on this International Human Rights Day, we pay tribute to the great Madiba, the father of a free and peaceful South Africa, a legendary African, and a shining example for future generations of change-makers who have inherited a better world because of his great deeds.

Madam President, first, let me thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership on this issue of sexual assault in our military. I support her amendment. I believe we need to look at a new way to deal with this issue so there is not only confidence within the military but within our country that sexual assault will not be tolerated in our military and that we have an effective way to deal with it. I thank Senator Gillibrand. It is quite clear, as Senator Reed said, without her leadership we would not be having these discussions on the floor of the Senate today. I applaud her for that.

Tribute to Major Nate Somers

Madam President, we are now dealing with the NDAA bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, and it is our opportunity as a Senate to weigh in on one of the primary roles of government and that is the security of our country, how we can support our men and women in our military service to make sure they have the best equipment and the best support and live up to our commitments to our veterans when they return to civilian life. It is an awesome responsibility. I know each of us in our own capacities need to rely on outside help in order to be able to carry out this responsibility.

We have staff. In my case I have been blessed to have a detailee from the Department of Defense from the Air Force. That person is Maj. Nate Somers. I mention that because he will be leaving my assignment very shortly, within the next week or so. I wanted to take this time to let my colleagues know, but also to let all the people know, that these detailees who are assigned to our office play a critical role. He has helped me in developing provisions that are in the National Defense Authorization Act and amendments that we are offering that deal with military health issues, that deal with regional security concerns, that deal with the impact of sequestration and how we can deal with the impact of sequestration and that deal with human rights issues with U.S. leadership globally as well as within the military.

To say the least, I could not have done this as effectively as I needed to on behalf of the people of Maryland if it were not for Maj. Nate Somers. He comes to this assignment with an incredible background. His military record is unbelievable. Major Nate Somers has dedicated his life to serving our Nation. Nate started his career with the U.S. Air Force in 2001 when he graduated and received his commission through the Officer Training Program at Mississippi State University. He also, I might add, has two master's degrees. Nate then went on to serve in Arkansas, Florida, and Virginia, and was deployed in support of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Prior to joining my office, Major Somers served as liaison between the Air Combat Command and the Air Force Legislative Liaison Director on issues ranging from constituent inquiries to weapons systems.

Over the course of his incredible career, Major Somers has earned 17 different major awards and decorations, including the Meritorious Service Medal and the Air Force Commendation Medal. His receiving these awards comes as no surprise to those who know him. Nate demonstrates his extraordinary service to our Nation and to our Armed Forces each and every day.

There is hardly a day that goes by that I am not better informed because of his assignment to my Senate office. To say that Major Somers will be missed is an understatement. Nate has truly been a integral part of my staff. Whether ensuring our Maryland veterans get the services they need or advising me on complex defense issues, there was no task Nate would not do or could not do in order to help our office. The Air Force should be proud of the extraordinary talent they have in Maj. Nate Somers. I thank him for his service to this Nation.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank Nate's wife and sons for sharing Nate with the Senate and for his service to the country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this year we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Holodomor, the genocidal Ukrainian Famine of 1932- 1933. Eighty years ago, an engineered famine in Soviet-dominated Ukraine and bordering ethnically-Ukrainian territory resulted in the horrific deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children.

I visited the Holodomor monument in central Kyiv, a poignant reminder of the suffering perpetrated by Soviet dictator Stalin's deliberate and inhumane policy to suppress the Ukrainian people and destroy their human, cultural, and political rights. Requisition brigades, acting on Stalin's orders to fulfill impossibly high grain quotas, took away the last scraps of food from starving families and children. Eyewitness accounts describing the despair of the starving are almost unfathomable. Millions of rural Ukrainians slowly starved--an excruciatingly painful form of death--amid some of the world's most fertile farmland, while stockpiles of expropriated grain rotted by the ton, often nearby. Meanwhile, Ukraine's borders were sealed to prevent the starving from leaving to less-affected areas. International offers of help were rejected, with Stalin's henchmen denying a famine was taking place. At the same time, Soviet grain was being exported to the West.

The final report of the congressionally created Commission on the Ukraine Famine concluded in 1988 that ``Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against Ukrainians in 1932-33.'' No less than Rafael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish-American lawyer who coined the term ``genocide'' and was instrumental in the adoption of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, described the ``destruction of the Ukrainian nation'' as the ``classic example of Soviet genocide.''

We must never forget the victims of the Holodomor or those of other republics in the Soviet Union, notably Kazakhstan, that witnessed cruel, mass starvation as a result of Stalin's barbarism, and we must redouble our efforts to protect human rights and democracy, ensuring that 20th-century genocides such as the Holocaust, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Ukraine, Bosnia, Cambodia, and Rwanda become impossible to imagine in the future.

Madam President, 150 years ago today, President Abraham Lincoln gave one of the greatest speeches not just in U.S. history but in human history. In under 3 minutes and using just 10 sentences, President Lincoln spanned the past, present, and future of the American experiment and spoke to the aspirations, rights, and responsibilities not just of Americans but of humankind.

It is astounding for us to realize that President Lincoln was invited to the dedication of the Nation's first national military cemetery almost as an afterthought. The event was organized around the schedule of former Harvard president Edward Everett, who was thought to be one of the Nation's greatest orators of the time.

Everett was the featured speaker and, in the custom of that era, addressed the crowd for over 2 hours. President Lincoln, who had been invited to say ``a few appropriate words,'' followed Everett.

President Lincoln wrote for the ear; he recited words and phrases as he committed them to paper. When he gave speeches, he spoke deliberately. His great speeches, including the Gettysburg Address, were as much theological in nature as they were political arguments.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on

this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and

dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

President Lincoln borrowed a method of referring to time from the Psalms of the King James Bible, Psalm 90:10. It seems idiosyncratic to our ears today, but his listeners would have immediately grasped that he was going back not to 1789, when the first Congress convened in New York City and George Washington was inaugurated as our Nation's first President. He was not going back to 1788 when the Constitution was ratified or back to 1787 when the Constitutional Convention met. He was going back 87 years, to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence, citing the proclamation of our Founding Fathers who were from the North and South alike--of the universal truth ``that all men are created equal.''

In the very next sentence, President Lincoln pivoted to the present and proceeded to explain the purpose of the Civil War: to determine whether the United States of America or any other nation ``conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal'' could succeed and last:

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether

that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can

long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final

resting place for those who here gave their lives that that

nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that

we should do this.

And then President Lincoln, with characteristic humility, paid homage to those who had fought and died at Gettysburg before pivoting again, to the future and to laying out the responsibilities of his and future generations of Americans:

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot

consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men,

living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far

above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little

note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never

forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather,

to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who

fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for

us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before

us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion

to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of

devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall

not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall

have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the

people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from

the earth.

As historian Ronald C. White, Jr., has written, ``Lincoln was finished. He had not spoken the word `I' even once. It was as if Lincoln disappeared so Americans could focus unhindered upon his transcendent truths.'' Those ``transcendent truths'' are apparent to us today but things weren't so clear 150 years ago, in the midst of the horrific brutality and death of the Civil War. On November 20, 1863, the New York Times reported that President Lincoln's address was interrupted by applause five times and followed by sustained applause, but historian Shelby Foote said that the reaction to the speech was delayed and ``barely polite.'' On November 23, 1863, the Chicago Times--an anti-Lincoln paper--editorialized that President Lincoln's address ``was an offensive exhibition of boorishness and vulgarity'' and ``a perversion of history so flagrant that the most extended charity cannot regard it as otherwise than willful.''

Initially, President Lincoln believed that the Civil War was being fought simply to preserve the Union. But his thinking evolved to the point where the war was about the abolition of slavery. It became the testing ground of whether the United States of America--or any other nation dedicated to human liberty and equality--could endure.

There is a popular legend that President Lincoln jotted down a few notes on his way to Gettysburg or that he spoke extemporaneously. That isn't true. He prepared the speech beforehand and there was one improvisation only: He added the words ``under God.'' As White noted, `` `Under God' pointed backward and forward: back to `this nation,' which drew its breath from both political and religious sources, but also forward to a `new birth.' Lincoln had come to see the Civil War as a ritual of purification. The old Union had to die . . . Death became a transition to a new Union and a new humanity.''

And so President Lincoln--in theological as well as constitutional language--laid out for his listeners, for us, and for our grandchildren ``the unfinished work'' and ``the great task remaining'': namely, to promote ``a new birth of freedom.'' As the American poet Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.'' We Americans are singularly fortunate and privileged to hail from the first Nation in history ``conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' It is our solemn responsibility not only to protect and expand freedom here but to promote and nurture it abroad so that ``government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.''

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

Mr. President, as Veterans Day 2013 approaches next Monday, I ask that in honoring the brave men and women who have served our Nation, we in Congress honor them in ways that are meaningful and help them return to civilian life after they have served. A mere thank- you is little comfort to a veteran who cannot find meaningful employment, who is striving to provide for his or her family, or who is dealing with post-traumatic stress.

President Woodrow Wilson established this holiday--originally known as Armistice Day--on November 11, 1919, when he proclaimed that it would be used to honor the brave Americans who fought and died in World War I. The holiday was officially recognized by the U.S. Congress on June 4, 1946. After the end of World War II, Armistice Day was expanded to honor all veterans of our military services, and the holiday's name was changed to Veterans Day.

We should honor our veterans every day, but I believe that this annual holiday is especially important as it allows us to reflect on the true aspect of the sacrifices that our servicemembers have made. Their sacrifices are often made in stressful, frustrating, and dangerous conditions. Yet these brave men and women do not shy from committing themselves to serving our country. It is because of those who have served selflessly, with honor and dignity, that we can continue celebrating our history and our way of life.

While I am proud of all of our veterans, I am especially proud of the veterans in my State. Maryland has a long and proud military tradition. Maryland is known as the Old Line State. Some people think that comes from the Mason Dixon Line, but it actually dates back to 1776, less than 2 months after the Declaration of Independence, when George Washington's army was nearing annihilation in an indefensible position at Brooklyn Heights. They were faced with overwhelming odds, and the British Army--the most powerful military force in the world at the time--was closing in around them. But on this historic day 400 Marylanders who made up the Maryland Line stepped up against those overwhelming odds and ran into the breach in defense of our Nation. Today, there is a plaque over the mass graves of those citizen soldiers that reads simply this: ``In honor of the Maryland 400, who on this battlefield on August 27, 1776, saved the American Army.''

Every year I make it a priority on Veterans Day to take an opportunity to thank the millions of brave men and women who served our Nation in uniform and honor them for their courage, dedication, and sacrifice. In my first year as a Senator of Maryland I went to Garrison Forest Veterans Cemetery in Owings Mills for a Veterans Day observance, as well as attended a Veterans Day Salute and groundbreaking of a new facility for Baltimore Station, which provides innovative therapeutic residential treatment program supporting veterans who are transitioning through the cycle of poverty, addiction, and homelessness to self- sufficiency.

I have also spent Veterans Day at the Leonardtown Cemetery and Crownsville Veterans Cemetery Remembrance Ceremony, where I placed wreaths honoring those who have paid the ultimate price in serving our country. Two years ago, I had the privilege of joining Maryland Veterans Affairs Secretary Edward Chow, Jr., to observe Veterans Day at Cheltenham Veterans Cemetery. Through our efforts, we were able to announce that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded the cemetery a grant of $1.7 million to make improvements.

Just last year, I had the opportunity to thank the millions of brave men and women who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and risk their lives for our Nation when I provided remarks at the Crownsville Veterans Day Ceremony. Additionally, I was invited by the Armed Forces Foundation to speak to students at Manor View Elementary School-- located on Fort Meade--as part of their Operation Caring Classroom Program. During my visit, I talked to students about Veterans Day and the importance of honoring the service of men and women in the military, as well as the sacrifices of their families. We far too often forget to thank the families of our veterans for all they have sacrificed. We want our veterans and their families to know we are grateful for their service to our Nation and are here today to honor them as well.

This year I will have a chance to say thank you to veterans across Maryland as I participate in the Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 451 Veterans Day Celebration and Baltimore City's Veterans Day Celebration sponsored by

the Baltimore City Veterans Commission. This Veterans Day, I am reminded that Maryland is home to over 470,000 veterans to whom we made solemn promises. I am committed to making sure they receive the services and benefits they earned and the support they were promised. The United States is the strongest Nation in the world, and I am proud to honor Maryland's veterans with my gratitude and respect.

For more than 237 years, Marylanders in every branch of service have been at the forefront of providing distinguished service for our national defense. Let me mention a few examples. Marylanders are justifiably proud of amazing soldiers like PFC Kevin Jaye, an Army hero born and raised in Smithsburg who saw his life change when he stepped on an improvised explosive device, IED, while serving in Afghanistan. Kevin lost his right leg below the knee, but despite the many surgeries and the long recovery process, he is determined to overcome these challenges. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, more than 1,500 U.S. troops have become amputees and Kevin is one of them.

We are justifiably proud of naval heroes like Navy Hospital Corpsman Michael Couch, who received a Purple Heart earlier this year as a result of the injuries he sustained while serving in Afghanistan. Michael was traveling in a convoy when his vehicle rolled over an IED which detonated. He was knocked unconscious, and his eardrum was ruptured. After 3 weeks of rehabilitation he rejoined his unit. Michael is now stationed at the Naval Academy, where he is an optometry technician who prescreens the vision of midshipmen before they meet with an optometrist.

We are justifiably proud of marines from Maryland like HM3 Vanzorro Gross, Jr., who was awarded the Purple Heart in May by Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River. Corpsman Gross received the Purple Heart for wounds received in action during a raid while deployed in Afghanistan with the Marines. During the firefight, eight service personnel were injured and two were killed. Corpsman Gross was 30 days into a 6-month deployment at the time of the attack and was sent home with damage to the bones in his foot. He had a 3-inch hole in his foot from the shrapnel damage and has undergone four orthopedic surgeries so far to reconstruct it. Despite these injuries, when visited in Walter Reid National Military Medical Center by a commanding officer, Corpsman Gross' first question was, ``When can I go back?''

We are justifiably proud of Air Force Airman Captain Barry F. Crawford, Jr., a member of the Maryland Air National Guard, who was recently awarded the Air Force Cross--second only to the Medal of Honor--and Purple Heart for his extraordinary heroism in military operations against an armed enemy of the United States as special tactics officer near Lagham Province, Afghanistan. Captain Crawford is credited for taking decisive action to save the lives of three wounded Afghan soldiers and evacuating two Afghan soldiers killed in action. Captain Crawford is only the fifth recipient, since 9/11, to receive the Air Force Cross.

We are justifiably proud of Security Forces airmen stationed at Warfield Air National Guard Base, who were awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement while assigned to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations Tactical Security Element at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. MSG John Duly and MSG Olen D. Smith III led a 15-man tactical security element that provided security wherever the Office of Special Investigations detachment needed to go. On a routine mission, an Army platoon came under attack from Taliban fighters, and Sergeants Duly and Smith moved their unit to provide support. For the next 48 hours their unit provided security and overwatch, responded to a vehicle rollover, initiated and received direct fire, coordinated with helicopter and fixed wing assets, and responded to a vehicle hit by an IED.

We are justifiably proud of the A-10 pilots from the 104th Fighter Squadron with the Maryland Air National Guard assigned to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, who recently flew as part of a harrowing mission to support ambushed coalition forces fighting during dangerous weather conditions. A dozen pilots protected more than 90 coalition servicemembers during a major battle in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

All across the services, our military members and veterans from Maryland are the best in the Department of Defense. But Congress simply has not done enough to provide enough support to our veterans. For example, unemployment is also an issue for the veterans community. Veterans, particularly young veterans from our most recent conflicts, are having trouble getting jobs. In this September's jobs report, the Bureau of Labor reported that while the unemployment rate for nonveterans was 7.2 percent and the unemployment rate for all veterans was at 6.5 percent, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans was at an astonishing 10.1 percent. I find this troubling, as the experience that these veterans acquired during their recent military service should make them invaluable to prospective employers. We must do better in providing employment opportunities for our veterans.

Ultimately, Veterans Day is an opportunity for all of us to thank our veterans for their service and to renew our commitment to serving and honoring them each and every day of the year. A true marker of our Nation's worth is our willingness to serve those who have served us. As we continue to wind down our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan after a decade of war, we need to gear up our commitment to our veterans. Our veterans deserve every possible tool we can provide to help ease their transition to civilian life. I am committed to making sure that our veterans receive the services and benefits they earned and the support they were promised and deserve. The United States is the strongest Nation in the world because of our veterans, and we owe them and their families our gratitude and our respect.