Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Twelve years ago America was dealt a blow, but in the years since, we have continued to rebuke the message of hate that was brought to our doorstep. What is more is that we affirm our core American values that were magnified in the days following those attacks.

We are still `` one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' We are still a diverse nation of many races, religions, and ideas united under the same flag. Maybe most important, we are still at our best when we come together.

Every year we are reminded that though we are a strong and determined nation, we are still healing from the wounds we suffered that day 12 years ago. No amount of time can rationalize the senseless violence or bring back a loved one. It is important to note that we have brought many of the terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, to justice, and we have made great strides in ensuring that those who wish to do us harm like they did on 9/11 will be unable to do so.

Our men and women in uniform, the intelligence community, Foreign Service officers, and the people entrusted with safeguarding our borders, bridges, air and seaports and key infrastructure, have made great sacrifices to ensure our continued safety in a post-9/11 world and we owe so much to these men and women, and the families who support them.

Today, we join together to show the world that our Nation is united and firmly resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard our liberty against any enemy.

We also take time to remember those Americans who perished on 9/11 and to remember them and their families with a special prayer. We reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers, medical workers, city officials, and ordinary citizens who gave their own lives trying to save others. Who could ever forget the images of firefighters and other first responders going up the stairs of the World Trade Center as everyone else was heading to safety? Each of us has been affected by 9/11. It is a day seared into the national memory.

We cannot forget 9/11 because the virtues that carried us though the days, weeks, and years have been with us since the beginning: 9/11 did not teach firefighters and police to sacrifice, nor did it teach unity among neighbors. It did not teach empathy toward strangers or compassion toward friends.

Rather, these quintessential American virtues were with us all along; 9/11 just put them under a spotlight for all to see. On 9/11 we showed the world a brand of resilience, compassion, and strength that could only be ``made in America''.

And so, 12 years after the most heinous attacks in our Nation's history, we stand tall. We stand tall, not weighed down by the gravity of 9/11 but made stronger by it. We remain united in our diversity like no other nation on Earth, `` one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.''

Mr. President, on August 8, Nicolae Gheorghe, one of the leading figures of the Romani civil rights movement, passed away. He was devoted to improving the situation of Roma, ultimately playing a pivotal role on the international stage and especially within the OSCE. Gheorghe lived an extraordinary life and will be long remembered for his singular contribution to the advancement of human rights.

Nicolae Gheorghe was born in 1946 in Romania during the aftermath of the fascist regime led by Marshall Ion Atonescu. His mother had narrowly escaped the mass deportations of 25,000 Roma planned and implemented by the Antonescu regime.

Members of the Helsinki Commission first met Nicolae Gheorghe when Senator Dennis DeConcini and Representative Steny Hoyer, then-Chairman and Cochairman, led a delegation to Romania in April 1990. At that time, Gheorghe was emerging as one of the clearest and most compelling voices sounding the alarm about the deplorable situation of Roma. Although the

fall of communism in Central Europe ushered in an era of democratization, it also gave free rein to old bigotry against Roma. In fact, only a few months after that visit, police efforts to remove demonstrators from Bucharest degenerated into brutal attacks on the offices of opposition papers, opposition leaders' homes, and members of the Romani minority.

At almost the same time, the OSCE participating States were meeting in Copenhagen negotiating what would become one of the most ambitious agreements of the Helsinki process: the seminal 1990 Copenhagen Document. I was part of a delegation Representative Hoyer led to that historic meeting where we raised our concerns about religious and ethnic minorities directly with the delegation from Romania.

It was also in Copenhagen where Nicolae Gheorghe pressed-- successfully--for the adoption of the first reference in any international human rights agreement to the specific problems faced by Roma. The U.S. delegation to that meeting, headed by the late Ambassador Max Kamplemen, helped secure the inclusion of that text in the final document.

But in the context of post-Communist economic and political transition, Roma became targets of ethnically motivated attacks. In Romania, dozens of pogroms against Roma were carried out between 1990 and 1997, prompting Gheorghe and others to found Romani CRISS in 1993. The name is a Romanian acronym for Center for Social Intervention and Studies but also a play on the Romani word ``kris,'' which is a kind of council of elders. In the 1990s, he worked with the New Jersey-based Project on Ethnic Relations and served on the board of the European Roma Rights Center.

He also brought his concerns to the United States. In 1994, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights, chaired by Representative Tom Lantos, convened the first hearing before Congress on the situation of Roma. Gheorghe, joined by Romani activists Ian Hancock, Andrzej Mirga, and Klara Orgovanova, testified, along with Livia Plaks of the Project on Ethnic Relations.

Gheorghe argued that anti-Roma attitudes and behaviors could serve as a barometer to gauge the success of countries building democratic institutions, the rule of law, and ``the consolidation of civil movements and associations and societies and states deeply distorted by the decades of pro-fascist, authoritarian and communist totalitarian regimes.''

He presciently surveyed the scope and implications of anti-Roma manifestations including in Bosnia, Germany, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Romania. ``[T]he most important assistance which can be brought to or sent to our region is the rule of law, the breeding of democratic institutions, and careful implementation of individual human rights.'' Gheorghe testified at Helsinki Commission briefings and hearings in 2002 and 2006.

Nicolae Gheorghe also became a fixture at OSCE human rights meetings--first in his capacity as an NGO, then as the first senior adviser on Romani issues for the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In whatever capacity he worked, he was a relentless advocate for the human rights of Romani people.

His appointment coincided with the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo, the NATO air campaign against Milosevic's Serbia, and the subsequent deployment of a large OSCE mission to Kosovo. As a consequence of developments in the Balkans, he became immediately engaged on issues relating to the displacement of Kosovo Roma to Macedonia and elsewhere. Throughout his tenure with the OSCE, which lasted through 2006, his work was driven by the need for crisis management stemming from acts of violence and other extreme manifestations of prejudice against Roma--not only in the Balkans but elsewhere in the OSCE region as well.

In his 2006 testimony before the Helsinki Commission, he observed that international organizations had largely focused on the situation of Roma in Central Europe, neglecting Western countries such as Greece, France, Spain, and Italy. ``I don't think that Europe for the time being realizes the depth of the racism and racist attitudes in its structures, [in] Europe as a whole.'' The mass fingerprinting of Roma in Italy in 2008 and the expulsions of Roma from France in 2010 would illustrate that Gheorghe had spoken with typical insight.

I wish that I could say Nicolae Gheorghe's work to advance the human rights of Roma was complete. Clearly, it is not. Each day, it must be carried on by the many people he encouraged and a new generation of activists. Toward that end, our load is lighter because of the burdens he carried, our goals are nearer because of the distance he traveled, and we are inspired by his legacy.

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

Mr. President, make no mistake about it, the resolution before us, in my judgment, is one of the most difficult decisions a Member of the Senate will ever have to make. The authorization of force is an awesome responsibility that each of us has. None of us wants to see American troops in harm's way. None of us wants to see the need for the use of military force. This is a difficult judgment for us to make.

The Constitution envisions that both the President and Congress are involved in the deploying of U.S. military. Certainly the President, as Commander in Chief, and the Congress, under the War Powers Act, have a responsibility to authorize the use of force. Today in this country Americans are tired of war. We have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for way too long. We thought these campaigns would be short campaigns. They turned out to be very long. There has been a tremendous loss in human life and fiscal resources as a result of the wars in which the United States has participated. But the public also understands that we have a responsibility to use our military to protect the national interests of the people of this country. They understand that America's military strength keeps the people in this country safe, and they expect that the President and the Congress will use that military force in order to protect the national security of the people of this country.

What is in our national security interest and why would the President come to Congress asking us to consider the use of military force in the current circumstances in Syria? People understand, they recognize that if we are about to be attacked, there is a need to use force.

The United States plays a unique role in the international community, for we understand that standing up for basic internationally recognized human rights is a responsibility we all have. I supported President Clinton when he asked for the authorization of force for the United States, along with the international community, to be involved in restoring order in the republics of the former Yugoslavia, where there was ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. But for the leadership of the United States additional communities would have been destroyed and people would have lost their lives. We stood up because it was in the interests of the United States to stand up for the enforcement of basic internationally established human rights.

Let's evaluate what is happening in Syria today and understand that although what is happening there may be far from our shores, the impact very much could be felt here in the United States. I serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We were called back into session last week because of the President's request for the Congress to act on his request for the use of force. We held hearings that were open to the public, and we held classified hearings in order to better understand what had happened in Syria.

I think it is now clear beyond any doubt that the Asad regime in Syria used chemical weapons. The evidence is clear. It was not the first occasion they used chemical weapons. They had used chemical weapons in the past but not to the magnitude they did on August 21 of this year which resulted in more than 1,400 deaths, many of whom were children. The videos of that image are now available publicly. People can see the horrific act that was imposed upon the people of Syria by its President, President Asad.

The action of Syria on August 21 violated international norm. Since chemical weapons were used in World War I, the international community has come together and said: Even in war we will not permit the use of chemical weapons. It is so horrific, so indiscriminate in its killing and in its maiming that as an international community we will stand and say: No, you cannot use chemical weapons.

The evidence is clear that President Asad of Syria used chemical weapons in a mass way and killed over 1,400 people. That action requires the response of the international community, for if it goes unchallenged it is more likely President Asad will continue to use chemical weapons. He just considers it one of the weapons in his toolbox, and he will call it out more and more if it goes unchallenged by the international community.

The people of Syria are not the only ones at risk. These chemical weapons could easily be used against American allies in that region. It could be used against Turkey. It could be used against Jordan. It could be used against Israel.

If the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria goes unchallenged and if President Asad can get away with the use of chemical weapons, what message does that send to the regime in Iran and its ambition to become a nuclear weapons state and perhaps use nuclear weapons? What message does it send to the Government of North Korea, which is openly testing the use of nuclear weapons?

We have a direct interest in preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, and we have to work with the international community to say this will not go unchallenged. We not only have a moral imperative--and we do have a moral imperative--but we also have an issue of our national security interest. If these weapons of mass destruction get in the hands of terrorist organizations and groups, it threatens the security of Americans and it threatens the security of our allies. We have a responsibility to protect the national security of the people of this country.

I have engaged many people in Maryland who have talked to me about their concerns about the use of the American military in Syria. They recall what happened when the Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq where there was evidence of chemical weapons, and then we went in and found no chemical weapons. There were statements made about how this would be a limited operation. Our troops were there for a decade. So there is obviously concern about the information being made available to us and what is being asked of the Congress of the United States.

When force was authorized against Iraq and that resolution was pending on the floor, I served in the other body, in the House of Representatives. I had a chance to see firsthand the information about Iraq and its risk factors to the interest of the United States. Some may recall that the popular sentiment was for America to authorize the use of force--for Congress to authorize the use of force. I voted no on that resolution because I was convinced America did not have a national security interest to use military force. So I will explain the difference between the circumstances in Iraq over a decade ago and what we are facing today in Syria.

The original justification for the United States entering its combat troops in Iraq was that Iraq was deeply involved with the then- government of Afghanistan and the attack on our country on September 11. I looked for that information, and I saw no information between the Iraqi Government and the attack on our government. Yet those statements were made and it was used as justification for the use of military force.

Here the justification is the use by Syria of chemical weapons, and that has been established. I believe the international community has now understood the evidence is clear that the Asad regime used chemical weapons in contravention to international norm.

When we were authorizing the Iraq use of force, there were no restrictions on the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we used ground troops. We used hundreds of thousands of ground troops in our campaign in Iraq. American lives were put directly at risk, and it put America directly in harm's way.

The request made by the President of the United States for military action in Syria does not include--and, in fact, the resolution that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee makes it clear that there will be no ground combat troops from the United States of America. We will not be drawn into a ground war.

The Iraqi resolution that was approved over a decade ago had no time limit on that authorization. As we saw with that authorization and with the Afghanistan authorization, those campaigns went for over a decade, with American troops at risk.

The authorization that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee contains a 60-day limitation on the authorization of the use of force. It can be extended once for an additional

30 days. This is a limited campaign. It is very clear this authorization is restricted to the specific objective to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist organizations.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended resolution is limited. It is limited to that mission. It is limited in the type of military operation--no ground troops. It is limited in time and is not to exceed 60 to 90 days. It is limited to the fact that use of force should be the last option--not the first but the last option.

I have said many times on the floor of the House, and now on the floor of the Senate, that the use of military should be the last resort. There are other options that need to be explored first. So the resolution that has come out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requires the President to pursue diplomatic ways to resolve the issue before he can use force. He must certify to Congress that he has done that before he can use force.

Mr. President, you understand this directly because you raised some of these issues. We now have an opportunity that we hope will work. We now have the attention of Russia and Syria since they know America is serious about reacting to Syria's use of chemical weapons. They know we will not stand by.

They have now acknowledged that chemical weapons in great numbers exist in Syria. And, quite frankly, I think they have acknowledged the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Of course, the videos speak for themselves and the physical evidence is overwhelming.

Now the suggestion is they will turn over those chemical weapons to the international community. If that is done, we have achieved our objective in the resolution that is before us. The resolution before us is to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by Syria. If they turn their chemical weapons over to the international community, we have achieved our objective. However, any such plan must be verifiable, enforceable, and timely.

Excuse me if I seem a little bit suspicious of the suggestions made by Russia and Syria. I want to make sure they are verifiable, they are enforceable, and that they are timely. We anticipated a diplomatic effort when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended this resolution to the floor of the Senate.

There are many Members of the Senate, including the Presiding Officer, who are looking at ways we can come together to support the President's effort to stand up against the use of chemical weapons. I hope we will be able to come together with language in this resolution that will allow the Syrian Government to turn over its chemical weapons in a timely and enforceable way so military force will not be necessary.

Make no mistake about it, but for the leadership of President Obama and their fear of the use of American military force, we would never be at this opportunity right now where we have a viable diplomatic channel we can pursue. I wanted to acknowledge that we anticipated diplomacy would be used, as it always should be, before the use of our military. We hope our military will not be necessary, but we have to react to the use of chemical weapons.

Let me explain some of what we don't want to see happen. Earlier I referenced the hearings we had in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I congratulate Senator Menendez and Senator Corker, the chairman and ranking Republican on our committee. We had a very open hearing, we had access to classified information, and then we had an open discussion in our committee where all views were heard.

We tried to recommend a resolution we thought was responsible for the Congress to weigh in on. It was not the resolution the President submitted to us. It was one that was much more limited to the authorization we thought was appropriate. I think it has served its purpose from the point of view of putting Syria on notice that the United States is prepared to join the international community to say: Chemical weapons will not be allowed to be used. We also made it clear we will not be drawn into a civil war.

President Asad has done some horrible things in that country. In my view, he has lost the legitimacy of leading the country, but it is up to the Syrians to solve their civil conflict. American troops will not be drawn into the civil problems within Syria itself. They are going to have to resolve that issue.

As the United States has said, and as the international community has said, there needs to be a political solution to the future of Syria. Yes, there are some good people in the opposition and there are some people we are concerned about in the opposition. At the end of the day, it is up to the Syrians, through a political process, to determine their own government. What we should expect is a government that will respect the human rights of all the people of Syria and will respect the right of Syrians to determine who their leader should be. All ethnic communities should be able to live in peace in Syria, and that is our objective, to get to that political solution. We will not be drawn into a broader conflict.

As I said earlier, the people I have talked to in Maryland don't want war. The people I have talked to in this Nation do not want the United States drawn into another war, and neither do I.

One more point about the response to the use of chemical weapons. Yes, our first priority is to make sure these chemical weapons aren't used again. The best way to do that is to get control of the weapons and make sure they are not used and, hopefully, destroyed.

President Asad needs to be held accountable. He has committed war crimes. He has committed crimes against humanity. He needs to be held accountable for the criminal actions he has perpetrated on the people of Syria. As we know, over 100,000 have lost their lives, many of whom were civilians who were put in harm's way by the Syrian Government against international norms. I encourage my colleagues to join me in the effort of calling on an international tribunal to take President Asad, in this case, and establish the international justice so that he is held accountable for his actions.

One last point about the resolution before us. It is important to work with the international community. I hope we will find more countries standing up for the importance of international participation regarding condemning the use of chemical weapons. One of the hopes we have in this new opportunity for a diplomatic solution is for the United Nations to assume its appropriate role. The United Nations Security Council will have an opportunity as early as today to pass an enforceable resolution condemning what happened in Syria and accepting the offer to take control of all of its chemical weapons and do it in a way that is enforceable and in a way that accomplishes its goal. I hope the United Nations Security Council will act. I hope the international community will join us. United States leadership is needed, and President Obama is providing it. But the key point is we must respond to the use of chemical weapons.

I think this debate is strengthening our country. I understand there are different views. I urge my colleagues to come together to support a resolution that puts America on record supporting President Obama in saying we will not permit the use of chemical weapons to go unchallenged, that our objective is to make sure the world is safer, and we are prepared to work with the international community in order to achieve those objectives.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to modernize the Congressional budget scoring process with respect to health spending and the effects of preventive health care.

Although the United States spends more than any other Nation in the world on health care, $2.6 trillion in 2010, our citizens' health status lags behind that of most developed countries, and we have the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations. One reason is that the United States' expenditures for the treatment of disease far exceed our investments in preventive health.

Our neglect of prevention has been costly. Spending on the treatment of chronic diseases is overwhelming our health care budgets, particularly those of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The following statistics come from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer and stroke account for more than 50 percent of all deaths each year.

In 2005, 133 million Americans almost 1 out of every 2 adults had at least one chronic illness.

About \1/4\ of people with chronic conditions have one or more daily activity limitations.

Arthritis is the most common cause of disability, with nearly 19 million Americans reporting activity limitations.

Diabetes continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure, nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations, and blindness among adults, aged 20-74.

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., behind diet, physical activity, and tobacco.

CDC also tells us that four health risk behaviors--lack of physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption--are responsible for much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases.

More than \1/3\ of all adults do not meet recommendations for aerobic physical activity based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, and 23 percent report no leisure-time physical activity at all in the preceding month.

In 2007, 22 percent of high school students and only 24 percent of adults reported eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day.

More than 43 million American adults, approximately 1 in 5, smoke. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes almost all cases. Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80 percent in women. Smoking also causes cancer of the voicebox, mouth and throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, cervix, and stomach, and causes acute myeloid leukemia.

Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to over 54 different diseases and injuries, including cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast, liver diseases, and other cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, and gastrointestinal health problems.

Binge drinking, the most dangerous pattern of drinking, defined as consuming more than 4 drinks on an occasion for women or 5 drinks for men, is reported by 17 percent of U.S. adults, averaging 8 drinks per binge.

By addressing just these four behaviors, we can alter the trajectory of chronic disease and the health costs associated with them. That is the power of prevention. As Dr. Albert Reece of the University of Maryland School of Medicine once said, ``Lifestyle is primary care.''

Prevention also means early screening. In addition to increasing survival rates, identifying diseases early reduces health care costs. In the case of colorectal cancer, Medicare will pay under $400 for a colonoscopy, but if the patient is not diagnosed until the disease has metastasized, the costs of care can exceed $58,000 over the patient's lifetime. A screening mammography costs the Medicare program a small fraction of the tens of thousands of dollars that treatment of breast cancer costs, depending on when the cancer is found and the course of treatment used. One drug used to treat late stage breast cancer can cost as much as $40,000 a year.

Research has shown that increasing to 90 percent the number of women aged 40 and older who have been screened for breast cancer in the past two years would save more than 100,000 lives each year in the United States.

One of the most compelling cases for prevention is in the area of oral health. The tragic, preventable death of 12 year-old Marylander Deamonte Driver in 2007 illustrated the consequences of poor access to oral health care. His untreated tooth abscess spread to his brain and after two extensive operations, he died. Although a tooth extraction would have cost about $80, the final total cost of his medical care exceeded $250,000.

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry tells us that dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease among children in the United States. It affects one in five children aged 2 to 4, half of those aged 6 to 8, and nearly \3/5\ of 15 year olds. But it is also the most preventable disease if basic oral care is provided starting at an early age.

The good news in that for nearly every category of chronic disease we can reduce its prevalence by making preventive health care a priority. All around us are examples of why prevention is an essential part of health care

and why effective use of preventive measures, such as screening and smoking cessation can save lives and lower health care costs in the long run.

But the current Congressional budget process has hindered our ability to get appropriate credit for the cost savings that prevention can bring. For this reason, investing in initiatives that can move our Nation forward toward optimal health often requires us to cut funding in other important areas because of the budget rules.

Today, budget resolutions, budget reconciliation, and CBO scoring analyses use a ten-year ``scoring'' window. But the research performed at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD and at research centers across the nation has demonstrated that some expenditures for preventive services result in cost savings when considered in the long term. Unfortunately, Congressional budget scoring rules only permit taking into account the first ten years, a time frame in which savings may not be apparent.

We want to change that. Today, with Senators Mike Crapo, Angus King, Tom Udall, and Jeanne Shaheen, I am introducing the Preventive Health Savings Act of 2013. It would allow the Chairman or Ranking Member of the House or Senate Budget Committee, or the health committees--HELP, Finance, Ways and Means, or Energy and Commerce--to request an analysis of preventive measures extending beyond the existing 10-year window to two additional ten-year periods.

Re-evaluating our budget rules is not a new phenomenon. In recent years, Congress has increasingly looked for ways to assess long-term budget consequences. For example, Congress currently requests that CBO report on measures that would cause a large future increase in the deficit--more than $5 billion in the following four decades.

The Preventive Health Savings Act would direct CBO to incorporate credible data on prevention. Because we want to ensure that CBO's projections are tied to scientific data, our bill would define preventive health as ``an action designed to avoid future health care costs that is demonstrated by credible and publicly available epidemiological projection models, incorporating clinical trials or observational studies in humans, longitudinal studies, and meta- analysis.'' This narrow, responsible approach encourages a sensible review of health policy that Congress believes will promote public health, and it will make it easier for us to invest in proven methods of saving lives and money.

CBO would be required to conduct an initial analysis to determine whether the provision would result in substantial savings outside the 10-year scoring window and to include a description of those future- year savings in its budget projections.

The broad coalition of groups supporting this bill includes: the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Aetna, Allscripts, American Association of Diabetes Educators, American College of Occupational Medicine, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Diabetes Association, BlueCross BlueShield Tennessee, Building Healthier America, Care Continuum Alliance, Council for Affordable Health Coverage, Dialysis Patient Citizens, The Endocrine Society, Healthcare Leadership Council, Healthways, IHRSA: International Health Racquet & Sportsclub Association, Johnson & Johnson, Marshfield Clinic, Memorial Care Health System, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, National Retail Federation, National Kidney Foundation, Novo Nordisk, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, Sanofi, Texas Health Resources, and Weight Watchers.

I also wish to applaud the bipartisan House sponsors of this legislation--two physicians--Representatives Michael Burgess of Texas and Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for their vision in introducing the companion bill, HR 2663, which now has 19 cosponsors.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which will give our budget process the flexibility needed to dramatically bend the health care cost curve.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to modernize the Congressional budget scoring process with respect to health spending and the effects of preventive health care.

Although the United States spends more than any other Nation in the world on health care, $2.6 trillion in 2010, our citizens' health status lags behind that of most developed countries, and we have the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations. One reason is that the United States' expenditures for the treatment of disease far exceed our investments in preventive health.

Our neglect of prevention has been costly. Spending on the treatment of chronic diseases is overwhelming our health care budgets, particularly those of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The following statistics come from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 7 out of 10 deaths among Americans each year are from chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer and stroke account for more than 50 percent of all deaths each year.

In 2005, 133 million Americans almost 1 out of every 2 adults had at least one chronic illness.

About \1/4\ of people with chronic conditions have one or more daily activity limitations.

Arthritis is the most common cause of disability, with nearly 19 million Americans reporting activity limitations.

Diabetes continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure, nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations, and blindness among adults, aged 20-74.

Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., behind diet, physical activity, and tobacco.

CDC also tells us that four health risk behaviors--lack of physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and excessive alcohol consumption--are responsible for much of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases.

More than \1/3\ of all adults do not meet recommendations for aerobic physical activity based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, and 23 percent report no leisure-time physical activity at all in the preceding month.

In 2007, 22 percent of high school students and only 24 percent of adults reported eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day.

More than 43 million American adults, approximately 1 in 5, smoke. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes almost all cases. Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80 percent in women. Smoking also causes cancer of the voicebox, mouth and throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, cervix, and stomach, and causes acute myeloid leukemia.

Excessive alcohol consumption contributes to over 54 different diseases and injuries, including cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast, liver diseases, and other cardiovascular, neurological, psychiatric, and gastrointestinal health problems.

Binge drinking, the most dangerous pattern of drinking, defined as consuming more than 4 drinks on an occasion for women or 5 drinks for men, is reported by 17 percent of U.S. adults, averaging 8 drinks per binge.

By addressing just these four behaviors, we can alter the trajectory of chronic disease and the health costs associated with them. That is the power of prevention. As Dr. Albert Reece of the University of Maryland School of Medicine once said, ``Lifestyle is primary care.''

Prevention also means early screening. In addition to increasing survival rates, identifying diseases early reduces health care costs. In the case of colorectal cancer, Medicare will pay under $400 for a colonoscopy, but if the patient is not diagnosed until the disease has metastasized, the costs of care can exceed $58,000 over the patient's lifetime. A screening mammography costs the Medicare program a small fraction of the tens of thousands of dollars that treatment of breast cancer costs, depending on when the cancer is found and the course of treatment used. One drug used to treat late stage breast cancer can cost as much as $40,000 a year.

Research has shown that increasing to 90 percent the number of women aged 40 and older who have been screened for breast cancer in the past two years would save more than 100,000 lives each year in the United States.

One of the most compelling cases for prevention is in the area of oral health. The tragic, preventable death of 12 year-old Marylander Deamonte Driver in 2007 illustrated the consequences of poor access to oral health care. His untreated tooth abscess spread to his brain and after two extensive operations, he died. Although a tooth extraction would have cost about $80, the final total cost of his medical care exceeded $250,000.

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry tells us that dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease among children in the United States. It affects one in five children aged 2 to 4, half of those aged 6 to 8, and nearly \3/5\ of 15 year olds. But it is also the most preventable disease if basic oral care is provided starting at an early age.

The good news in that for nearly every category of chronic disease we can reduce its prevalence by making preventive health care a priority. All around us are examples of why prevention is an essential part of health care

and why effective use of preventive measures, such as screening and smoking cessation can save lives and lower health care costs in the long run.

But the current Congressional budget process has hindered our ability to get appropriate credit for the cost savings that prevention can bring. For this reason, investing in initiatives that can move our Nation forward toward optimal health often requires us to cut funding in other important areas because of the budget rules.

Today, budget resolutions, budget reconciliation, and CBO scoring analyses use a ten-year ``scoring'' window. But the research performed at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD and at research centers across the nation has demonstrated that some expenditures for preventive services result in cost savings when considered in the long term. Unfortunately, Congressional budget scoring rules only permit taking into account the first ten years, a time frame in which savings may not be apparent.

We want to change that. Today, with Senators Mike Crapo, Angus King, Tom Udall, and Jeanne Shaheen, I am introducing the Preventive Health Savings Act of 2013. It would allow the Chairman or Ranking Member of the House or Senate Budget Committee, or the health committees--HELP, Finance, Ways and Means, or Energy and Commerce--to request an analysis of preventive measures extending beyond the existing 10-year window to two additional ten-year periods.

Re-evaluating our budget rules is not a new phenomenon. In recent years, Congress has increasingly looked for ways to assess long-term budget consequences. For example, Congress currently requests that CBO report on measures that would cause a large future increase in the deficit--more than $5 billion in the following four decades.

The Preventive Health Savings Act would direct CBO to incorporate credible data on prevention. Because we want to ensure that CBO's projections are tied to scientific data, our bill would define preventive health as ``an action designed to avoid future health care costs that is demonstrated by credible and publicly available epidemiological projection models, incorporating clinical trials or observational studies in humans, longitudinal studies, and meta- analysis.'' This narrow, responsible approach encourages a sensible review of health policy that Congress believes will promote public health, and it will make it easier for us to invest in proven methods of saving lives and money.

CBO would be required to conduct an initial analysis to determine whether the provision would result in substantial savings outside the 10-year scoring window and to include a description of those future- year savings in its budget projections.

The broad coalition of groups supporting this bill includes: the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Aetna, Allscripts, American Association of Diabetes Educators, American College of Occupational Medicine, American College of Preventative Medicine, American Diabetes Association, BlueCross BlueShield Tennessee, Building Healthier America, Care Continuum Alliance, Council for Affordable Health Coverage, Dialysis Patient Citizens, The Endocrine Society, Healthcare Leadership Council, Healthways, IHRSA: International Health Racquet & Sportsclub Association, Johnson & Johnson, Marshfield Clinic, Memorial Care Health System, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, National Retail Federation, National Kidney Foundation, Novo Nordisk, the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, Sanofi, Texas Health Resources, and Weight Watchers.

I also wish to applaud the bipartisan House sponsors of this legislation--two physicians--Representatives Michael Burgess of Texas and Donna Christensen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for their vision in introducing the companion bill, HR 2663, which now has 19 cosponsors.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which will give our budget process the flexibility needed to dramatically bend the health care cost curve.

Mr. President, I have not been on the floor during the entire remarks of my friend from Virginia, but I did hear part of it. I first want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the people of Virginia and on behalf of a sensible way to resolve our budget problems. The Senator has been a leader in building bridges and recognizing how devastating sequestration is, not just to the Federal workers who live in his State, not just to the people who live in his State, but to our entire country.

This is dangerous, sequestration. The Senator has been a leader in pointing that out.

He has also made it very clear that sequestration is mindless across- the-board cuts and that we have a responsibility to make priority decisions. When we use sequestration we are on automatic pilot but it is an automatic pilot that cannot carry out its current mission. It cannot safely navigate the air. That is where we are.

I applaud my colleague for taking on this issue of saying to our friends on both sides of the aisle: Let's listen to each other. We know we are divided. We have different views. But we need to sit down, work together, and come up with a sensible way to balance the Federal budget to give the predictability that is necessary and to eliminate these sequestration cuts.

It is particularly painful right now when we have so many Marylanders, so many Virginians, so many people in this country who are receiving paychecks with a 20-percent cut. Yet the work they have to do is the same.

I will be glad to yield.

I thank my colleague for his comments. I understand he already mentioned what has happened at the National Institutes of Health and the fact that, because of the sequestration cuts, the number of grants being given out this year, contracts with young scientists to do research, is going to be cut by the hundreds.

We don't know which one of these researchers would have come up with an advancement, a major breakthrough, but there would have been some. And they are going to be denied. They may get discouraged, the people who would have received these grants, and they may go into other fields. We may lose them forever. They may go to other professions. They may go to other countries. But we know they are not doing the work they are trained to do and we know they had a proposal that went through the most difficult vetting process and was selected for funding and should have been funded but is not being funded because of these sequestration cuts. That we know. That much we know for sure.

We also know it is not just that researcher who has been hurt by the sequestration cuts. It is the businesses that depend upon the basic research--many of which are small companies--in order to build upon that research to create the products that go into the marketplace and create the jobs that are necessary for our economy. There is a direct loss to the economy of our country as a result of these sequestration cuts. It is time we move forward and resolve the problems of our country.

I agree with my friend from Virginia that we have to find a way on both sides of the aisle to come together, but I must point out it has been extremely difficult, particularly with the climate in the other body. In the current issue of New York magazine, Jonathan Chait writes:

The chaos and dysfunction have set in so deeply that

Washington now lurches from crisis to crisis, and once-dull,

keep-the-lights-on rituals of government procedures are

transformed into white-knuckle dramas that threaten national

or even global catastrophe.

The Republican party has spent 30 years careering ever more

deeply into ideological extremism, but one of the novel

developments of the Obama years is its embrace of procedural

extremism. The Republican fringe has evolved from being

politically shrewd proponents of radical policy changes to a

gang of saboteurs who would rather stop government from

functioning at all.

This brinkmanship is preventing the economic recovery from gaining steam, it is preventing us from addressing urgent problems, and it is punishing all Americans, not just Federal workers.

If we come together on behalf of the American people, we can replace sequestration with a measured and balanced approach to deficit reduction. We can agree on a path forward to fiscal solvency that spreads the burden equitably. We can begin to solve our problems instead of compounding them, but I will tell you what we can cannot do. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of Federal workers. It isn't feasible, and it isn't fair.

Increasingly, Federal workers are asked to do more with less. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the size of the civilian workforce relative to the country's population has declined dramatically over the last several decades, notwithstanding occasional upticks due to military conflicts or the taking of the census.

In the 1950s and 1960s, there were, on average, 92 Americans for every Federal worker. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were 106 Americans for every Federal worker. By 2011, the ratio had increased to 145 Americans for every Federal worker. Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76 percent, and the private sector workforce has risen by 133 percent, but the size of the Federal workforce has risen by just 11 percent.

Relative to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than half the size it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal expenditures.

I previously talked about the adverse effect of sequestration on many of our domestic agencies. I have talked a little bit today about the circumstances at NIH. I have talked about the Food and Drug Administration, the Social Security Administration, and other domestic Federal agencies.

I will focus, if I might, for the next few minutes on the impacts of sequestration on a particular group of Federal workers: the Department of Defense civilian employees who are part of a Total Force team providing invaluable support to our men and women in uniform serving in harm's way. These proud individuals have in the past few weeks suffered unnecessary hardships due to sequestration.

The primary priority of our government is the defense of our Nation and sequestration adversely affects the civilian men and women who help provide that defense. DOD civilians serve our Nation by advancing scientific research, providing logistical support to our servicemembers while forward deployed, and ensuring institutional stability within DOD offices as servicemembers rotate to different duty stations.

Recently, some in the media have promoted the idea that the $85 billion sequestration cut triggered on March 1 isn't causing drastic effects. CNN called the cuts ``not as bad as advertised,'' and the Washington Post reported that the cuts are less ``scary'' than predicted. Tell that to the 46,000 DOD employees in Maryland and another 103,000 in the Capital region who are being furloughed, losing up to 20 percent of their weekly pay through the rest of this fiscal year.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department began furloughing 652,000 civilian employees nationwide, forcing them to take up to 11 unpaid days off through September. This is in addition to the furloughs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Internal Revenue Service. These furloughs disrupt our national and economic security and put hundreds of thousands of Federal workers and their families in financial hardship. Our government cannot continue to provide for the defense of our Nation by maintaining such a harmful policy toward our civilian workers.

I have visited installations throughout Maryland. I have heard about and have seen the impact of furloughs of Defense Department employees and other Federal employees and the impact it will have on their ability to carry out their mission. These cuts and furloughs are affecting the ability of the agency to carry out its legal mission.

For instance, at Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center in Charles County, over 1,870 civilian employees--about 97 percent of the total government civilian workforce--are being forced to take leave without pay 1 day per week. It puts base police and fire protection, safety programs, air operations, air quality programs, and facilities at risk.

At Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, furloughs will hit 2,400 Defense Department civilians--94 percent of the civilian staff. Walter Reed is the country's top facility for wounded combat soldiers. Its Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation is the largest within the Department of Defense. Its seven specialty service clinics include one for traumatic brain injuries. Soldiers needing expert care might have to wait longer for appointments or be forced to nonmilitary facilities, both of which will drive up costs and compromise the quality of care.

I cannot say how many of us have taken the floor to talk about our commitment to make sure our service people--our wounded warriors--get the type of treatment they deserve. Many of us have visited the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and we are proud of the services that are being provided. Sequestration is hurting our ability to meet the mission we promised to the heroes who have served our Nation and have now come home and expect that health care to be available to them.

At Fort Detrick 4,900 Defense Department civilians will be furloughed. Those civilians support a multigovernment community that conducts biomedical research and development as well as medical material management that includes everything from advanced bandages to vaccines for soldiers on the battlefield and in military hospitals. That mission is at risk. There is no other place that can carry out the type of advanced lab work that is done at Fort Detrick.

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Harford County's largest employer, home to 11 major commands and more than 80 agencies, has approximately 11,500 DOD civilian employees subject to furlough, which is about half of APG's workforce. Before sequestration, APG reported contributing more than $400 million in payroll and $500 million in contracts annually. I can assure everyone that community will be affected and many businesses will be affected, as well as the mission at APG itself.

Just a few miles away at Fort Meade, Maryland's largest employer, sequestration is affecting the entire region. Most of its 27,000 DOD civilian employees face furloughs. These furloughs have all sorts of unintended consequences. A furloughed worker, for instance, may have trouble making his or her mortgage or car payments. Reduced credit worthiness may affect a worker's ability to maintain or obtain a security clearance. Is that how we

want to treat people who have helped defend us from terrorists?

Budgets cuts compounded by sequestration will lead to brain drain in the Defense Department, with some of the best and the brightest defense professionals in the Federal Government deciding to seek opportunities elsewhere.

The Federal workforce is better educated, older, and more experienced, on average, than its private sector counterparts. A significant number of Federal workers provide their services to the American people at a discount. They could command higher salaries in the private sector, but they choose to work for the Federal Government because they are patriots and they believe in public service.

The world is still a dangerous place. In such uncertain times, we cannot afford to let political dysfunction get in the way of ensuring our national security. Sequestration is harming our national security readiness.

Sequestration is not just about compromising the ability of Federal workers to carry out their critical missions on behalf of all Americans, and it isn't just hurting Federal workers and their families economically. Private sector businesses and communities across the country are being hurt by the reduced purchasing power of furloughed Federal workers.

Federal workers are similar to everyone else; they support the local businesses in their communities: auto dealers, restaurants, dry cleaners, you name it. They all suffer when Federal employees suffer. The local economy suffers and the recovery becomes that much harder and slower.

We need to stop demonizing and scapegoating and punishing Federal workers. We need to replace sequestration with a rational budget. One of the greatest attributes of the American character is pragmatism. Unlike what some other Federal employees are actually doing, in Congress, balancing a budget is not rocket science. We know the various options.

Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the prophet Isaiah: ``Come, let us reason together.'' That is what we need to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end of the day the American people have entrusted us with governing and with being pragmatic. Let us do our job so Federal workers can get back to doing their jobs.

I yield the floor.

I wish to thank Senator Murray and Senator Collins returning us to regular order and bringing an appropriations bill to the floor that is consistent with the budget resolution passed by this body. I also wish to compliment my colleague from Maryland, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski.

We are returning to regular order in the Senate. I find it amazing. It was only a week ago my colleagues on the Republican side were saying we don't want to turn the Senate into the House. Now we have a motion to recommit that would take the House numbers. We didn't do that.

Should we only have a unicameral legislature? I thought we thought this body was important. Yet this motion to recommit will have the effect of saying that what we do in this body doesn't make any difference; let's just take the House's bill. I don't think that is what we want.

The House bill that has been reported I don't think it has yet been voted on was a partisan bill. What we did in this body is have Democrats and Republicans working together. That should be the model we use in this institution. The motion to recommit would destroy that, would take that away. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Let me talk on the merits, if I might, for one moment, and that is what this motion would mean as far as jobs in this country and responsible investments. Remember that we are operating under a budget resolution that will reduce the deficit. It gets us to actually stronger efforts to reduce the deficit.

I can't speak to every category of spending, but I do know something about transportation. I serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee. There is bipartisan support on our committee to do more than what is in this budget. We have trillions of dollars' worth of roads and bridges that are falling down. We have to invest, to create jobs. We understand transportation creates jobs. The motion to recommit would take us to numbers that are lower than the sequestration numbers.

I was just on the floor a few minutes ago talking about how the sequestration is hurting this country--it is hurting job growth, hurting our economy, hurting Federal workers, and hurting ordinary Americans. Well, this motion makes it worse. It goes below the sequestration numbers. We need to invest in job growth, we need to do it in a balanced, responsible way, and that is exactly what Senator Murray did in wearing her hat as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. She has now brought out an appropriations bill totally consistent with the action there.

Here is the real hypocrisy. What we have said on our side of the aisle is we understand there is a difference. Let's go to conference and resolve the differences. And the same people who are supporting this motion will not let us go to conference to resolve the differences. We should return to regular order. Reject this motion to recommit.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Kevin Covert, our human rights officer at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Very shortly, he will move on to another assignment as is the usual practice at the Department of State. During his recent tour, Mr. Covert brought a remarkable level of initiative and leadership to his job. A diplomatic first responder to raids, attacks, and show trials, his was the face of American diplomacy there to listen to the stories of civil society leaders who found themselves branded foreign agents for simply working to better their own country. His handshake was there to remind those Russians who dared meet with him that the United States is committed to telling their story for the record and will not forget them--and Mr. Covert did just that as a lead drafter of the Russia section of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as well as through objective and incisive reporting chronicling an assault on rights unprecedented in modern Russia. All the while, his composure, and likely a good sense of humor, enabled him to listen patiently to host government interlocutors as American concerns were disingenuously construed as so much meddling while he politely, and with good judgment and integrity, reminded his counterparts of their own freely undertaken commitments to the rule of law and democracy.

As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have the regular opportunity, and distinct honor, to interact with the hard-working men and women of the Foreign Service. They do not wear uniforms, but they make numerous sacrifices, take significant risks, and serve our country honorably.

Our relations with Russia are at the heart of a truly comprehensive security and cooperation in Europe and I have paid close attention to this country in recent years. In that context, I am acutely aware of the challenges that our diplomats, serving in Russia under the leadership of Ambassador Mike McFaul, face. Over the past year, as a crackdown on fundamental freedoms gained scope and speed, professionals at our embassy in Russia never wavered in their support for the universal values that we as Americans hold especially dear. Our personnel, particularly those covering sensitive issues such as human rights, met adversity with poise and served our Nation with great dedication. They represent this country well and do us all proud.

Mr. Covert will be missed in Moscow by his colleagues at Post, as well as by countless Russians who got to know him in recent years. I salute Kevin Covert and all his State Department colleagues working the Russia beat during this difficult, but exciting, period of change.

Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my friend from Iowa, and I couldn't disagree with him more. I know he has very strong views about the nomination of Tom Perez, but let me go through the record.

I wish to spend a little bit of time speaking first about Tom Perez. I know him very well. We have served together in government in Maryland. He served on the county council of Montgomery County. I will mention that he was the first Latino to serve on the county council of Montgomery County. Montgomery County, which is very close to here, is larger than some of our States. It is a large government. It has very complex problems. He served with great distinction on the county council.

As the Presiding Officer knows, it is a very difficult responsibility to serve local government. One has to deal with the day-to-day problems of the people in the community. He served with such distinction that he was selected to be the president of the county council, the head of the county council of Montgomery County.

He then went on to become the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under Governor O'Malley in the State of Maryland, which is a very comparable position to which President Obama has appointed him as Secretary of Labor in his Cabinet.

It is very interesting that as Secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, he had to deal with very difficult issues--issues that can divide groups. But, instead, he brought labor and business together and resolved many issues.

It is very interesting, in his confirmation process, business leaders and labor leaders came forward to say this is the right person at the right time to serve as Secretary of Labor in the Obama administration.

I held a press briefing with the former head of the Republican party in Maryland and he was very quick to point out that Tom Perez and he did not agree on a lot of policy issues, but he is a professional, he listens, and tries to make the right judgment. That is why he should be confirmed as Secretary of Labor. That was the former head of the Republican party in Maryland who made those statements a few months ago.

Tom Perez has a long history of public service. He served originally in the Department of Justice in many different capacities. He started in the Department of Justice. He served in the Civil Rights Division and, of course, later became the head of the Civil Rights Division. He helped us in the Senate, serving as a staff person for Senator Kennedy.

I think the greatest testimony of his effectiveness is how he has taken the Civil Rights Division from a division that had lost a lot of its glamour, a lot of its objectivity under the previous administration, and is returning the Department of Justice to that great institution to protect the rights of all Americans.

Look at his record in the Department of Justice: Enforcement of the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The division convicted 141 defendants on hate crimes charges in 4 years. That is a 74-percent increase over the previous 4 years. The division brought 194 human trafficking cases. That is a 40-percent increase.

You could talk a good deal about what happened between 2004 and 2008 with Countrywide Financial Corporation, one of the Nation's largest residential mortgage lenders, engaging in systematic discrimination against African-American and Latino borrowers by steering them into subprime loans or requiring them to pay more for their mortgages. I know the pain that caused. I met with families who should have been in traditional mortgages who were steered into subprime loans, and they lost their homes. Tom Perez represented them in one of the largest recoveries ever. The division's settlement in 2011 required Bank of America--now the owner of Countrywide--to provide $335 million in monetary relief to the more than 230,000 victims of discriminatory lending--the largest fair lending settlement in history.

That is the record of Tom Perez as the head of the Civil Rights Division.

The division investigated Wells Fargo Bank, the largest residential home mortgage lender in the United States, alleging that the bank engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination against minority borrowers placed, again, in subprime loans. The division's settlement--the largest per-victim recovery ever reached in a division lending discrimination case--required Wells Fargo to pay more than $184 million to compensate discrimination victims and to make a $50 million investment in a home buyer assistance program.

I could go on and on and on about the record Tom Perez has in his public service--at the county level, at the State level, and at the Federal level. He has devoted his career to public service and has gotten the praise of conservatives and progressives, Democrats and liberals, and business leaders and labor leaders. That is the person we need to head the Department of Labor.

So let my spend a few minutes talking about Senator Grassley's two points that he raises as to why we should deny confirmation of the nomination of Tom Perez, the President's choice for his Cabinet.

He talked about the fact that Tom Perez has not answered all the information Senator Grassley would like to see from a House committee-- a partisan effort in the House of Representatives. It is not the only case. There is hardly a day or a week that goes by that there is not another partisan investigation in the House of Representatives. That is the matter the Senator from Iowa was talking about--not an effort that we try to do in this body, in the Senate, to work bipartisanly when we are doing investigations. This has been a partisan investigation.

Thousands of pages of documents have been made available to congressional committees by the Department of Justice. So let's get the record straight as to compliance. The Department of Justice, Tom Perez, has complied with the reasonable requests of

the Congress of the United States and spent a lot of time doing that. It is our responsibility for oversight, and we have carried out our responsibility for oversight. Any balanced review of the work done by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division will give the highest marks to Tom Perez on restoring the integrity of that very important division in the Department of Justice.

Let me talk about the second matter Senator Grassley brings up, and that deals with the City of St. Paul case--one case. It dealt with the city of St. Paul in the Supreme Court Magner case.

Senator Grassley points out, and correctly so, this is a disparate impact case. It not only affects the individual case that is before the Court, it will have an impact on these types of cases generally. When you are deciding whether to litigate one of these cases, you have to make a judgment as to whether this is the case you want to present to the Court to make a point that will affect not only justice for the litigant but for many other litigants. You have to decide the risk of litigation versus the benefit of litigation. You have to make some tough choices as to whether the risk is worth the benefit.

In this case, the decision was made, not by Tom Perez, not by one person. Career attorneys were brought into the mix, and career attorneys--career attorneys--advised against the Department of Justice interceding in this case. HUD lawyers thought this was not a good case for the United States to intercede.

Senator Grassley says: Well, this was a situation where there was a quid pro quo. It was not. There was a request that the United States intercede and dismiss. Tom Perez said: No, we are not going to do that. The litigation went forward. So a professional decision was made based upon the best advice, gotten by career attorneys--attorneys from the agency that was directly affected by the case that was before the Court--and a decision was made that most objective observers will tell you was a professional judgment that is hard to question. It made sense at the time.

I understand Senator Grassley has a concern about the case. People can come to different conclusions. But look at the entire record of Tom Perez. I think he made the right decision in that case. But I know he has a proud record of leadership on behalf of the rights of all Americans, and that is the type of person we should have as Secretary of Labor.

Tom Perez has been through confirmation before. He was confirmed by the Judiciary Committee to serve as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Thorough vetting was done at that time. Questions were asked, debate was held on the floor of the Senate, and by a very comfortable margin he was confirmed to be the head of the Civil Rights Division.

Now the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has held a hearing on Tom Perez to be Secretary of Labor. They held a vote several months ago and reported him favorably to the floor. It is time for us to have an up-or-down vote on the President's nomination for Secretary of Labor. I hope all my colleagues would vote to allow this nomination to be voted up or down.

I was listening to my distinguished friend from Iowa. I heard nothing that would deny us the right to have a vote on a Presidential nomination. That is the first vote we are going to have on whether we are going to filibuster a Cabinet position for the President of United States and a person whose record is distinguished with a long record of public service--and a proven record.

Then the second vote is on confirmation, and Senators may disagree. I respect every Senator to do what he or she thinks is in the best interests. But I would certainly hope on this first vote, when we are dealing with whether we are going to filibuster a President's nomination for Secretary of Labor, that we would get the overwhelming support of our colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on Tom Perez to be the next Secretary of Labor.

I started by saying I have known Tom Perez for a long time, and I have. I know he is a good person, a person who is in public service for the right reasons, a person who believes each individual should be protected under our system, and that as Secretary of Labor he will use that position to bring the type of balance we need in our commercial communities to protect working people and businesses so the American economy can grow and everyone can benefit from our great economy.

I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and certainly to support moving forward on an up-or-down vote on the nomination to be Secretary of Labor.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``E-Rate 2.0: Connecting Every Child to the Transformative Power of Technology.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Expansion of Internet Gambling: Assessing Consumer Protection Concerns.''

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, my good friend Congressman Steny Hoyer promotes America by using the phrase ``make it in America.'' The statement expresses the pride of our country, the ingenuity, the spirit of American workers, and the fact that we can compete against any country in the world on a level playing field. We can make it in America.

I rise today to share with my fellow Senators news of my recent visit to Maryland businesses that are contributing to our local and national economy through manufacturing innovation. As part of what I call my ``made in Maryland'' tour, I visited Volvo Group North America's manufacturing facility in Hagerstown, MD, and the Flying Dog Brewery in Frederick, MD.

A few weeks ago I toured the Paul Reed Smith guitar factory on the Eastern Shore. My ``made in Maryland'' tour has highlighted many of the leading job creators and key small businesses that have helped revive Maryland's manufacturing sector. The goal

was to meet employees and business owners, take stock of their challenges and successes, and identify ways the Federal Government can help them grow and innovate.

We have highlighted the diverse products being produced in our great State, and we celebrate the hard-working Marylanders who have made these products and the companies that are providing jobs in our local communities.

For example, the Paul Reed Smith guitar factory in Stevensonville, MD, makes high-end guitars used by some of the most prominent musicians in the world--including Carlos Santana. Paul Reed Smith has operated for nearly 30 years and now employs nearly 230 workers with revenues of $24 million. They are the largest private employer in Queen Anne's County, MD, and one of the top five employers on the upper shore.

As a region and country, we must stay focused on creating good jobs at home and strengthen and continue to build our economy. Manufacturing is good for Maryland, and it is good for America.

Let me tell you about my visit to Volvo Group, which employs 1,500 people in Hagerstown, MD--accounting for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the region's manufacturing sector. Employees at this facility are paid approximately 62 percent above the average wage in the region. These are good jobs that people are proud to hold.

Volvo has set the standard for environmentally aware manufacturing. Through its partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, Volvo has developed the next generation of fuel-efficient engines and trucks. Since 2001, Volvo has invested $330 million to upgrade and renovate their facilities, allowing Volvo to build a state-of-the-art engine development laboratory to produce increasingly fuel-efficient engines.

This Volvo facility has shown outstanding success. Sixty of Volvo's trucks a day have the same emission as one truck in 1990. That is an amazing reduction of pollutants going into the air. In addition, the facility recycles 84 percent of the site's waste, and it has achieved an 83-percent decrease in the use of diesel fuels.

Furthermore, Volvo remains invested in western Maryland by making generous contributions to local health and welfare organizations, civic and community organizations, art and cultural organizations, and education initiatives across the region. This commitment to the well- being of Volvo employees is demonstrated by the August 2013 opening of an onsite Family First Pharmacy which will provide employees and their families innovative state-of-the-art health care to be provided by doctors, nurses, and pharmacists in cooperation with Walgreens.

As the Volvo facility is highly invested in the local community and its numerous employees, we must remain invested in assuring this socially responsible company's future success.

Later in the day I traveled to Frederick, MD, and visited the Flying Dog Brewery. They make a very different product than the most energy- efficient transmissions in the world that are assembled at Volvo, but I recognize the same qualities in both of these unique companies and their employees: hard work, attention to detail, and a real pride and passion for the product being made. These are qualities that can never be outsourced.

Small breweries such as Flying Dog have been anchors of local and American economies since the start of our history.

This is a state-of-the-art facility that constantly works to perfect its product through innovative techniques. In addition to making a product whose high quality I can attest to, they are supporting 80 jobs and reinvesting profits back into the western Maryland community.

When I grew up, brewing in Maryland was a huge industry. We lost most of it, but it is coming back. Today, the brewing industry in Maryland is supporting more than $13 million in wages paid and contributing nearly $100 million to our State's economy.

My ``Made in Maryland'' tour was conceived to highlight manufacturing and innovation that is boosting our economy across our State. But I can tell my colleagues that agriculture, which is still our No. 1 industry, is being revived along the way too. During my tour of the Flying Dog Brewery, I met a farmer and his son who are fifth- and sixth-generation Frederick County family farmers celebrating the 175th year of their family farm. They told me their decision to begin growing barley, small grains, and hops for local breweries is what kept their farm going. They supply small grains and hops to Flying Dog and numerous Maryland brewing companies for many of their seasonal, locally sourced brews. Their farm, Amber Fields Malting and Brewing Company, in conjunction with Brewer's Alley Restaurant and Brewery in Frederick, MD, introduced Amber Fields Best Bitter, which they describe as an English-style best bitter. This was the first commercially brewed beer in over 100 years to rely exclusively on barley grown and malted in Maryland. Amber Fields Best Bitter and additional releases also featuring locally grown ingredients are available through Brewer's Alley and their sister brewery, Monocacy Brewing Company, both in Frederick, MD.

America's manufacturing sector--from autos and truck manufacturing to beer makers and guitars--have played a major role in growing our economy and our Nation to be the world's leader. It has also helped create the strongest middle class in history. To continue in our recovery, we need to make sure companies such as Volvo Group, Flying Dog Brewery, and Paul Reed Smith Guitars, which are creating jobs and investing in our economy here at home, have what they need to be successful. Our job in Washington should be to make their job easier, because when they do better, we all do better.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, July is National Lake Appreciation Month. This nationwide initiative is sponsored by the North American Lake Management Society, a non-profit organization focused on making partnerships between citizens, scientists, and professionals to protect our Nation's lakes and reservoirs. National Lake Appreciation Month began in 2012 as a way to encourage us to explore and enjoy America's many beautiful lakes, as well as increase efforts to clean and protect them.

In addition to recreational uses such as boating, fishing, and swimming, lakes provide a variety of environmental and health benefits. They absorb rainfall and runoff from land, help prevent floods, provide drinking water, regulate the climate, and provide homes for precious wildlife. The Environmental Protection Agency's National Lake Assessment, conducted in 2007 and again in 2012, revealed that many of our lakes are imperiled due to poor nearshore habitat, too many nutrients, invasive plants and animals, and other threats. By protecting the health of our lakes, we defend the vitality of the animals and plants that depend on them and ensure that we can enjoy them for years to come.

This year, Maryland has joined 23 other States in celebrating National Lake Appreciation Month and in affirming the importance of lakes for our drinking water, energy production, food production, and recreational value. Maryland boasts 60 large lakes over 5 acres in size, and over 100 lakes in total. We use these lakes for fishing, boating, and other outdoor recreation, as well as for energy. For example, Deep Creek Lake, our largest inland lake in Maryland, consists of 65 miles of shoreline, 18 species of fish, and a wide variety of other animal and plant species, some of which are endangered. The lake also powers the Deep Creek Hydroelectric Power Plant, which provides energy not only to Maryland, but also to communities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. So far we have been able to keep this and other Maryland lakes healthy. In a recent test, it was found that Deep Creek Lake's water clarity was still at a level similar to that of 1957. As factors such as pollutants and runoff increasingly threaten the health of our lakes, it is important that we continue to work to fight against them.

I am pleased to celebrate National Lake Appreciation Month, to encourage people both to enjoy America's beautiful lakes, and to do their part to keep them clean and healthy. Lakes are a very important part of our ecosystem in Maryland. We must continue to increase our efforts to care for our lakes and show our appreciation for all that they provide us.

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

Mr. President, I take this time to speak on the floor of the Senate to express my disappointment in last week's district court decision on the Cardin-Lugar provision of the SEC rule. An amendment offered by Senator Lugar and me on the Dodd-Frank legislation imposed certain transparencies on extractive industries. It was a pretty simple position. It said that those companies that are registered on the SEC that are involved in extraction of minerals would be required to disclose on a project-by-project basis the details of those contracts.

We did that for many reasons. We did it because we thought transparency is right. We did it in order to deal with energy security so that we know the types of contracts that are being entered into. We did it so investors would have information in order to decide whether they wanted to invest in the stock.

The United States has been in the forefront of transparency, and this decision will delay implementation of a vital transparency rule that will shine much needed sunlight on information designed to protect investors and to promote U.S. energy security.

The Cardin-Lugar amendment and the SEC rule are critical to achieving important U.S. policy objectives. These objectives include protecting U.S. interests in both national and energy security. Why do I say that? Having transparency in what the extractive industries are doing makes it more likely we will have stable energy sources globally. Stable energy sources are critically important to our national security interests. These provisions are important for our national security. It also ensures investors awareness and protection. If you are going to invest in a stock of an oil company or a mineral company, you have the right to know where they are doing business. You have the right to know what countries they are doing business in and the specific contracts they enter into so you can make the right decision as an investor. That is why the SEC rules make sense.

Lastly, it promotes America's core principles of transparency, integrity, and good governance worldwide. It is interesting that we sometimes talk about the mineral wealth of a country as being a resource curse. Although they have wealth, that wealth is taken by the elite of the country and used to finance corruption, which just adds to the misery of the people.

Some of the wealthiest nations that exist as far as minerals are concerned have some of the greatest poverty in the world. Well, the provision Senator Lugar and I coauthored was an attempt to deal with that and an attempt to deal with good governance. If we can trace the money, we have a better chance to end corruption, develop good governance, and stable regimes.

The district court's ruling of API v. SEC, which sends the rule back to the SEC, is disappointing. The rule is flawed because the court completely misread not only the statute but the clear congressional desire of the statute. The statute provision was for transparency, and yet the court's ruling strikes down the SEC rule which implements that transparency. The court spent a tremendous amount of time addressing the issue of public disclosure of company reports. The whole purpose of section 1504 was to provide transparency to investors and citizens about payments made to the government.

Why would Congress write a law to increase transparency for investors and then allow the SEC to keep the reports secret? Congress was clear in the letter and the spirit of the law that this information should be in the public domain.

On the issue of the host country exception, over the very lengthy comment period for the rule, the SEC was not presented with one concrete example from industry about a specific law or contract that would prohibit these types of disclosures. In fact, examples are to the contrary, including the fact that companies such as Norwegian oil giant Statoil regularly report their payments to countries such as Angola and China--where industry says prohibitions exist--yet that company had no negative repercussions. The API is trying to muddy the waters by having the SEC address problems that the industry has failed to prove exists.

The United States has been a leader on transparency in the extractive industries. It is the district court that has now put a hurdle on that transparency. The district court's decision is not only contrary to the law, it is contrary to what is happening globally today.

The EU has already enacted a law requiring the same payment disclosure that section 1504 requires on a project and company level without exceptions.

In a summit last month, the G8 issued a communique unequivocally backing mandatory disclosure. Canada said it will develop mandatory disclosures in 2 years. The Canadian mining industry endorsed that provision. Despite the oil industry's continued fight in the U.S. court, the overwhelming momentum is on the side of mandatory disclosure. Why? Because of national security. Why? Because investors have a right to know. Why? Because it is the right thing for good governance.

Despite this setback, let me make it clear: We will not give up. This law still stands, and the SEC has many options to appeal the decision or revise the rule. The SEC must make sure it finishes the job.

As Senator Levin, Senator Lugar, and I stated in our amicus brief in this case:

Resource companies can believe whatever they wish and make

any communication they wish about their payments to foreign

governments. ``The resource curse,'' or the benefit or costs

of transparency; they have done so throughout this process.

What resource companies may not do is impede the power of the

legislative branch to require disclosure of objective

information to fulfill compelling public policy objectives,

including the strengthening of American national and energy

security and investor protections.

That is exactly what that provision did. Congress exercised its right, as the

legislative branch, to require transparency for good public reasons. Members of Congress and the administration on a bipartisan basis have long supported transparency through comprehensive disclosure of payments made by resource companies. That support will continue as we work with the SEC to implement this important law.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on July 1, interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans rose from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This means for students across the country, the annual cost of their student loans will go up by as much as $1,000 a year. This makes no sense. The cost to the government is not 6.8 percent. In other words, the government will be making money on the student loans. That was never our intent, and that makes absolutely no sense.

I hear many of my colleagues talk about how we do not want to increase tax burdens on American families. Now we are taking our most vulnerable--students who need affordable higher education--and telling them they are going to have to pay more money for their student loans. And, by the way, the government is going to make money off of that? We have to do something about that.

Let me talk a little bit about the size of student loans today. Total student debt passed the $1 trillion mark last year. There is more debt in student loans than there is in credit cards in America. Sixty percent of the students must borrow money in order to afford a college education. Thirty-five percent of America's 35 million students are behind on their loan payments. This is an enormous problem, and on July 1 it became a more difficult burden for American families because of the higher interest rates.

Senator Harkin, the chairman of the education committee, is absolutely correct that we should take up a revision of how we charge students for loans and the availability of loans and the cost of education when we take up the Higher Education Act reauthorization. That committee will be taking it up shortly. But in the meantime, we should take action to prevent the increase in these student loans from going forward. That is why I am a cosponsor and urge my colleagues to support S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013. That act is pretty simple. It just says we are going to extend the 3.4 percent for another year. In other words, the government will not make that money off the backs of our students. I hope all of us would agree that we need to get that done now so the increased burden, the increased costs, and the unnecessary costs to students are avoided.

Now, because of our budget scoring rules, S. 1238 needed to be paid for. It is fully paid for. In other words, because current law would allow interest rates on subsidized loans to go up to 6.8 percent, to take it back to 3.4 percent, the budget scorekeepers say we have to pay the cost of that difference, even though the government would be making money at the 6.8 percent. So S. 1238 is fully paid for. We take a provision that the Senate Finance Committee has been looking at, known as the stretch IRAs that basically deal with inherited individual retirement accounts, and we require that those funds be taxed in a more timely way than they are today--a noncontroversial provision. It provides the money.

I must tell you that I do not necessarily agree that the 3.4-percent continuation should not be baselined. Why do I say that? I hear so many of my colleagues say, when we have a tax bill and we extend tax relief, that if we do not extend that tax relief, that is raising taxes on individuals. In other words, what they are saying is that the temporary tax relief is really baselined and that if we do not extend that, we are increasing taxes. Well, here, for students, the 3.4 percent was the law. Why now, just extending that, do we all of a sudden have to come up with a different standard on how we pay for it? That being said, S. 1238 is fully paid for.

What I think is wrong is for us to allow interest rates to go up where the government is making money off the backs of our students. We should not be doing that. Higher education is already too expensive. We should be looking at ways to make college education more affordable for American families. For generation after generation, we have been telling our children that the American dream is achievable to those individuals willing to pursue an education and work hard. Are we now prepared to tell millions of students that

we are pushing the American dream beyond their grasp?

Let me give one example. Amanda McIntosh wrote me a letter. She is a first-generation college student who holds a college degree from Christopher Newport University, a master's degree from Columbia University, and a graduate certificate from Johns Hopkins University. Amanda is not from a wealthy family, so she has over $100,000 in student loan debt. Amanda would like to earn her doctoral degree so that she can conduct research that influences policy regarding access to higher education for historically underrepresented populations, but she is buried under student loans and unable to continue her education, unable to afford a car or make a downpayment on a home or otherwise invest in the economy. She simply cannot afford to take on more loans.

What is the message here? What are we telling the future generations of Americans? We are saying: You need education in order to succeed. You need education so we can have a competitive workforce. And then we tell them that the cost of education is out of their reach. And then we are going to tell them that the loans are going to be more expensive.

In Amanda's case, she would like to do something with her future that could be extremely helpful to our country and to herself. She may not be able to do that because of the cost of higher education. And then so many students graduate with such large debt today that they have to look at paying off their debt and it affects their career choice. These might be gifted scientists who could really do something to help discover the answer to dread diseases, how we could cure them, but instead they have to opt out for a short-term career decision to pay off their student loans.

We need to have a policy that makes higher education more affordable, not more costly. Yet increasing the cost of the Stafford loans from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent will make it more expensive for families to be able to afford a college education.

Obtaining a college degree is not a luxury; it is an economic imperative. Affordable access to higher education means more scientists, doctors, nurses, engineers, computer programmers, and other highly skilled workers our economy will need to fill the high-tech jobs of the future. A well-educated, highly skilled workforce is vital to sustain our national security and prosperity in a globalized 21st- century job market.

So I urge my colleagues to support S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013, as a commonsense approach to protecting students at no additional cost to the taxpayer. As I said earlier, this bill would simply allow the 3.4 percent to remain in effect until our committee has the time to pass reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and they could then take into consideration not just the availability and the cost of student loans but the cost of higher education, the transparency in the cost of higher education, the concerns we have about different types of schools and whether we are getting value for the dollar. All that can be done as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. But in the meantime we should keep the loan cost to students at 3.4 percent and not allow it to increase as it did on July 1. We will have the opportunity to do that, I understand, tomorrow on the bill on the floor. I would urge my colleagues to support that effort.

Tribute to Jodi Schwartz

On a personal note, let me point out that a very valuable member of my staff, Jodi Schwartz, will be leaving us at the end of this week. She is our education person in my office who has been so helpful to me not just on the student loan issue but on all educational issues-- affordability of education, the quality of education, the opportunity for everyone to have the great dream of America. She has been a very valuable asset to our staff. I will certainly miss her in my Senate office, and I wish her only the best.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.