Floor Statements

Mr. President, one week from today--July 4th--we will celebrate our Nation's 237th birthday. In 1776, our forefathers issued the Declaration of Independence announcing that the 13 Colonies were free from British rule, initiating the most successful experiment in human history. Our forefathers had the revolutionary idea that ``all men are created equal'' and ``are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights''. On July 4th, we gather together, at parades on Main Streets across America and at barbeques with family members and friends, to reflect on just how much we have to be thankful for as Americans.

No other country in the world has such a rich past, diverse population, and bright future. Regardless of our fellow citizens' race, religion or background, we should remember that as Americans we are all eternally bound as countrymen. The novel experiment in democracy our forefathers began more than two centuries ago continues. It continues because we actively strive--in the words of our other foundational document, the Constitution--to ``form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity''. For 237 years, we have been working to defend and advance the foundations of freedom and equality that this country was built upon, and to promote them abroad.

Our history is not pristine; slavery and Jim Crow stain it. Our history has been about expanding the franchise and making it possible for more and more people to participate fully in American society, to enjoy the blessings of peace and prosperity and to share in our mutual civic responsibilities. We have endured difficult periods, but every time we quarrel amongst ourselves or are attacked from the outside we regroup stronger and more resolute. History has taught us and the future will show that we are at our best when we work together. On a battlefield, factory line, classroom or Congress, nothing can stop Americans when we are determined to move the country forward.

This 4th of July, let us redouble our resolve to continue our great democratic experiment. Not just for ourselves and our posterity, but for all humankind. As the poet Archibald MacLeish wrote:

There are those who will say that the liberation of

humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a

dream. They are right. It is the American Dream.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, LGBT, Pride Month. This June we recognize the efforts of millions of Americans who have fought to extend liberty and justice to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Members of the LGBT community have helped this country become a leader in so many fields.

And today I also rise in celebration as a result of yesterday's decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Loving families across our great Nation have now been made whole, as the Supreme Court upheld the core principle that all persons must be treated equally under the law.

By striking down as unconstitutional the provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, that limited federal marriage benefits to opposite sex couples, the Supreme Court has affirmed that there is no place for discrimination in America based on sexual orientation. Government should not interfere in the ability of men and women to marry the person they love, and they should be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples, including tax benefits, rights of inheritance, health insurance, and legal marriage. The Federal Government-- especially Congress and the executive branch--should act quickly to comply with and fully implement this Supreme Court ruling, following the lead of a growing number of States including Maryland that give full recognition and equality to legal marriages of same-sex couples.

Alongside their neighbors, LGBT individuals have been integral in forging this Nation into what it is today. Sadly, many members of the LBGT community encounter prejudice and discrimination on a daily basis. We cannot forget the events at the Stonewall Inn in June of 1969. Shortly thereafter the modern day gay rights movement began to take shape.

In the years since Stonewall, we have made progress in making ours a more just society. I am proud that 13 States--including Maryland by both legislative action and popular referendum--and the District of Columbia have voted to allow two consenting same-sex adults to enjoy all the happiness and privileges that come with marriage. I am proud that our men and women in uniform can no longer be told they cannot serve the country they love because of who they are in love with.

I am proud that we passed legislation, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to expand the federal hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. I am proud that everyday more and more people support equal rights for all Americans.

Despite all the progress we have made, we must always work harder to maintain the foundation of human rights on which this country is built. I believe that every American should have the opportunity to fulfill their American Dream. This is only possible when the government can provide robust civil rights for all citizens. There is still much that only we in Congress can do to make sure that every American enjoys the right of equal protection under the law.

Right now in a majority of States, an individual can be fired for their sexual orientation or gender identity and have no legal recourse. The fact that someone can be fired for simply being who they are in the year 2013 cannot be accepted. I chair the U.S Helsinki Commission and sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I can tell you that human rights are directly linked to governmental guarantees and enforcement of equal protection.

This June we should recognize the remarkable contributions LGBT Americans have made to this Nation. We should also take a moment to value all the hard work, sacrifice and determination that has defined the LGBT movement.

The issues facing the LGBT community are important to all Americans. We are all harmed when homophobia trumps civility, and similarly we all succeed when we find strength in our diversity.

We have work to do. Members of the LGBT community should feel free and safe to be who they are. Now is the time for all Americans regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity to come together in the spirit of moving the country forward. The LGBT community has been part of America's storied past, and will continue to be central to our perpetual goal of building a brighter future.

Fifty years ago this month President Kennedy asked the Nation a simple question as the fight for civil rights raged across the country:

``The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.''

The answer then, as it is now, should be a resounding yes.

Mr. President, last week I was honored to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, along with Secretary of State John Kerry; Global Aids Coordinator, Ambassador Eric Goosby; Senator Mike Enzi; Namibian Health Minister D. Richard Kamwi, and Tatu Msangi, a PEPFAR beneficiary and nurse from Tanzania.

Ten years ago, AIDS threatened the very foundation of societies in Africa--creating millions of orphans, stalling economic development, and leaving countries stuck in poverty. Before

PEPFAR started in Namibia in 2004, Minister Kamwi explained, nearly one in four pregnant women in Namibia were infected with HIV, yet only a handful of them could access treatment. The circumstances were dire, and it was clear something needed to be done. The visionary leadership of President George W. Bush and the Congressional Black Caucus, especially the late Congressman Donald Payne Sr. and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, led to the establishment of the program in 2003 with an initial $15 billion to fight HIV and AIDS worldwide.

Today, thanks to the ongoing, bipartisan U.S. commitment to PEPFAR, hope has replaced despair, life has replaced death, and productivity has replaced illness and disability. PEPFAR is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease internationally, and it has saved and improved millions of lives. Today Namibia's mother-to-child HIV transmission rate at 6 weeks is less than 3 percent. Thanks to PEPFAR, Ms. Msangi, is healthy enough to help treat and counsel HIV patients, and her daughter Faith was born HIV-free, representing the best of what this remarkable program has to offer.

This bipartisan program is a tremendous success, having exceeded every one of its initial goals. PEPFAR directly supports nearly 5.1 million people on antiretroviral treatment, and has contributed to a 20-percent reduction in new HIV infections globally. This month, the program reached a remarkable milestone when the one-millionth infant was born HIV-free, thanks to PEPFAR. Thirteen countries have reached a crucial tipping point--where annual new adult HIV infections are below the annual increase in adults on antiretroviral drug treatment. And we are building capacity for recipient nations to address the problem. We have helped improve host country health care delivery systems, and countries are now taking ownership in their responsibility to care for their people.

I authored an amendment to PEPFAR's 2008 reauthorization bill that supports in-country health worker training for people like Ms. Msangi, which U.S. universities and NGOs support along with other elements of the program. Research being done by Maryland institutions--including the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland--is making a difference globally; and Maryland NGO's like Catholic Relief Services of Baltimore are partnering with us in this global fight.

Yet despite the remarkable progress that these partnerships have produced, we still have challenges ahead of us. According to UNAIDS, an estimated 1.7 million people are dying annually from AIDS-related causes. Global health and development resources are being squeezed due to difficult economic times. And issues of stigma and discrimination continue to limit access to treatment and care to those in need.

The U.S. will continue to lead this global fight, but we need the commitment and leadership of partner countries--reinforced with support from donor nations, civil society, people living with HIV, faith-based organizations, the private sector, foundations, and the Global Fund--in order to see an HIV-free generation in our lifetime.

PEPFAR represents the best of what our government can do when we put aside partisanship for the good of humanity. It represents the very best of America and our commitment to global humanitarian values. It is a testament to the power of thinking big and of dreaming big, and we must continue to do just that to conquer this disease once and for all.

Before my friend from Illinois leaves the floor, I wish to congratulate him on his incredible leadership on the immigration bill. The Senator from Illinois brought many issues to the compromise that was reached, but I particularly wish to thank him on behalf of the children for the DREAM Act that is incorporated in this legislation that will help so many young people.

I told a story on the floor of the Senate about a person who lives in Maryland who was offered a scholarship and had to turn it down. We found out he didn't have legal status in the United States. What a disappointment it was to him. I also told about a lot of other young people who have had the courage now to step forward, and the Senator's legislation will give them hope, in a very relatively short period of time, to be able to accomplish the dream of being in America.

So I wanted to applaud him and all the Senators who were involved-- Senator Schumer just left the floor, his incredible work with Senators Bennet and Menendez, and the Republicans the Senator from Illinois worked with, Senators McCain, Graham, Flake, and Rubio.

The Senator is absolutely right. If we want a major bill done, it has to be done in a bipartisan way. It is not the bill the Senator would have written; it is not the bill I would have written, but I think the Senator from Illinois has done a great service, and I thank him.

Mr. President, I have cleared it on our side, and I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, yesterday was good news. It was good news for the eventual passage of S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is good news the Senate is on the verge of being able to pass this legislation because 11 million people who live in the shadows will now have hope they will be able to stay in America, work in America, and one day become citizens of this great country.

But the real winners of immigration reform are the American people and our government. We have a broken immigration system today, and this bill will allow us to replace that broken immigration system with a balanced approach on how to deal with immigration in this country. It is balanced first by recognizing border security is important. We have to make sure people coming to this country come in lawfully; that they come in through a door, not over a fence, and this bill clearly deals with the issues of border security.

The bill also deals with E-Verify for employers, to make sure employers only hire those who are legally present in this country. It also provides a way in which those who are currently here can come out of the shadows, get legal status, and earn a pathway to citizenship.

I say earn a pathway to citizenship because those individuals have to comply with our laws, pay our taxes, learn English, and then wait for the entire working backlog within the immigration system to be cured before they can apply for citizenship. So it is a way in which individuals who are currently here, who are law-abiding and are prepared to comply with our laws have a reasonable pathway to citizenship.

It also deals with realistic numbers for people who want to come to America, who want to make America their home, for family reunifications, as well as those who want to work in this country. By having reasonable numbers, we can get the skilled workers we need and we can get the seasonal workers we need.

The bill replaces a badly broken immigration system. As I mentioned to Senator Durbin, it includes the DREAM Act. This gives children who

have been here most of their lives, within a relatively short period of time, a pathway to citizenship in America.

I regret that border surge modifications were added to this legislation. I say that for many reasons. I thought the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee, although it was not the bill I would have written, was well balanced on border protection. I think the additions that will be added later today will spend a lot of money with little results for the taxpayers of this country.

I think we have thrown money at a problem rather than trying to look at what should be done in the most cost-effective way. The cost benefits of these billions of dollars being spent are very marginal.

Most of the problems deal with employment. The E-Verify system is an important improvement in the bill, as reported out by the Judiciary Committee. When we look at who is likely in the future to be illegal in this country, it is more likely to be people who entered the country lawfully and then are out of status than it is someone sneaking over the border. So I think we could have used the money in a much more effective way, and we are micromanaging border security, which, in the long run, will not be to the benefit of this country.

I couldn't agree with Senator Leahy more in the statement he gave. We are waiving contractor rules by the amendment that is currently on the floor, and that is going to cause waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no question in my mind about that.

But what I find very hypocritical is that the same Senators who are on the floor day after day complaining about the size of government and government spending when it comes to educating our children, when it comes to dealing with our most vulnerable, when it comes to dealing with our health care system, are the ones who propose spending more money on border security than anyone thought was necessary.

We could have done this better. I am disappointed, and I think if one takes a look at it, the amount of money being spent exceeds any of the earmarked funds we were complaining of wasting in the past. I thought there was some benefit to earmarks. We talked about that, but we got rid of earmarks, and now we have a bill that is spending billions of dollars in an effort to deal with border security when we could have done it in a much more cost-effective way.

I am also disappointed in the amendment process that has been used in this legislation. I don't blame the majority leader at all. I do blame those who have been obstructionists in considering amendments on the floor. Republicans have complained about amendments being offered on the floor of the Senate in the past. We have given the opportunity on this immigration bill for us to consider amendments, but it was the same Republicans who objected to us considering the bill.

Senator Leahy offered a group of noncontroversial amendments. It was a large group. Senator Landrieu has talked about this frequently. She offered her amendment to deal with children. In that group of noncontroversial amendments was an amendment I offered, and I still hope we will have a chance to deal with this--the RUSH Act. What does that deal with? It is amendment No. 1286, a bipartisan amendment. I am pleased Senators Kirk and Portman have joined me in cosponsoring this amendment. It deals with Holocaust survivors, some of our most vulnerable citizens. On average, they are over 80 years of age. Many live alone, many live below the Federal poverty level, and they are desperately concerned about being institutionalized, as I think everyone can understand. This amendment makes it easier for them to access services under the Older Americans Act.

This is noncontroversial. It was before us, and it was objected to by a Republican, so we couldn't offer that series of amendments. That is not what we should be doing. We should be considering these amendments in an orderly way, but that was not allowed.

Let me mention one other amendment I hope we will get a chance to consider. That is amendment 1469, offered by Senator McCain, and I have joined him. It deals with gross violations of human rights, internationally recognized human rights. Someone who has violated the basic international standards for human rights shouldn't be given a visa to come to America. We took action last Congress in dealing with the Magnitsky circumstances in Russia, denying gross human rights violators in Russia the opportunity to come to America and getting a visa. At that time, we talked about there being an international standard. Senator McCain and I have led the charge with other Senators, and I wish to thank Senator Wicker for his work on these issues.

We should now have the opportunity. It is noncontroversial. No one has raised an objection to this amendment, so it should be considered. Yet because of the obstructionist policies to date, we have not had that opportunity.

I wish to mention a few other issues in the underlying bill that I think we can improve upon if we have the opportunity to consider reasonable amendments. One deals with profiling.

I have introduced legislation that would ban profiling. When law enforcement profiles based upon race, religion, national origin or ethnicity, it is bad police policy. It is bad law enforcement policy. It leads to sloppy work. It leads to a waste of resources, and resources are very scarce. It causes communities to turn against law enforcement rather than working with law enforcement.

All of us have said we want to get rid of racial profiling, and this bill does provide a way--a statement against profiling. But it is not as strong as it should be, and there are some unintended consequences as a result of the language included in it.

I think it is very appropriate I am talking about this today as the Trayvon Martin case starts in our courts--the youngster who, as a result of racial profiling, lost his life. I have introduced amendment No. 1267, which would add to the basic bill against profiling, profiling based upon religion or national origin. It would remove a broad exception to the bill that is included, and that is well intended but I think compromises the purpose of the underlying bill, which is to prevent profiling.

I have also offered amendment No. 1266, which deals with additional scrutiny and screening given to certain individuals. The underlying bill says it can be done by country or region. That is profiling. If we have specific information, let us use specific information; otherwise, again, we are going to be wasting the resources of our security system. The best use of resources would have us use information for additional screening rather than just saying from one region of one country.

By the way, if you can get a visa from those countries, then there is obviously a reason for an individual to be here. So unless we have a specific reason for additional screening, we shouldn't be doing that by region or country.

The two amendments I referred to are supported by many groups. They are supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, by the NAACP, by the AFL-CIO, and I can mention other groups that have urged us to modify the underlying bill with these changes.

I held several townhall meetings in Maryland on the immigration reform bill. They were well attended. I thought the discussions were very positive. They were focused on how we can make this bill a better bill and eliminate some of the unintended consequences. Several at these townhall meetings talked about the registered provisional immigrant status and certain requirements in order to stay in that status and have a pathway to citizenship. One of the requirements is an individual has to be regularly employed. We understand that. That is a good requirement. However, there are times when we have to understand that may not be practical--during an economic downturn, when someone is in school. The bill recognizes school, education, is an acceptable substitute for regular employment. But if someone is unemployed for a 60-day period, they run the risk of losing their legal status in this country.

I offered an amendment that said volunteering in community service would be an acceptable substitute. This is a win-win situation. Someone who volunteers is helping our community and also learning more about the needs of our community. This had the support

of the AFL-CIO. They understand the reasonableness of our labor circumstances. I hope we will still have a chance to consider that modification.

I was also in discussions that came out of these townhall meetings dealing with those who have violated our laws perhaps many years ago on maybe not a very serious issue. There should be at least some flexibility in the law for extenuating circumstances, so someone is not jeopardized to be deported because of something that is not relevant to today--that person being law-abiding. I hope we can consider that.

I offered amendment No. 1264, which deals with private prisons. I think our colleagues were surprised to find out that about half of the 14,000 ICE detentions are detained in private penal facilities, not Federal facilities.

We want accountability. This law provides for accountability for those who are detained. But a FOIA application, where one can get information, only applies to Federal prisons. It doesn't apply to non- Federal prisons. I offered a commonsense amendment that I don't think is controversial that would apply the same oversight to private non- Federal prisons as we do to Federal prisons. We all talk about accountability and responsibility of accountability. I think that amendment makes good sense.

So this is not the bill I would have drafted. I would have done other things. I would have spent money a little bit differently than is spent here, and certainly not as much money. I would have taken care of some of the problems on profiling, and I certainly would have dealt, on some of the other issues, with Holocaust survivors. I still have hope that some of these amendments can be considered and adopted. I know people are working on that, and I hope we can work on a package that will improve the bill, particularly the noncontroversial amendments.

I spoke on the floor a couple weeks ago as to why I support this bill. I talked about a high school student who found out he was eligible for a scholarship, only to find out he couldn't take it because of his legal status. I talked about young people who were separated from their parents who have been deported. I talked about employers who have seasonal needs and workers who are well-trained, highly skilled. There are scientists who are desperate for immigration reform so they can meet their economic needs. I have talked at great length how this bill will help the American economy, help us be more competitive internationally, and how this bill is compassionate as to what America should stand for on its immigration policies.

So this is not a difficult choice for me to make. I support this legislation and will be voting for this legislation because I do think it is in the best interests of our country. I do hope we have an opportunity to improve this legislation before we vote on it. I hope we can adopt some of these noncontroversial amendments, but I do hope we will send this bill to the House of Representatives.

I urge my colleagues in the House to follow the example of the Senate, to listen to each other and work across party lines so we can pass comprehensive immigration reform and send it to the President of the United States for his signature.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call the time be equally charged to the majority and to the Republicans.

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

Madam President, let me thank Senator Merkley for his

statement but more importantly for what he has done to elevate the discussion in the Senate on the need to deal with our environment, to deal with energy, to deal with climate change. He has been one of our true leaders in ways in which we can live sensibly and in a way that is good for our environment, good for our economy, and good for our health.

I also notice Senator Whitehouse is on the floor. I know he helped organize all of us being here today. He has taken on a leadership position in the Senate in the area of climate change, and I personally wish to thank him because this has been a difficult challenge, to keep us focused on one of the most important issues of our time. When we talk about a legacy we want to leave to future generations, it is our environment, it is our health, it is our economy, it is our national security, and Senator Whitehouse has been in the forefront of keeping us engaged on this issue so we could reach this day.

I applaud President Obama for his statements today, for his leadership, and for his action plan on dealing with climate change. It is comprehensive. It is extremely timely. I think it is a workable solution for us to be the leaders in the international community in dealing with the issues of climate change. First and foremost, it is based upon the best science. This is not a political issue, this is a science issue. Climate change is real, and the way we have to deal with it should be based upon the best science. That is what President Obama is seeking.

I heard some of my colleagues who are reluctant on this issue talk about the cost. I am glad they raised the issue of cost because when we passed the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the recommendations of some individuals who weren't exactly excited with the bill required that we do a cost-benefit analysis on the cost of regulation versus the benefit to our society. That cost-benefit analysis shows that we get four to eight times back in savings for what it costs to regulate to get clean air and clean water. That is just the direct economic issues. We also get a healthier lifestyle. We get air we can breathe. We are able to enjoy the environment. That is a plus in addition to the direct economic benefit.

I wish to talk about my experiences in Maryland. Maryland took a leadership position. We passed some of the toughest clean air standards in the country. We invested $1 billion in cleaning up our energy- generating plants. Do my colleagues know what that meant for Maryland? That meant 2,000 more jobs. We created jobs by cleaning up our environment. But we need national help. Why? Because air doesn't exactly stop at a State border, and we are downwind from many other States. The people in Maryland are suffering from dirty air not as a result of what is being generated in Maryland but what is being generated elsewhere, so we need national standards. That is exactly why the President has called for dramatic action and is taking dramatic action today.

Inaction will cost us dearly. We have had more episodes of extreme weather recently, and that is based upon science and the fact that weather is changing as a result of carbon pollution in our environment, greenhouse gas emissions. Between 2011 and 2012, those types of extreme weather events cost us more than $1 billion worth of damage. The taxpayers of this country paid for it because we believe that when we have emergency, extreme conditions, there is a community responsibility to help deal with it. Well, we can do something about it to mitigate that type of damage in the future, and the President did that today in his call for action in regard to climate change.

Superstorm Sandy has been referred to a couple of times on this floor. We saw the devastation of that storm, which was very close to where we are here in the Nation's Capital. Last year we had a record- setting number of continuous days of 95-plus-degree weather, so we know firsthand what is happening.

In my own State of Maryland and in this region, we pride ourselves on the Chesapeake Bay and what we have done to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. I was with Senator Carper on Monday, and we had a good-news press conference on the Eastern Shore of Maryland talking about some of the positive results we have seen in the bay.

We have worked to reduce the nutrient levels in the bay, and that is a very positive element. It reduces the oxygen deprivation in the Chesapeake Bay, and as a result we have had fewer dead zones than we had in the 1980s. That is due to the hard work we have done in this region with farmers and developers to reduce the nutrient pollutants. Yes, we are dealing with storm water runoff with farmers and developers, but we also have to deal with the realities of climate change. Warmer water kills sea grass. Sea grasses are critically important for the diversity of the Chesapeake Bay. So this issue affects my region, it affects our entire country, and inaction can cause extreme damage.

The biggest sources of carbon pollution--and my colleagues have already talked about it--are powerplants. The President talked about that, and he talked about how we deal with transportation and how we deal with our buildings. No. 1 on our list should be conservation. The less energy we use is the easiest way we can reduce our carbon footprint. We also have to develop alternative fuels, and we have to be much more aggressive in doing that.

I heard a lot of people talk about the international reaction and what other countries are doing. Two weeks ago I was in China. I was in Beijing. I was there for a couple of days. I never saw the Sun, and that wasn't because there were clouds. There were no clouds in the sky. I couldn't see the Sun because of pollution. That is not unusual in Beijing. So China is now doing something about carbon emissions. They are doing it because they have a political problem because their people can see the pollution and they have a tough time breathing. People are actually issued masks that can supplement their oxygen intake because the pollution is so bad in China. They are taking action. They are developing alternative fuels. They are investing in solar and wind and in conservation because they know it is critically important.

Quite frankly, what is needed is U.S. leadership. The international community is waiting for America to assume the leadership role, and I think the international community is prepared to work with us. That is why President Obama's comments today were just so timely--so timely to show that the United States is prepared to take action and to lead in the international community so we all can pass on a cleaner environment, a safer world, a cleaner world, a more economically viable world, a world that is more secure for our children. President Obama took a giant step forward toward that vision with his comments today.

Let me yield very quickly back to the Senator from Rhode Island, if I might.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Private Student Loans: Regulatory Perspectives.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Program Integrity: Oversight of Recovery Audit Contractors.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 3 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Building a Foundation of Fairness: 75 Years of the federal Minimum Wage'' on June 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Are We Prepared? Measuring the Impact of Preparedness Grants Since 9/11.''

Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 12th World Refugee Day, a day we honor the courage, strength, and determination of those who are forced to flee their homes under threat of persecution, conflict, and violence. Our nation's role as a safe haven for the persecuted is an integral part of our history. The United States was founded as a beacon of freedom and tolerance--freedom of speech and religion, and tolerance of all creeds and cultures. And throughout the years, Americans have fought to ensure that those rights are upheld for all of us.

Too often, we take these bedrocks of our society for granted. We forget that most of the freedoms we now enjoy are still being fought for in too many places around the world.

Today, there are over 43.7 million refugees and internally displaced people around the world. The protracted conflict in Syria has only exacerbated this problem.

To date, UNHCR estimates that 1.6 million Syrians have fled into neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt. With the vast majority of refugees--1 million--fleeing within the first 5 months of this year.

This past February I visited the Kilis refugee camp in Turkey, which is currently sheltering over 15,000 Syrian refugees. I was able to witness first- hand the remarkable bravery of the Syrian refugee population. Many of these families relocated several times within Syria before ultimately making the heart wrenching decision to leave their homes and their country, to seek food, medical attention and safety outside of Syria.

But I also recognize the enormous economic strain this influx has caused on host countries. In Jordan, for example, the Syrian refugee crisis has increased the country's overall population by 10 percent, and the crisis has had profound social, economic, and political implications. We know that this is not easy, but we applaud Jordan and other refugee host nations for their actions and we have pledged humanitarian support for these communities.

The Syrian crisis is just one example of a troubling global problem. There are millions of refugees around the world--many of whom have been living in camps and settlements for decades. Whether from Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali or South Sudan, this diverse group, scattered across the globe, has one overarching commonality: they once lived in a place they called home, but by ill-fated circumstances were forced to flee, often with no hope of returning.

I know many of you agree with me when I say that addressing the refugee crisis is not a luxury, it is a necessity. As history has shown us, unstable and poverty stricken countries are very vulnerable to dictators and other extreme forms of government. Therefore it is imperative that our development and foreign assistance programs continue to have the resources necessary to ensure that the United States remains the nation that preserves and protects freedoms around the world, and the nation that supports our friends and allies when they do the same.

As United States citizens we enjoy so much that is rare in other parts of the world. Apart from reminding ourselves of all that we are thankful for, today should also spur us to action. As a global leader, the United States should lead the charge in aiding refugees around the world, and by our example inspire others to do the same.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Jhpiego, a nonprofit global health affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, on the occasion of its 40th anniversary and recognize the organization for its tireless service in preventing the needless deaths of women and children throughout the developing world.

Dr. Theodore M. King, the former chairman of the Johns Hopkins Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, founded Jhpiego in 1973. The original intention was to share the latest technology, skills, and knowledge of women's health with health professionals from Latin America, Africa, and Asia by bringing them to Baltimore for training. But Jhpiego officials realized that they could have a greater impact by educating health care providers in the providers' own countries, so Jhpiego changed its focus to sustainability, to developing the capacity of countries to create a well-prepared network of health care professionals and a strong health system that they can build upon to care for themselves. As a result, Jhpiego and its more than 1,500 employees have brought the resources

and technical expertise of Johns Hopkins to over 150 countries around the globe, creating tens of thousands of health champions who will deliver skilled care for generations to come.

Jhpiego has proudly participated in the U.S. Government's flagship maternal and child health efforts for the past 15 years. The program, now known as the Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program, MCHIP, has made incredible progress in reducing maternal and child mortality, increasing access to reproductive health services and HIV testing and improving immunization and nutrition education in vulnerable countries such as Afghanistan, South Africa, and Rwanda.

For 40 years, Jhpiego has worked in some of the most remote areas of the world--places without hospitals, electricity, or running water. Jhpiego officials and staff know the challenges of working and living in such conditions and use that insight to develop the next generation of extremely low-cost solutions that address many of the leading causes of death, such as cervical cancer, for women in low-resource settings. With regard to cervical cancer, Jhpiego has developed the ``single visit approach,'' SVA, which combines screening and, if abnormal cells are detected, treatment. The screening costs $5, and screening with treatment is $30.

When Jhpiego began its work in Afghanistan in 2002 after the fall of the Taliban, the country's maternal death rate was the second highest in the world. There were only 467 midwives in a country with a population of 22 million and one functioning midwifery school. Today, more than 3,000 new midwives have graduated from 29 accredited, community, and hospital midwifery schools located throughout Afghanistan. This development has helped dramatically improve maternal mortality rates in Afghanistan and bring women into the workforce.

In Mozambique, fewer than 25 percent of Mozambique's 22 million people currently know their HIV status. To address this problem, Jhpiego has helped over 900,000 people to be tested for HIV and counseled on their status by members of local health groups and faith- based organizations in their homes.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing the incredible accomplishments of Jhpiego, currently under the outstanding leadership of Dr. Leslie Mancuso, and congratulating the organization on its 40th anniversary. I am proud that Jhpiego is based in Maryland but has a truly global reach with regard to the lifesaving work it does.

Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of Senator Levin's resolution celebrating the 148th anniversary of Juneteenth, the oldest commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States. On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, TX, to inform the slaves that they were free. Although the Emancipation Proclamation had taken effect on January 1, 1863, nearly 2\1/2\ years passed before the message reached slaves in Texas and the Union troops enforced the President's order. Nearly 90 years after America's Independence Day, Africans in America finally obtained their independence from slavery. Juneteenth is a day when all Americans can celebrate Black Americans' freedom and heritage.

The House of Representatives and Senate passed resolutions by voice vote in 2008 and 2009, respectively, apologizing for the injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws. The resolutions acknowledged that African-Americans continue to suffer from the complex interplay between slavery and Jim Crow long after both systems were formally abolished. This suffering is both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity.

On this day, it is fitting to remember our Nation's painful history. Millions of Africans were torn from their homeland and brought to the Americas as chattel. While it is unknown how many died during the Middle Passage, it is estimated that 645,000 arrived in the United States. My own State of Maryland had slaves. In 1790, more than 100,000 slaves, which would have been about one-third of the State's total population, lived in Maryland. Seventy years later, the 1860 Census indicated that there were more than 4 million slaves nationwide.

Despite Maryland's history of slavery, many Marylanders led the fight for abolition. The Underground Railroad was a secret network that helped enslaved men, women, and children escape to freedom. Its route through Maryland took passengers by boat up the Chesapeake Bay. Ships departed from the many towns located directly on the Bay and from cities on rivers that flowed into the bay, including Baltimore. Many ships' pilots risked their own lives and livelihoods by hiding passengers' and helped them on their way.

Another route led slaves by land up along the Eastern Shore of Maryland and into Delaware, where they could cross into Pennsylvania and go north to freedom in Massachusetts, New York, and Canada. This was the route used by Harriet Ross Tubman, a native of Dorchester County, MD. Tubman not only guided herself and her family to freedom through the Underground Railroad, she also made more than 19 trips to the South to lead more than 300 slaves to freedom. She never lost a ``passenger'' along the route.

Harriet Tubman's legacy lives on. She and the other brave men and women who manned the Underground Railroad are remembered as enduring symbols of America's commitment to equality, justice, and freedom. They fought for the ideals that this country was founded upon despite the fact that their conditions were far from ideal. I have introduced the S. 247, the Harriet Tubman National Historical Parks Act, to create a national park in Maryland that would extend north to New York, along the path Tubman traveled to freedom. This legislation, when enacted, will stand as a monument to all that Harriet Tubman risked her life for. The tenacity with which she fought not only for her freedom but for the freedom of her brothers and sisters is certainly something we should remember and commemorate.

Juneteenth marked both the end of slavery in the United States and the beginning of a long and arduous civil rights movement. In the years since the first Juneteenth, our Nation has no doubt made considerable progress, but many challenges remain. Discrimination, disparities, and racially motivated hate persist. We must confront these issues. We cannot ignore the disparities in health care that result in higher premature birth rates and reduced life expectancy for minority populations. We cannot ignore discriminatory sentencing in our courts or discriminatory lending practices by financial institutions. Racially motivated police brutality and hate crimes cannot stand. We must continue to pursue justice in each of these areas, and for all Americans.

We owe it to the legacy of our predecessors in the battle for racial equality to keep fighting injustice until the declaration that ``all men are created equal"' rings true. We cannot be complacent. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' We must continue to strive toward elimination of inequality so we can truly honor the spirit of Juneteenth.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize the contributions that John J. Sweeney, AFL-CIO president emeritus, has made to improve the lives of working men and women and their families across America and around the world. The labor movement is the foundation of America's middle class, and John Sweeney understands that fact. He has devoted his life to fighting for workers so that they have safe working conditions, good benefits, and a paycheck big enough to support a family.

John Sweeney's life is an inspirational one. He was born in the Bronx, NY--the son of Irish immigrants. His parents knew the value of hard work. His father was a New York City bus driver and his mother worked as a domestic for wealthy families. John Sweeney's father was a member of the union and it was that union membership and steady income that made it possible for Sweeney to attend Iona College in New Rochelle, N.Y. and graduate with a degree in economics. He also holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Oberlin College, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the University of Baltimore, Catholic University Law School, the University of Toledo's College of Law, Iona College and the College of New Rochelle.

Sweeney's first job in the labor movement was with the International Ladies' Garment Workers, which later merged with the Clothing and Textile Workers Union. He joined SEIU Local 32B in New York City in 1961 as a union representative. Sweeney was elected president of Local 32B in 1976 and led two citywide strikes of apartment maintenance workers during the 1970s.

John Sweeney was first elected president of the AFL-CIO in 1995 on a platform of revitalizing the federation,

which has 57 affiliated unions and 12 million members, including 3 million members in Working America, its new community affiliate. At the time of his election as president of the AFL-CIO, Sweeney was serving as president of the Service Employees International Union--SEIU. He became president emeritus of the AFL-CIO at the federation's constitutional convention in September 2009, stepping down after 4 terms as president.

There is no denying that the past few years have been difficult ones for the American labor movement, but John Sweeney continues to stand strong in the fight for American workers. The American workforce is the best trained and most efficient in the world. John Sweeney has been a big part of that success and I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking him for his lifelong commitment to American workers and their families.

Mr. President, I take this time to speak in strong support of the immigration bill currently on the floor of the Senate.

First and foremost, we need an immigration system that is fair. We are a nation of immigrants. My grandparents came to this country seeking a new life for their family. Our story is similar to the story of millions of other families in this country.

Immigration is very important for our country. It is important for our

economy. We need highly skilled workers who can innovate, create, and move our country forward. All of our workers should be protected under our laws and not just some.

We also need strong border security. We need to know who is coming into this country, and we must make sure we have a legal system that protects the homeland.

So we need a balance. For immigration reform we need a balance between border security and lawful employment and a pathway to citizenship and the ability to lawfully remain in this country for those who are currently undocumented. The legislation before us creates that balance. I wish to compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have brought forward this package. It is not what any one of us would have written, but it does balance the security of our country with border security and a lawful system for employment with the realities of 11 million people currently living in the shadows who will have an opportunity to remain in this country in a lawful way, to be able to work and ultimately become citizens of America. But those individuals have to earn their way. They have to pay taxes, learn English, be law-abiding, and they cannot break into the line. They have to go to the end of the line.

This is a fair bill. This is a bill that at long last fixes the broken system we have in this country.

Over the past months, I have held a number of immigration roundtables throughout the State of Maryland. At the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service in Baltimore we discussed the importance of streamlining the process in refugee and asylum cases and eliminating barriers to family unification.

We discussed the need for strong provisions to prevent human trafficking and to make sure the U.S. labor protections apply to all immigrant workers. We talked about making sure we have a realistic 10- year pathway to citizenship that can be both started and finished in a workable manner by undocumented immigrants. All those issues have been addressed in the bipartisan bill that is currently before the Senate.

I held this similar discussion at CASA of Maryland in Hyattsville. We discussed the DREAM Act recently approved by the voters in Maryland and the DREAM Act provisions that are pending in the bill before the Senate. The group stressed the importance of family reunification and the need to create a workable pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. We discussed the need to clear up and eliminate the backlog of legal immigrants waiting in the system so the undocumented immigrants do not have to jump ahead in line.

That is what this bill does. It provides the resources so we can process those who are currently in the system in a fair manner, which is in the best interests of this country and the best interests of those who are currently caught in this backlog. The bill provides for an orderly way to consider legal immigration and to deal with those who are currently undocumented as they come into our system.

These roundtables were important for me to hold to hear directly from Marylanders who are affected by the immigration policy decisions we make in the Senate. Maryland, as well as the United States, has a long and proud tradition of welcoming immigrants, and our Nation is truly a nation of immigrants. According to the Immigration Policy Center and U.S. Census Bureau statistics, foreign-born immigrants make up roughly 1 in 7 Marylanders--14 percent of our population. More than a quarter of Maryland's scientists were foreign born, as were roughly one-fifth of our health care practitioners, mathematicians, and computer specialists. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the number of immigrants in Maryland with a college degree increased nearly 70 percent between 2000 and 2011.

My point here is that immigrants contribute to the growth of America. They help us develop the innovations of tomorrow that will create the jobs of tomorrow. They help solve the problems we have today. They help our economy grow. That is what has made America strong.

According to the Urban Institute, immigrant households paid nearly one-fifth--or $4 billion--of all taxes collected in Maryland, including Federal income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare taxes; State income, sales, and auto taxes; and local property, income, sales, auto, and utility taxes.

I hope we can keep these facts and statistics in mind as we enter into this historic debate on how to overhaul our Nation's immigration laws. We should avoid stereotypes and generalizations in this debate.

But more importantly, I want to put a human face on these facts and statistics, so I am going to share two stories of individuals who came in contact with our office. These two are representative of literally millions of people. We hear the numbers, but when we listen to the stories and look at the faces of people involved, we know we have to act.

The first is about Yves Gerald Gomes, 20 years of age, who was originally from India. I quote him:

My own story started in 1994, when I came to this country

in the arms of my parents. I was only a year and a half. My

parents came from India and Bangladesh, hoping to provide me

with opportunities, something they didn't have growing up in

poverty in their homes. My earliest memories in life are

growing up in MD in the basement of my great aunt and great

uncle's house and learning English from their children (my

older cousins) by watching Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Full

House. Soon after, in 1995, my brother was born.

My parents had an ongoing asylum case, which was denied in

2006. But over that 12 year span, my father worked hard as a

hotel server in order to help my mother pay for her college

education and for us to live comfortably; growing up I felt

as though I was just like any of my middle-class, American

peers from school. But in 2006, we became ``undocumented.''

Our work permits could no longer be renewed, so my father was

forced to quit his job at the hotel, and my mother had to

resign her tenure as a college professor, and surrender her

PhD studies in computer sciences. In 2008, our home was

raided by ICE, a few days after my dad was pulled over one

night for driving with a busted taillight in Baltimore.

Ultimately both of my parents were deported in 2009. I faced

my own deportation in 2010, but was able to remain in the US

because of the [hard] work of my lawyer . . . the support of

my friends, church community, [and] the media. . . .

It will be 5 years since my brother and I have last seen

our parents. Currently my brother and I live with the same

great aunt, great uncle and cousin with whom we resided when

my family first came to US. It was disheartening when my

parents missed my own high school graduation, and it will

again be disheartening when they will miss my younger

brother's high school graduation. . . .

Moreover, the pain of separation resonates to our extended

family too. My mother treated my great-aunt and great-uncle,

naturalized US citizens for 40+ years, like her own parents,

and she cannot be here to take care of them in their old age.

Their son, my cousin (a US citizen) has a degenerative muscle

disease which prevents him from traveling. If immigration

reform does not happen, it's possible he will never get to

see my father, whom he treats like his older brother, ever

again.

I will graduate from the University of Maryland College

Park in 3 semesters with my undergraduate degree in

Biochemistry, and I really hope that my parents will be there

to see me walk across the stage. For myself and millions of

others, immigration reform means a pathway to pursue our

dreams and give back to American society, our home;

personally, I want to enter into the field of medical

research or pharmacy. Moreover, for myself and so many

others, immigration reform means the hope of being reunited

with family members, and also it means no longer having to

wake up every morning with the constant fear of deportation.

I have lived in the United States since I was a year old.

This is the only country I have ever known as my home.

Despite all the challenges my family has faced, I still love

the United States, and have always considered myself to be

American at heart. I hope that after this year, I can be an

American on paper too.

Let me tell one more story. I could read from other letters we have received. I am sure the Presiding Officer has the same situation. We have all heard from people in our communities.

Let me talk about Raymond, who was originally from the Philippines. I quote him:

My family and I came to the United States in hopes and

dreams of a better life; we left everything behind in the

Philippines in pursuit of the ``American Dream.'' At the age

of nine, assimilating to the American culture was not

difficult; naturally I felt as though I was just like

everyone else. Or so I thought. The harsh reality of being

undocumented hit me my senior year of high school when I came

home from an invitational track meet where I was scouted and

offered scholarships. I was so excited to tell my parents the

great news; to this day I still remember the proud look on my

father's face. My mother on the other hand suddenly broke

down in tears. . . . I was confused as to why she was asking

for forgiveness, she began to explain that we were

undocumented and due to my immigration status I would not be

able to accept the scholarships. Finally hitting that wall

made me realize that all my hard work would amount to

nothing.

For as long as I could remember my family has constantly

faced financial struggles, but somehow we always found a way

to make ends meet. My father, who was once a successful

businessman, was forced to work odd jobs such as landscaping,

delivery, and driving a taxi. My mother, who was once a nurse

practitioner, works multiple jobs from cleaning houses,

babysitting, and taking care of the elderly. My sister who is

only two years older than me, made the sacrifice of not going

to college so that I would be able to, and she works any job

that comes her way. They all work day in and day out to make

sure there's food on the table, clothes on my back, and a

roof over our heads. I know that if my parents were able to

work legally in the US in business and nursing, we would not

struggle as much, and we would be able to contribute much

more to the US economy. Yet, because of our current broken

immigration system, our hard work does not pay dividends.

In 2011, I became involved in the campaign for the Maryland

DREAM Act . . . which involved grassroots organizing. At this

point I realized that no longer would I stay silent in the

shadows, I had to let my voice be heard and take a stand

against this injustice that my community and I faced.

Throughout the campaign I realized that even as youth we can

still bring forth change, which is why to this day I continue

to fight for my family and all 11 million undocumented

immigrants in the US.

In this year's push for Comprehensive Immigration Reform,

no one will be left behind; we must stand united and battle

this suppression. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr.

``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

I could bring up many other stories, put faces on these numbers, because I think we need to do that. This immigration bill is for the two persons whom I just talked about, their families, and the 11 million. It is for this Nation.

There is bipartisan agreement that our Nation's immigration and border security system is broken and must be fixed. We must ensure our borders are secure and that we know who is coming and going from the Nation. At the same time we must find a tough but fair process that allows the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States to come out of the shadows and sets reasonable requirements if they want to stay in this country.

This legislation creates a fair path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. This path to citizenship must be earned and would require individuals to register with the government, submit biometric data, learn English, pass criminal background and national security checks, and pay taxes and penalties before they would be eligible for a provisional legal status. This pathway to citizenship requires individuals to earn their legal status over a period of no fewer than 10 years.

In addition, the legislation addresses the need for improved border security and requires a 90-percent effectiveness rate for apprehensions and returns in high-risk border sections before individuals in provisional legal status can adjust to permanent residence. It also creates an effective employment verification system--using the E-Verify system--that will prevent identity theft, end the hiring of unauthorized workers, and help stop future waves of illegal immigration. And finally, this legislation establishes an improved process for future legal immigration that is responsive to the needs of American businesses and supports reunification of families.

Despite fears that immigrants will take jobs from Americans, numerous studies show that immigrants and U.S.-born workers generally do not compete for the same jobs. In fact, a 2009 study by the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, found that immigrants have a positive effect on the workforce.

The business sector strongly supports comprehensive immigration reform. That is because our economy is in need of highly skilled workers who can help stimulate growth and keep our Nation at the forefront of innovation and invention. From 1990 to 2005, foreign-born nationals founded more than 25 percent of the technology startups in the United States.

Immigration reform is about keeping families together and ensuring that immigration laws are respected. I want to commend my colleagues from both parties for coming together in crafting a bipartisan bill that creates a workable framework for comprehensive reform. Now the Senate needs to move forward in passing legislation that is both comprehensive and fair.

This legislation enjoys broad support from a diverse coalition of labor, business, civil rights, and religious groups. Polls indicate broad support across party lines for comprehensive immigration reform, with most Americans agreeing that immigration is a net positive for the United States. Most Americans want Congress to take action to fix our broken immigration system. While this legislation is not perfect--it is not what I would have drafted--I believe it is a strong step forward and a vast improvement over our current laws, and I urge my colleagues to support this balanced approach to immigration reform.

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that ``Congress shall have power . . . to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' Congress last enacted a major overhaul of immigration policy in 1986 during President Reagan's administration, over a quarter century ago. The time is now for Congress to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow--June 14--marks the Army's 238th birthday. For 238 years, the Nation has entrusted the Army with preserving its peace and freedom, and defending its democracy. Since its beginnings as the Continental Army during our Revolutionary War, to its instrumental role in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has always served America admirably and I have every confidence that it will continue in this proud mission.

The United States Army existed before there even was a United States to speak of. The Continental Army was established on June 14, 1775. It was composed of rebellious colonists who had little or no experience in soldiering. Despite these humble beginnings, General George Washington led the Continental Army and against overwhelming odds they defeated the more seasoned and well-equipped British ground forces. Following the end of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army was disbanded but that action was followed by the official creation of the U.S. Army on June 3, 1784. Since then, our Army has become the model against which all other nations' armies are measured.

The Army's birthday coincides with Flag Day, a holiday that commemorates our Nation's adoption of the U.S. flag. I believe this is fitting as our Nation's flag would not exist were it not for the bravery and sacrifice of our Army; and since its adoption, the Army has always carried our Nation's flag into battle.

With the withdrawal of our military forces in Iraq and the drawdown of those forces in Afghanistan, I am concerned that our soldiers who have recently entered--or are about to enter--civilian life will not be provided with the tools to adapt to their new lives. Veteran unemployment, post-traumatic stress, and active duty military/veteran suicides continue to be serious issues and they must be addressed. If a solider is able to excel on the battlefield, then I see no reason why that same soldier should not be able to excel in the classroom, in a hospital, or in the boardroom. We have to provide our servicemen and women with the tools to help them achieve these goals. Doing so is not a hand-out, but rather a ``hand up'' that strengthens our Nation, since it redounds to the benefit of all Americans. Ultimately, we have to continue to give these men and women a stake in their own country.

Since 1775, American soldiers have been the strength and sinew of our Nation. Our soldiers are driven by the ideals of the Warrior Ethos and commit themselves to succeed in any mission our Nation asks of them. Our soldiers believe that our Constitution and the freedom it guarantees are worth fighting for. They sacrifice their personal comfort and safety to answer a higher calling: service in the cause of freedom, both here at home for Americans, but also abroad for foreign peoples.

I am awed by our servicemen and women's ability to adapt and succeed in a mission that at various stages has called upon them to be scholars, teachers, policemen, farmers, bankers, engineers, social workers, and, of course, warriors--often all at the same time. Above all, I am perpetually thankful for their willingness to serve, and have the greatest of faith in their ability to face the difficult and dangerous missions that lie ahead. These patriots have always been the strength of the Nation. The unwavering dedication to duty, to our country, and to all Americans is embodied in the Army motto, which is inscribed on top of the Department of the Army's official emblem ``This we'll defend.'' For 238 years, our Army has lived by these words, protecting us so that our society may be free. Let us remember our Army soldiers for this achievement today, and wish them a happy 238th birthday.

Mr. President, this past weekend President Obama met with President Xi of China in California for a summit meeting between the two leaders. It was an opportunity for a personal relationship between the leader of China and the leader of the United States in order to improve the trust between the two countries.

China is important to the United States. China, as we know, is a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations--a key player in developing international policies that are important to the United States and global security. China is very influential in the policies concerning North Korea and Iran. China is a key trading partner of the United States. We know the amount of products that go back and forth between China and the United States.

President Obama has correctly identified Asia as a region of particular interest. He has rebalanced Asian policy because of the importance of Asia to the United States. We are a Pacific power, and Asia is critically important for regional security as well as for global security.

I have the opportunity of chairing the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In that capacity, 2 weeks ago I visited China, the Republic of Korea, and Japan.

In China, I was able to observe firsthand the progress that is being made in that country and to meet with key leaders of the Chinese Government. I did see much progress. I saw economic change in China as to how they are becoming a more open society from the point of view of entrepreneurship. I saw rights that have been advanced. People do have more freedom than they had several decades ago.

I saw an opportunity where the United States and China could build a stronger relationship between our two countries. It starts with building trust. There is a lot of mistrust out there. That is why I was particularly pleased about the summit meeting this past weekend. We have common interests. China is critically important to the United States on making sure the Korean Peninsula remains a nonnuclear peninsula. China has tremendous impact over North Korea and does not want to see North Korea continue its ambition to become a nuclear weapon power. They can help us in resolving that issue, hopefully in a way that will help us in a peaceful manner.

I could not help but observe when I was in Beijing that China has a huge environmental challenge. The entire time I was there, I never saw the Sun, and that was not because of clouds, it was because of pollution, which is common in Beijing. It is not only a problem that China needs to deal with, it is a political necessity. The people of China know that their air is dirty. Here is an opportunity for the United States, working with China--the two large emitters of greenhouse gases--for them to come together and show international leadership by what we can do in our own countries to encourage progress but also international progress on this issue.

While I was in China, I had a chance to advance areas of concern. I want to talk about that. Our security interests with China go toward their military, yes, but also go toward their economic conditions and their respect for human rights. I raised throughout my visit to China my concern, and I think America's concern--the international concern-- about China recognizing universally accepted human rights. The right to dissent is not there in China.

On June 4 we celebrated another anniversary of Tiananmen Square, where the student protest turned very deadly. It is still dangerous to dissent in China. Civil rights lawyers can lose their right to practice law and can be physically intimidated if they are too aggressive in representing those who disagree with government policies.

China has a policy to this day of detaining people, putting them in prison for their ``reeducation.'' That could be for up to 4 years without trial and without being questioned as to why they are being detained, solely because

they disagree with the government's policy.

If you are born in a community, you are registered in that community. There may not be economic opportunity there for you. You might want to move to a big city in order to explore additional economic opportunities for yourself and your family. In China that is not possible for the great majority of the people. They are registered in their community, they are expected to live in their community, and they are expected to work in that community. So you have the haves and the have nots. There are many people in China who are doing very well. The vast majority are not.

Then there is the issue of religious freedom. I think we all know about Tibet and the Buddhists in Tibet and how they have been harassed. We know about the Uighers and the Muslim community. What really shocked me was talking to the Protestants who have their house churches. They explained to me that if their churches get too big--maybe over 25 or 30 members--they lose their right to meet. The government is worried about too many people getting together to celebrate their religion. Well, that certainly is unacceptable. It violates internationally recognized human rights standards.

And then they block access, full access, to the Internet. Sites such as the New York Times or Bloomberg are considered to be too difficult for the Chinese people to accept, and the government blocks those sources.

Perhaps one of the most difficult challenges China has today is that it does not trust its own people to innovate and create. Instead, they use cyber to try to steal our rights, our innovation, not just in America but throughout the world. We are very concerned about the proper use of protecting intellectual property, and I raised that during my visit to China.

We are also concerned about the cyber security issues, and I know that was on the agenda of President Obama and President Xi. We would urge progress to be made on acceptable standards on the use of cyber.

Then there is the issue of corruption. Because so much is determined by where you live and your local government, corruption is widespread. That needs to be changed.

So these are important subjects that we raised in a country that is critically important to the United States, but these issues must be debated.

When President Park was here, the President of the Republic of Korea, she mentioned on the House floor to a joint session of Congress that she wants a security dialog in Northeast Asia. When I met with her when I was in Seoul, we had a chance to talk more about it. The more she talked about the security dialog, the more it reminded me of the Helsinki Commission, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which was established in 1975 as a security dialog between all the counties of Europe, now Central Asia, the United States, and Canada.

That security dialog deals with all three baskets of concern. Yes, we are concerned about military actions. We have serious military issues that we need to take up in the northeast. Maritime security issues are very much of concern to all the countries of Northeast Asia. But we also need to deal with economic freedom and opportunity, and we need to deal with human rights.

This type of a dialog would allow us in the north to participate with the major countries in Northeast Asia to work out and know the concerns of each of the countries. It would include not just China and the Republic of Korea but Japan, North Korea, the United States, and Russia.

I would urge the region to either adopt a security dialog similar to the Helsinki process or look at becoming a part of the Helsinki process. We do have regional forums. There is a regional forum for Asia. So it is a possibility that they could actually work under the Helsinki framework.

In my visits to Japan and the Republic of Korea, I know we have two close allies. Japan, of course, is a treaty ally. We have U.S. troops both in Korea and Japan. We are working out ways to make our troop presence more effective, consistent with the political realities of both of those countries.

Both Japan and the Republic of Korea strongly support our policies in Iran and Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula. The relationship between these two countries must improve. There are serious issues. Of course the comfort woman issue during World War II is a matter of major concern to the Korean population. I certainly support and understand that. But it is important for those two allies of the United States to become closer allies and to move forward in areas of mutual interest. I urge them to do that.

In Japan, I had meetings on the economic issues, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, which clearly are areas where we can make advancements. I saw an opportunity to advance U.S. interests in the rebalance to Asia. It is not a pivot to Asia. We used that term originally. It is not. We have been active in Asia for centuries. It is a rebalance because we recognize the importance of Asia. I think we can do that by enhancing our relationship with all the countries in Asia. It is an opportunity to advance U.S. security interests through military cooperation.

I did talk about the military in China. I also talked, particularly in Japan, about more of their students coming here to the United States to advance good governance and economic relationships, and to have a responsible environmental program.

The subcommittee I chair has already held two hearings on the rebalance to Asia, including good governance and military issues. We are going to hold future hearings dealing with the environmental issues and economic issues.

Clearly, working with the President, I see a major opportunity to advance U.S. interests through our rebalance to Asia policies.

Mr. President, we all lost a dear friend when Frank Lautenberg passed away a little over a week ago. He was a friend, he was a colleague, he was a mentor. In the last Congress I had the opportunity to sit next to him on the floor of the Senate. Our desks were back there in the last row. I had a chance to sit next to him. I tell you--you have heard this many times--but when we had those vote- aramas Frank kept me very much engaged. His sense of humor, his ability to use contemporary activities with a sense of humor kept us all going. We are certainly going to miss that humor.

I also sat next to him on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He was a fierce defender of public health and the environment. I am going to certainly miss his advocacy. He was there to protect clean air. He chaired that subcommittee and took on every special interest in order to protect our children and to protect our communities.

He was a fierce defender of the environment, recognizing we all have a responsibility to pass on the environment in a better condition to future generations.

His story is a story about the success of America. Here we have a child of an immigrant family that came to this country and started anew with virtually no resources. It is very appropriate that I am talking about Frank Lautenberg on a day in which the immigration reform bill is on the floor of the Senate.

I know if Frank were here, he would be talking about his own family and his own experiences and why the passage of this immigration bill is so important for America's future. Yes, we are going to do the right thing for the values of America, but we are also going to help America's economic future and our security in the future. He grew up in a family of poverty. His father died when he was very young. He had no choice after high school but to enter the military. But he wanted to enter the military because he wanted to serve his country. So he went and served our country in World War II. As we know, he was the last surviving Member of the Senate who served in World War II. He did an incredible service to our country under extremely difficult circumstances. He came back to the United States and this country offered him the GI bill opportunity for education. But for that GI bill Frank Lautenberg never would have had those educational opportunities. He took advantage of it and went to business

school. He used that to develop a business that was innovative and creative. There was a need out there to deal with personnel costs by businesses. Frank Lautenberg developed, with his partners, a way in which that service could be provided in the most cost-effective way.

What did that do? That made this country more efficient, more effective. What that did was create a lot of jobs for this country. It also made Frank Lautenberg a fairly wealthy person. That is the American way: innovation to grow our economy, to create jobs, and to benefit by your own innovation. Frank Lautenberg took advantage of that and succeeded in a great way.

But he was not satisfied with that. He wanted to give back to his community. So he served his community. He served his community in many ways. There is a whole host of community organizations to which he provided leadership, his own personal time, in order to help people. He did that. Jewish Federation--he became a national leader there to help communities all over the world. Frank Lautenberg did that as a private citizen because he thought it was the right thing to do.

But then he decided he wanted to serve his community in a different way, so he ran for the Senate, got elected to the Senate, served two different terms in the Senate. He is the only Senator who was both the junior and senior Senator twice from the same State. But he never forgot his roots. He never forgot where he came from. He has a long list of accomplishments, from helping refugees come here to America, to helping keep the air we breathe on airlines safe for our children. The list is voluminous. We have already talked about it. He will be missed by all.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Bonnie, who we all know so well, and his entire family. To the people of New Jersey and the people of this Nation, Frank Lautenberg was an extraordinary person who made a lasting mark. He will be missed by all. We all know we are better because of having served with him.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 2013 farm bill that the Senate just passed. I want to congratulate Chairwoman Stabenow and ranking member Cochran for their work and success on this bill. I am proud to support this bill.

Last year, the Senate passed a strong bi-partisan farm bill that I was also happy to support. I greatly appreciate the work that Chairwoman Stabenow and former ranking member Roberts put into last year's bill and their willingness to work with me, and my colleagues from Chesapeake Bay region States to keep the conservation programs in the bill strong and effective for Maryland and other Chesapeake Bay States' farmers.

I was pleased to see the strength of the farm bill's conservation programs, namely the Regional Conservation Partnership Program retained, and in some respects improved, in the bill that the Agriculture Committee reported in May. I greatly appreciate that through floor consideration of the bill the conservation programs remained largely unchanged. During last year's consideration of this bill my Chesapeake Bay State colleagues and I, in working with Senators Stabenow and Roberts, put a great deal of work into improving the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and I appreciate that all of our work from last year remains intact in this year's Senate farm bill.

I have spoken with my State's soil conservation district managers about the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program that is coming and they are excited and ready to make sure that it works well in Maryland. I look forward to talking with more farmers and other stakeholders about the importance of this new program and will encourage their participation.

Farming in Maryland is extremely challenging. Pressure from developers is compounded by the water quality concerns that persist in the bay and its tributaries. The facts of the matter are that the bay is polluted and it is everyone in the watershed's responsibility to help clean it up.

The Chesapeake Bay is the world's largest most productive estuary. It is a national treasure that has an economic value over $1 trillion. I firmly believe that it is in the Nation's interest to protect this resource. It is in the interest and purview of the Federal government to coordinate the efforts of the six States and the District of Columbia. Because protecting this national treasure is an initiative in the Federal Government's interest I have made providing farmers financial resources to reduce pollution from their farms from polluting the bay a priority issue of mine in each farm bill I have worked on in the Senate.

Because water quality concerns in the bay watershed are so high, Maryland farms must meet extremely standards of operation to prevent sediment and nutrient loss.

I am proud to have worked with the chairman and ranking member to develop the programs in this bill that maintain the traditions of providing farmers with financial resources to mitigate nutrient and sediment loss from their farms.

Perhaps, what is even more important than the specific financial resources this bill provides farmers to implement conservation activities on their farms is reestablishing the requirement that farms must protect highly erodible lands and wetlands in order to qualify for crop insurance premium assistance. This was an issue that I was proud to help champion last year and that ultimately my Republican friend, the Senior Senator from Georgia, was able to win a floor vote to require any producer seeking crop insurance premium assistance to also meet a basic set of conservation compliance criteria established under the Sodbuster and Swampbuster programs.

The concept behind the conservation compliance programs is simple: The expenditure of Federal taxpayer dollars in support of farming operations cannot support farming practices that result in drainage of wetlands or farming of highly erodible lands. These conservation compliance requirements have long been accepted and applied to broadly to a variety of other longstanding farmer financial safety net programs. In fact, up until the 1996 farm bill these conservation compliance programs also applied to Federal crop insurance premium assistance programs.

These minimum qualifications have been a success in ensuring that Federal taxpayer dollars are not supporting farming practices that lead to costly natural resource degradation. In Maryland, however, these practices are common place not just because our farmers want to be good stewards of the bay but because the State requires farmers to manage for wetland and soil loss on their farms.

While I am proud of my Maryland farmers for their conservation work, they are punished in the marketplace for their good stewardship where they compete with producers whose production costs are lower because their operations are located in States that do not require mitigating the impacts of their operations on the natural environment.

Because the 2013 farm bill aims to move farmers out of direct payment programs and into expanded Crop Insurance Premium Assistance programs, reestablishing conservation compliance eligibility requirements for the Crop Insurance Program helps level the competitive playing field for Maryland farmers and other State's agricultural sectors that are doing what is right to protect the environment.

While mine and Senator Chambliss's efforts last year were met with significant challenges last year, a series of discussions between our Nation's leading agricultural interests groups, like the American Farm Bureau, and our Nation's top wildlife and conservation organizations resulted in a mutually agreed proposal to re-link conservation compliance requirements to the crop insurance premium assistance program.

The Federal safety the farm bill provides for both farmers growing our Nation's food and low income families who have difficulty putting food on the table continues on in this bill but with needed reforms. I am proud to support this bill and congratulate the chair and ranking member.