Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a private relief bill on behalf of Javier Lopez-Urenda and Maria Leticia Arenas. Javier and Leticia, originally from Mexico, are the parents of three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, age 19, Ashley, age 15, and Nancy, age 9. This family lives in Fremont, California.

I first introduced a bill for Javier and Leticia in 2009, and I continue to believe they deserve Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill. Javier and Leticia are outstanding parents, volunteers, workers, and leaders in their community. Javier and Leticia came to the United States after each suffered the loss of a parent.

Leticia left Mexico at age 17 after her mother died from cancer. Javier came to the United States in 1990, at age 23, several years after the murder of his father in Michoacan, Mexico.

Javier had been living and working in the United States for 23 years when I first learned about this case. He originally entered the country looking for work to support his extended family. Today, Javier is a Maintenance Engineer at Full Bloom Baking Company in San Mateo, California, where he has been an employee for over 19 years. In fact, Javier was the second employee hired at Full Bloom when the company first began.

Javier's fellow co-workers at Full Bloom have written compelling letters to me about Javier's hard work ethic and valuable contributions. The company owners assert that with his help, the company grew to be one of the largest commercial bakeries in the Bay Area, today employing approximately 385 people.

They write that Javier is a mentor to others and maintains a ``tremendous amount of `institutional knowledge' that can never be replaced.'' One of his co-workers wrote, ``Without Javier at the bakery, the lives of hundreds of people will change.''

Javier made attempts to legalize his status in the United States. At one point, he received an approved labor certification. However, his case could not be finalized due to poor timing and a lengthy immigration process. It took three years, for example, for his labor certification to be approved. By that time, Javier was already in removal proceedings and his case is now closed.

During consideration of Javier's case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the difficult situation Javier faces. The Court wrote, ``We are not unmindful of the unique and extremely sympathetic circumstances of this case. By all accounts, Petitioner has been an exemplary father, employee, and member of his local community. If he were to be deported, he would be separated from his wife, three U.S. citizen children, and the life he has worked so hard to build over the past 17 years. In light of the unfortunate sequence of events leading up to this juncture and Petitioner's positive contributions to society, Petitioner may very well be deserving of prosecutorial grace.''

Unfortunately, the Court ultimately denied the case. Javier and his wife have no additional avenues for adjusting their status. A private bill is the only way for them to remain in the United States.

I believe it is important to consider the potentially harmful impact on Javier and Maria Leticia's three U.S. citizen children, Bryan, Ashley, and Nancy, should their parents be deported. Ashley, and Nancy are still in school in California, and Bryan is currently serving in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Javier owns their home in Fremont. He is the sole financial provider for his wife and children, while also providing some financial support to extended family members in Mexico. Javier and Leticia are good parents and play active roles in their children's lives. The Principal of Patterson Elementary School described Javier and Leticia as ``two loving and supportive parents who are committed to their children's success.''

All too often, deportation separates U.S. citizen children from their parents. In 2009, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that, in the last ten years, at least 108,434 immigrant parents of American citizen children were removed from this country. Other reports show that deporting a parent causes trauma and long- lasting harm to children.

Moreover, the deportation of Javier and Leticia would be a significant loss to the community. Leticia is currently volunteering and training for a job with Bay Area Women Against Rape in Oakland, which provides services to survivors of sexual assault. She also works as a certified health promoter at the Tiburcio Vazquez Health Center in Fremont.

Javier's community involvement is just as impressive. He has volunteered with the Women's Foundation of California, Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation, the Saint Patrick Proto Cathedral Parish, the American Red Cross, and the California AIDS Ride.

Patricia W. Chang, a long-time community leader in California and current CEO of the Feed the Hunger Foundation, writes: ``Asking Mr. Urenda to leave the United States would deprive his children of their father, an upstanding resident of the country. It would deprive the community of an active participant, leader, and volunteer.''

Judy Patrick, President/CEO of the Women's Foundation of California, states that Javier ``is a model participant in this society.''

Clearly, Javier and Leticia have earned the admiration of their community here in the United States. They are the loving parents of three American children. Javier is a valued employee at Full Bloom Baking Company. This family shows great potential, and I believe it is in our Nation's best interest to allow them to remain here with their children and to continue making significant contributions to California and the Nation as a whole.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 16- year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because I believe her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety.

Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. Shirley applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States.

Shirley never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Shirley's attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Shirley did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically became a deportation order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody.

Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in U.S. immigration proceedings. Shirley later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney.

In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, Shirley's deportation would be a serious hardship to her two United States citizen children, Jashley and Joreine, who are minors.

Jashley and Joreine are currently attending Terra Nova High School in Pacifica, California, where they continue to be excellent students on the honor roll. The children are involved in their school's music program, playing the clarinet and the flute. The children's teacher wrote a letter to me in which she described Shirley's involvement in Jashley and Joreine's lives, referring to Shirley as a ``model'' parent and describing her active role in the school community. In addition to caring for her two children, Shirley is the primary caregiver for her elderly mother-in-law.

If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with Shirley to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joreine would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States.

While Shirley and Jay are legally married under California law at this time, Shirley cannot legally adjust her immigration status through the regular family-based immigration procedures.

I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships.

Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Shirley has the support of dozens of members of her community who shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my distinguished colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Relief Prohibition Act.

Specifically, the bill prohibits the Interior Department from waiving royalty payments due to American taxpayers as compensation for the oil industry's exploitation of Federal oil and gas resources in waters exceeding 400 meters of depth.

It is necessary because Congress has established a number of royalty- relief programs for oil and gas production in our deepest Federal waters.

However, as the BP Deep water Horizon catastrophe showed, encouraging this most dangerous and often dirty form of oil drilling is not in the public interest.

The disastrous impacts of the Deepwater Horizon explosion illustrate the enormous environmental and safety risks of offshore drilling-- particularly in deep waters. 11 people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. 5 million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico.

It took 9,700 vessels, 127 aircraft, 47,829 people, nearly 2 million gallons of toxic dispersants, and 89 days to plug the well and stop the flow of oil. And the scope of the disaster was tremendous. Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, forcing the closing of 40 percent of Gulf waters to all commercial and recreational fishing. Pelicans and other wildlife struggled to free themselves from crude oil. Wildlife responders collected 8,183 birds, 1,144 sea turtles, and 109 marine mammals killed or negatively affected by the spill. Many more perished and sank to the ocean depths without detection.

More than 650 miles of Gulf coastal habitats--including salt marshes, mudflats, mangroves, and sand beaches--were oiled. Tar balls spoiled the pristine white sand beaches of Florida, while wetlands were coated with toxic sludge. Oyster beds could take years to recover.

The plumes of underwater oil created zones of toxicity for aquatic life. Recent studies have determined the BP spill was ``definitely linked'' to ``widespread signs of distress'' and the slow death of deepwater coral within seven miles of the blowout site.

The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences to both wildlife and the spill response workers. A recent report asserts that the mixture of toxic dispersants and crude oil has now weathered into tar product, and that the ``unholy mix'' is allowing potentially carcinogenic concentrations of organic pollutants to remain in the environment.

The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that this is not an area in which we should be subsidizing development.

In 1969, off Santa Barbara, California, a natural gas blowout caused an unprecedented oil spill.

The drilling technology 40 years ago was not able to prevent a disaster, nor could it stop the flow of oil, which went on for more than 11 days. Unfortunately, today's technology also cannot prevent well-head blowouts or quickly stop the flow of oil.

The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was less than 10 years old when it caused a devastating blow out. A similar rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was even newer, designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.

The failures that led to these catastrophes were human and technological. But they demonstrate that we are a long way from spill- free offshore oil and gas production technology.

In deep waters, the risks are higher and the scope of the damage even greater, because drilling in deep water presents even more challenges than drilling in shallow water or on shore. This was demonstrated during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood

of these crystals forming increases dramatically at a depth of about 400 meters. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, which failed to stop the oil in the early days of the spill.

When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.

In order to drill at deeper depths, many technical difficulties must be overcome. The ocean currents on the surface and in the water column exert torque pressure on the pipes and cables, which are longer and heavier.

The water temperature decreases closer to the sea floor, but the temperature of the ground under the ocean increases the deeper the well--sometimes reaching temperatures in excess of 350 degrees Fahrenheit.

The ocean pressure increases dramatically at depth, but the pressure in a well can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch.

Drills must be able to pass through tar and salts, and the well bores must remain intact.

The volume of drilling mud and fluids is greater, the weight of the cables heavier, and many technical procedures can only be accomplished with the use of remotely operated vehicles thousands of feet below the surface.

American taxpayers should not forego revenue in order to incentivize offshore drilling at these dangerous depths. It is not good environmental policy, and it's not good energy policy either. We need to move to cleaner renewable fuels.

I believe that global warming presents a serious environmental and economic threat--and scientists agree that the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and coal.

Taxpayer-funded incentives should be utilized to develop and deploy clean energy technologies that address this crisis, instead of encouraging the fossil fuels at the root of the problem through oil and gas royalty relief.

Congress has worked to move in this direction. In 2007, we passed the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act which will raise fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles to 54 miles per gallon by 2025.

Over the past four years, renewable energy generation in the United States has more than doubled--due in large part to Federal tax incentives, financing mechanisms, and a vastly improved permitting process. In 2012, a whopping 44 percent of new electric generating capacity added to the grid was wind power.

The Federal government is helping the United States adopt a cleaner energy future.

Royalty relief for dangerous oil and gas development, however, is not advancing this goal.

Let me make one final point: oil companies--the primary recipients of royalty relief--do not need taxpayer help. They are already reaping record profits.

Higher gasoline prices are causing families pain at the pump, but they are a boon to the world's five largest oil companies. BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell made a combined $118 billion in profits in 2012, or an average of almost $500 for each car in America.

Moreover, the big three publicly owned U.S. oil companies-- ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips paid effective federal tax rates in 2011 of 13 percent; 19 percent; and 18 percent respectively. Yet we continue to use taxpayer dollars to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.

Oil reserves under Federal waters are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should also benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment that I have filed, along with Vice Chairman Chambliss, to the appropriations bill now on the floor, which will address a unique problem the intelligence community faces in applying the sequester reductions to the National Intelligence Program, NIP, budget.

In short, this amendment would ensure that the intelligence community--which has to be as predictive and agile as possible--will have the same level of flexibility in implementing budget cuts as the Department of Defense, where most of its budget is located. Without this relief, the intelligence community will be far less discriminating in how it adjusts personnel and financial resources to address the dynamic and unforeseen threats our Nation will face in the upcoming months.

This is a commonsense amendment. It does not cost a dime, and it will likely avoid a great deal of harm to our intelligence capabilities.

Let me briefly describe the background and how the amendment would work.

As has been described many times, the terms of the sequestration require that the same level of budget cuts apply across the board. That is, departments and agencies have to apply the same percentage cut across each account.

It therefore becomes very important how those accounts are defined. If the account is very large, a manager has more leeway to prioritize funding and cut the least important, or the least urgent, needs. By contrast, if the account is defined as being smaller, there is less flexibility to cut funding responsibly, and more important programs will suffer.

Because of language included in the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations Act, however, the intelligence community must apply the sequester in a highly restrictive way. That legislation required that the definition of an account for sequestration in the intelligence community is at something known as the Programs, Projects, and Activities--known as PPA--level. The intelligence community's budget has 685 PPAs, and each will need to be cut equally. The most problematic of these PPAs for the intelligence agencies are the 354 PPAs within the intelligence agencies' Operations and Maintenance, O&M, accounts. These are the accounts which fund current operations and salaries.

The overall Department of Defense budget is roughly 10 times that of the intelligence community, but it has only 3 times more PPAs--in other words, it has relatively fewer accounts that are affected by sequestration, and thus greater flexibility to absorb the sequester cuts, since they can be applied within larger budget accounts.

This amendment would help alleviate this problem by permitting the agencies in the intelligence community that are funded by the Defense Appropriations bill to use the same definition of what constitutes a Program, Project, and Activity Account as the Defense Department when applying sequestration reductions to its O&M accounts. This specific change will reduce the number of these PPAs from 354 to 5 and will not affect other PPAs. No budget outside of the intelligence community is affected--we simply provide these intelligence agencies with the same level of flexibility as the Pentagon.

In times like today, where the threats are neither static nor predictable, I ask that my colleagues approve this amendment so that the intelligence community may be nimble and responsive to the dangers our Nation faces.

This is not a simple budgetary matter. How the cuts of sequestration are applied makes a great deal of difference in practical terms.

Just yesterday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other intelligence agency heads testified at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's hearing on Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States. They described the numerous, complex, and interrelated threats we face. Director Clapper noted

``how quickly and radically the world--and our threat environment--are changing.'' He stated there is an increasing risk to U.S. critical infrastructure from cyber attacks, in particular from isolated state or non-state actors using less sophisticated but still effective techniques that are more prevalent today. I ask unanimous consent that an excerpt from this transcript be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The terrorist threat continues to become more diffuse since the al- Qa'ida core leadership has been degraded and its affiliates in the Arabian Peninsula and Africa look to fill that void and strike against the United States. Countries like Iran and North Korea continue their efforts to develop ever more deadly weapons of mass destruction, and look to market them to counter their failing economies. And, the instability in the Middle East and North Africa that has grown since the Arab spring continues to create more dangers and potential flashpoints in countries that 3 years ago were not assessed to have such risks.

In the past 6 months, it has been clear that the intelligence community needs to surge additional resources to collect and analyze intelligence on Northern Africa. Our policymakers need more and better information to deal with instability and terrorist activities in Libya, Mali, and Algeria. Under sequestration, however, agencies would be limited to do so. The same needs apply to address threats that emanate from Iran, North Korea, Syria, and cyberspace, to name just a few.

There is no doubt that the intelligence community can reduce spending and contribute to the Governmentwide reductions. But to strip it of all flexibility to cut programs and personnel across the board makes no sense.

If our intelligence agencies are to absorb the cuts required by sequestration, our Nation's security would be better served by providing the intelligence community with the flexibility it needs to implement cuts in as responsible and thoughtful way under these circumstances.

The changes my amendment seeks are necessary to help the intelligence community adapt to a changing world as the sequestration reductions are implemented. I understand there may be concerns with how the other chamber will view this amendment, but I believe that our counterparts on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger--support making these changes to help intelligence agencies succeed in their mission.

Finally, Mr. President, let me make clear that this amendment is intended, and I believe does, have no effect on the visibility that Congress has in how the intelligence community will make budget reductions due to sequestration or with how these agencies reprogram funds. The only thing affected by the amendment is the size of the accounts from which sequestered funds must be taken.

On behalf of myself and Vice Chairman Chambliss, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life, legacy and service of Zora Brown. Zora, who passed away March 3, 2013 at the age of 63, was a forceful advocate for cancer research and breast cancer awareness. As a three-time breast and ovarian cancer survivor, Ms. Brown turned her experience into a lifetime of tireless work to help others affected by cancer.

I had the honor and pleasure of meeting Zora last summer when she participated in a Senate Cancer Coalition forum focused on breast cancer. At the forum, she spoke poignantly and clearly about the impact of breast and ovarian cancer on her family, and on the African-American community. Zora's message was not one of despair, but rather one of hope and perseverance. She compared her own experience with cancer to that of her grandmother and great-grandmother, and highlighted how recent advances in cancer research gave her knowledge and treatment options that the other women in her family never had.

Throughout her career, Zora founded and was associated with countless organizations dedicated to the fight against cancer. After her first diagnosis with breast cancer in 1981, Zora founded the Breast Cancer Resource Committee, an organization dedicated to lowering the breast cancer mortality rate among African Americans. She later founded and served as Chairperson of Cancer Awareness Program Services, CAPS, providing comprehensive educational and prevention programs focusing on cancers affecting women. In 1991, President Bush appointed her to the National Cancer Advisory Board of the National Cancer Institute, which helps steer the institute's policy. She served on the board until 1998. Due in part to Zora's influence and persistent advocacy, Congress appropriated $500,000 for breast and cervical screening for low-income, uninsured inner city women. In addition, she has been a part of the American Association for Cancer Research, the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Cancer Awareness Campaign, and the Board of Health in her hometown of Oklahoma City.

With Zora's passing we have lost a great leader and advocate in the fight against cancer. Her passion, grace, and ability to connect with others were

qualities that made a lasting impact. It is now up to all of us to carry on her legacy and work toward our shared dream of conquering cancer for everyone. It was an honor to spend time with her and hear through her eloquent words and fighting spirit how cancer touched her life and how she chose to use her personal experience to make a true difference in our world. My heartfelt condolences go out to her family and loved ones.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a 20-year veteran of the Judiciary Committee and the first woman to serve on that committee it is my great pleasure to support Ms. Halligan's nomination.

Ms. Halligan has excelled at every turn in her career. She graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1988. She received her law degree, magna cum laude, from Georgetown, where she was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal and inducted into the Order of the Coif.

She began her legal career with a clerkship with Judge Patricia Wald on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the first woman to serve on the D.C. Circuit.

She then spent a year in private practice at the Washington, DC firm Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, after which she clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. After another year in private practice, Ms. Halligan entered public service. She went to the Attorney General's Office in the State of New York, first as Chief of the Internet Bureau.

She rose to become First Deputy Solicitor General and ultimately Solicitor General of the State of New York, the State's top appellate lawyer. During nearly all of Ms. Halligan's time as Solicitor General, George Pataki--a Republican--was Governor. Her job was to represent the State of New York zealously, and by all accounts she did so with skill and dignity.

Judith Kaye, the former Chief Judge of New York's highest court, writes on behalf of the court's entire bench that ``it was invariably a treat'' to have Ms. Halligan argue before the court.

In fact, the National Association of Attorneys General awarded her the

``Best Brief Award'' on numerous occasions, including consecutive awards in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

In 2007, she went into private practice to lead the appellate practice at the prestigious New York firm Weil, Gotshal, and Manges.

She returned to public service in 2010 as the General Counsel of the New York County District Attorney's Office, where she has served for the past 3 years. This office is one of the most distinguished prosecutorial offices in the Nation, and it handles more than 100,000 criminal prosecutions each year.

Because of her strong background in law enforcement in the State of New York, her nomination enjoys the support of major law enforcement groups, including:

The National District Attorney's Association;

The National Center for Women and Policing;

The New York Association of Chiefs of Police;

The New York State Sheriff's Association; and

New York Women in Law Enforcement.

She also enjoys the support of many law enforcement officials from New York, including New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, and numerous other County District Attorneys across the State.

Over the course of her distinguished career, she has served as counsel for a party or amicus in the Supreme Court more than 45 times. She has argued in the Supreme Court herself in five cases, most recently in March 2011. She also has argued or participated in dozens of other appeals in State and Federal courts.

In short, Ms. Halligan is an accomplished woman whose sterling qualifications are unassailable. She clearly deserves the ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association she has received-- the ABA's highest rating.

Unfortunately, Ms. Halligan's nomination has been pending for a very long time. She was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit in September 2010, 29 months ago. The seat to which she has been nominated has been vacant since 2005, when Chief Justice Roberts was elevated.

Last Congress, my Republican colleagues filibustered her nomination, something that I found to be without cause or rationale. I am very hopeful that, in this Congress, reasonable minds will prevail, and we will invoke cloture and confirm Ms. Halligan.

I understand that the National Rifle Association is opposed to Ms. Halligan's confirmation. Behind the NRA's opposition is the fact that-- while Halligan was New York's Solicitor General, acting at the direction of her superiors--the State pursued public nuisance litigation against gun manufacturers.

Think about that: if this standard prevails, any time a person represents a State or local government, or the Federal Government, and represents that government on a controversial issue at the direction of its duly-elected leaders, that may jeopardize a later confirmation vote.

That is not fair. A government lawyer's job is to pursue the government's interest vigorously and to do justice, and that is what Caitlin Halligan has done. She was appointed by the Attorney General to represent the State of New York, while the State had a Republican Governor, George Pataki. Her job was to advance New York's interest, and she did so with vigor at the direction of her superiors. She should not be penalized for it.

Senator Sessions made this point when the Senate was considering the nomination of now-Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit. Senator Sessions said that ``[s]uggesting that service in an elective branch of Government somehow tarnishes a lawyer's reputation would be a terrible message for this body to send to the legal community and to all citizens.''

My colleagues will recall that Judge Kavanaugh had quite an activist record from our side's perspective: he had worked on the Starr Report, which recommended grounds of impeachment of President Clinton; he had worked for George W. Bush during the Florida recount; he then worked in the White House Counsel's office under President George W. Bush.

In short, while Kavanaugh may have been a fine lawyer, he had an undoubted Republican political pedigree. Yet I carefully considered his background, and I voted to invoke cloture on his nomination, as did many of my Democratic colleagues. Now it is time for our Republican colleagues to do the same on this nomination.

Last Congress, some of my Republican colleagues argued that the D.C. Circuit's caseload does not justify confirming another judge to the Court.

The D.C. Circuit has 11 judgeships. Four of them are vacant now--more than a third of the court--and three other judges are currently eligible to go senior, so the D.C. Circuit could soon have only four of its 11 seats filled.

When my colleagues raised caseload-based objections to Halligan's nomination last Congress, I reminded them that, during the George W. Bush Administration, they voted to fill the 10th seat on the D.C. Circuit twice and the 11th seat once. If confirmed, Halligan would only fill the eighth seat.

In addition, the D.C. Circuit's caseload per judge has grown substantially just in the last few years. The total number of cases terminated per active judge has grown to 280 up from 184 in 2010. That's more than a 50 percent increase. Similarly, the number of appeals at the Court pending per active judge has also spiked. It was 157 in 2008. Today, it is 203 so it is up by a third.

This hurts ordinary Americans. Most of the time, the cases heard by the D.C. Circuit are not partisan or ideological. But they are critical to making sure that Federal regulation in almost every area operates predictably and rationally.

As Former Judge Patricia Wald recently wrote in the Washington Post:

The D.C. Circuit hears the most complex, time-consuming, labyrinthine disputes over regulations with the greatest impact on ordinary Americans' lives: clean air and water regulations, nuclear plant safety, health-care reform issues, insider trading and more. These cases can require thousands of hours of preparation by the judges, often consuming days of argument, involving hundreds of parties and interveners, and necessitating dozens of briefs and thousands of pages of record--all of which culminates in lengthy, technically intricate legal opinions.

Moreover, President Obama has been the only President in nearly four decades not to have a confirmed appointment to the D.C. Circuit. President Ford was the last such President, but there were no vacancies during his Administration, and every other President since Warren Harding, over 90 years ago, had an appointment to this court. I fear my Republican colleagues are treating President Obama differently from other Presidents in this regard.

I will conclude by simply saying that Ms. Halligan is a woman with sterling credentials, an exemplary record, and a wealth of experience. She has been nominated to a vital court that badly needs her service. I believe she should be confirmed, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and for confirmation.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.

This bill sets forth what I believe is a very reasonable, moderate standard for where tribes are allowed to open gaming establishments.

The standard is simple: a tribe must demonstrate that it has a modern and an aboriginal connection to the land before it can open a gaming establishment on it.

The new standard is needed because too many tribes in California and across the nation are ``reservation shopping''. They look for a profitable casino location, and then seek to put that land in trust regardless of their historical ties to the area.

To be clear, most tribes do not fit this mold. Most play by the rules and acquire land in appropriate locations.

But as wealthy Las Vegas casino interests search for ways to expand their gaming syndicates, the problem is getting worse. These syndicates have no interest in preserving native cultures and they have little interest in pursuing other forms of economic development; so they also have little interest in limiting casinos to bone fide historical tribal lands.

The tragic part is that these casinos are going up despite objections from communities and other Native American tribes. That is why I am introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.

This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions before taking land into trust for gaming:

First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern connection to the land.''

Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land.''

Simply put, tribes must show that both they, and their ancestors, have a connection to the land in question.

California voters thought they settled the question of reservation shopping in 2000 when Proposition 1A authorized the Governor to negotiate gambling compacts with tribes, provided that gaming only occurred ``on Indian lands.''

The words ``on Indian lands'' were critical. This made clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote.

But fast-forward 12 years and this agreement is being put to the test. More than 100 new Las Vegas style casinos have opened in the State in the last 12 years.

Unfortunately things aren't slowing down; the Department of the Interior has approved three extremely controversial new casinos just last year, some nowhere near the tribe's aboriginal territory or current reservation.

When given the opportunity voters have rejected the idea of reservation shopping. Two years ago in Richmond, CA, a tribe proposed taking land into trust at Point Molate to open a 4,000-slot-machine mega-casino. Proponents touted it as a major economic engine for a depressed area.

But the voters of Richmond knew the reality was far different. The project threatened to burden state and local government services, and it threatened to irreparably change the character of the community.

So Richmond voters made it clear how they felt by overwhelmingly rejecting the advisory measure by a margin of 58 to 42. Voters also elected two new city council members who strongly opposed the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this reservation shopping proposal.

Fortunately the Department of the Interior rejected the misguided Point Molate proposal. But voters in Yuba County were not so lucky.

In 2005, Yuba County voters had an opportunity to weigh in on a casino in this mostly rural and suburban Northern California community. By a margin of 52-48, voters rejected the proposal. Many cited concerns about crime as a reason they opposed the project.

But after the dust settled, the Department of the Interior decided to move forward with the project anyway. Despite the fact that voters rejected it and only one of the 21 public officials in the area polled on the issue expressed support for the project.

Moreover, the Department's claim that even one local official supported the project is dubious. The so-called support is based on a Memorandum of Understanding the County entered into prior to the advisory election. The county never offered a letter of support when consulted and still has not to this day.

As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos, with the promises of hundreds of construction jobs, can be strong.

But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion.

Some Indian gaming proponents and their out of state gaming syndicate backers would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.

But a 2006 report, titled Gambling in the Golden State, paints a different picture. The report compiled a comprehensive body of research on the effects of casinos on their surrounding communities. The results were staggering.

New casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates.

New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement expenditures of $15.34 per resident.

California spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem- gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian casinos as their primary gambling preference.

The report confirms what many local elected officials and community activists already know: casinos come at a tremendous cost.

Some have tried to mischaracterize my legislation. They have said it limits the sovereignty of tribes or it destroys the ability to undertake economic development.

But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The bill preserves the right of tribes to acquire trust land in any location, provided they secure the approval of the Governor and meet the strict two-part determination standards.

The bill puts no limits on where a tribe can acquire land for any purpose other than gaming.

Because the fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately placed, on historical tribal lands, and there is no need to argue about the legitimacy of these establishments.

My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, we have made great strides in improving the accountability of health insurance companies and protecting consumers from egregious practices. However, despite the progress we have made, many States still lack the ability to regulate excessive health insurance rate increases.

Health insurance premiums in the individual and small group market continue to grow beyond the rate of medical inflation. The Affordable Care Act has brought greater scrutiny to the market and we've seen some great progress. In fact, the number of requested increases in health insurance premiums beyond 10 percent comprised 75 percent of rate filings in 2010, and that has declined to 34 percent in 2012. This is a large step forward but without closing the remaining loophole not all consumers will be able to benefit from protection from unreasonable rate increases. Health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people. Rapidly escalating insurance costs strain businesses, families, and individuals.

Currently, 15 States still have little or no authority to block or modify unreasonable rate increases in the individual and small group markets. This means that even when the state's insurance regulators find a rate increase to be excessive, they do not have the ability to block or modify the increase. The Health Insurance Rate Review Act creates a Federal fallback for States currently lacking this authority. This will create parity across the country and give greater consistency of review and accountability for insurance companies seeking to raise rates beyond what is reasonable.

This legislation is a simple, commonsense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or use authority to block unreasonable rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so.

Affordability is vital to insuring access to quality health care. A 2010 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found

that 70 percent of people with a health problem found it difficult or impossible to find affordable coverage on the individual market. This problem goes beyond the increased cost of overall medical care. From the year 2000 to 2010, average premiums for family coverage increased by 117 percent, compared to medical inflation which rose close to 49 percent.

Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, increasing around three times faster than wages are. This means that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education. This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.

The Affordable Care Act made important steps forward in defining the rate review process and making rate increases and reviews public information. This has improved transparency but falls short of creating a strong rate review system in all States, and relies too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior every time they should.

I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in states that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review.

In some States, like California, companies are not required to go through prior approval before rate increases go into effect. This means that when the California Insurance Commissioner finds rate increases to be unreasonable and excessive, he has no authority to actually stop or modify the increases to consumers. California is facing double digit rate hikes again this year and this legislation would help prevent such excessive increases.

Earlier this year the California Insurance Commissioner found a rate increase by Anthem Blue Cross to be unreasonable and the company decided to proceed anyway. This affected around 250,000 small business policy holders who saw an increase of around 10.6 percent, and when combined with previous increases the average rate hike over two years reaches 19.5 percent.

In 2012, proposed rate increases across nine States by the John Alden Life Insurance Company and Time Insurance Company were found to be unreasonable but went forward anyway. These increases varied from a 12 percent increase in Louisiana to a 24 percent increase in Wisconsin. These increases in the individual and small group market also affected Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Virginia, and Wyoming.

In some States, insurance commissioners already have this authority and are using it to protect consumers. This bill doesn't touch what they are doing.

In New York, because state regulators have the authority to modify rates, the average individual market increase for 2013 is four and a half percent instead of the initial request of a nine and a half percent increase.

In 2011, the Connecticut Insurance Department found an increase of nearly 13 percent by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield to be excessive, and approved a four percent increase instead.

Also in 2011, some North Dakota consumers on the individual health insurance market were facing a nearly 30 percent increase before state regulators stepped in and decreased the proposed hikes by almost half.

I strongly believe that we need to take action to strengthen the law so all consumers get the protection of effective health insurance rate review. I appreciate working with Representative Schakowsky, who is sponsoring the House companion bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Health Insurance Rate Review Act to stand up for American families struggling to pay for health coverage. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.

This bill sets forth what I believe is a very reasonable, moderate standard for where tribes are allowed to open gaming establishments.

The standard is simple: a tribe must demonstrate that it has a modern and an aboriginal connection to the land before it can open a gaming establishment on it.

The new standard is needed because too many tribes in California and across the nation are ``reservation shopping''. They look for a profitable casino location, and then seek to put that land in trust regardless of their historical ties to the area.

To be clear, most tribes do not fit this mold. Most play by the rules and acquire land in appropriate locations.

But as wealthy Las Vegas casino interests search for ways to expand their gaming syndicates, the problem is getting worse. These syndicates have no interest in preserving native cultures and they have little interest in pursuing other forms of economic development; so they also have little interest in limiting casinos to bone fide historical tribal lands.

The tragic part is that these casinos are going up despite objections from communities and other Native American tribes. That is why I am introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.

This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions before taking land into trust for gaming:

First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern connection to the land.''

Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land.''

Simply put, tribes must show that both they, and their ancestors, have a connection to the land in question.

California voters thought they settled the question of reservation shopping in 2000 when Proposition 1A authorized the Governor to negotiate gambling compacts with tribes, provided that gaming only occurred ``on Indian lands.''

The words ``on Indian lands'' were critical. This made clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote.

But fast-forward 12 years and this agreement is being put to the test. More than 100 new Las Vegas style casinos have opened in the State in the last 12 years.

Unfortunately things aren't slowing down; the Department of the Interior has approved three extremely controversial new casinos just last year, some nowhere near the tribe's aboriginal territory or current reservation.

When given the opportunity voters have rejected the idea of reservation shopping. Two years ago in Richmond, CA, a tribe proposed taking land into trust at Point Molate to open a 4,000-slot-machine mega-casino. Proponents touted it as a major economic engine for a depressed area.

But the voters of Richmond knew the reality was far different. The project threatened to burden state and local government services, and it threatened to irreparably change the character of the community.

So Richmond voters made it clear how they felt by overwhelmingly rejecting the advisory measure by a margin of 58 to 42. Voters also elected two new city council members who strongly opposed the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this reservation shopping proposal.

Fortunately the Department of the Interior rejected the misguided Point Molate proposal. But voters in Yuba County were not so lucky.

In 2005, Yuba County voters had an opportunity to weigh in on a casino in this mostly rural and suburban Northern California community. By a margin of 52-48, voters rejected the proposal. Many cited concerns about crime as a reason they opposed the project.

But after the dust settled, the Department of the Interior decided to move forward with the project anyway. Despite the fact that voters rejected it and only one of the 21 public officials in the area polled on the issue expressed support for the project.

Moreover, the Department's claim that even one local official supported the project is dubious. The so-called support is based on a Memorandum of Understanding the County entered into prior to the advisory election. The county never offered a letter of support when consulted and still has not to this day.

As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos, with the promises of hundreds of construction jobs, can be strong.

But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion.

Some Indian gaming proponents and their out of state gaming syndicate backers would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.

But a 2006 report, titled Gambling in the Golden State, paints a different picture. The report compiled a comprehensive body of research on the effects of casinos on their surrounding communities. The results were staggering.

New casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates.

New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement expenditures of $15.34 per resident.

California spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem- gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian casinos as their primary gambling preference.

The report confirms what many local elected officials and community activists already know: casinos come at a tremendous cost.

Some have tried to mischaracterize my legislation. They have said it limits the sovereignty of tribes or it destroys the ability to undertake economic development.

But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The bill preserves the right of tribes to acquire trust land in any location, provided they secure the approval of the Governor and meet the strict two-part determination standards.

The bill puts no limits on where a tribe can acquire land for any purpose other than gaming.

Because the fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately placed, on historical tribal lands, and there is no need to argue about the legitimacy of these establishments.

My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, we have made great strides in improving the accountability of health insurance companies and protecting consumers from egregious practices. However, despite the progress we have made, many States still lack the ability to regulate excessive health insurance rate increases.

Health insurance premiums in the individual and small group market continue to grow beyond the rate of medical inflation. The Affordable Care Act has brought greater scrutiny to the market and we've seen some great progress. In fact, the number of requested increases in health insurance premiums beyond 10 percent comprised 75 percent of rate filings in 2010, and that has declined to 34 percent in 2012. This is a large step forward but without closing the remaining loophole not all consumers will be able to benefit from protection from unreasonable rate increases. Health insurance companies will continue to do what they have done for far too long: put their profits ahead of people. Rapidly escalating insurance costs strain businesses, families, and individuals.

Currently, 15 States still have little or no authority to block or modify unreasonable rate increases in the individual and small group markets. This means that even when the state's insurance regulators find a rate increase to be excessive, they do not have the ability to block or modify the increase. The Health Insurance Rate Review Act creates a Federal fallback for States currently lacking this authority. This will create parity across the country and give greater consistency of review and accountability for insurance companies seeking to raise rates beyond what is reasonable.

This legislation is a simple, commonsense solution: for States where the insurance commissioner does not have or use authority to block unreasonable rate increases, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can do so.

Affordability is vital to insuring access to quality health care. A 2010 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found

that 70 percent of people with a health problem found it difficult or impossible to find affordable coverage on the individual market. This problem goes beyond the increased cost of overall medical care. From the year 2000 to 2010, average premiums for family coverage increased by 117 percent, compared to medical inflation which rose close to 49 percent.

Insurance premiums make up a higher percentage of household income than ever before, increasing around three times faster than wages are. This means that more and more families have to choose between health care and daily living expenses, saving for retirement, and education. This is unacceptable, and more must be done to protect consumers.

The Affordable Care Act made important steps forward in defining the rate review process and making rate increases and reviews public information. This has improved transparency but falls short of creating a strong rate review system in all States, and relies too heavily on the notion that public disclosure of rates will cause insurance companies to change their behavior every time they should.

I believe there needs to be a Federal fallback in states that lack the legal authority, capacity, or resources to conduct strong rate review.

In some States, like California, companies are not required to go through prior approval before rate increases go into effect. This means that when the California Insurance Commissioner finds rate increases to be unreasonable and excessive, he has no authority to actually stop or modify the increases to consumers. California is facing double digit rate hikes again this year and this legislation would help prevent such excessive increases.

Earlier this year the California Insurance Commissioner found a rate increase by Anthem Blue Cross to be unreasonable and the company decided to proceed anyway. This affected around 250,000 small business policy holders who saw an increase of around 10.6 percent, and when combined with previous increases the average rate hike over two years reaches 19.5 percent.

In 2012, proposed rate increases across nine States by the John Alden Life Insurance Company and Time Insurance Company were found to be unreasonable but went forward anyway. These increases varied from a 12 percent increase in Louisiana to a 24 percent increase in Wisconsin. These increases in the individual and small group market also affected Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Virginia, and Wyoming.

In some States, insurance commissioners already have this authority and are using it to protect consumers. This bill doesn't touch what they are doing.

In New York, because state regulators have the authority to modify rates, the average individual market increase for 2013 is four and a half percent instead of the initial request of a nine and a half percent increase.

In 2011, the Connecticut Insurance Department found an increase of nearly 13 percent by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield to be excessive, and approved a four percent increase instead.

Also in 2011, some North Dakota consumers on the individual health insurance market were facing a nearly 30 percent increase before state regulators stepped in and decreased the proposed hikes by almost half.

I strongly believe that we need to take action to strengthen the law so all consumers get the protection of effective health insurance rate review. I appreciate working with Representative Schakowsky, who is sponsoring the House companion bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Health Insurance Rate Review Act to stand up for American families struggling to pay for health coverage. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a half mile radius.

But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.

Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air- dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.

In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One resident told Human Rights Watch:

On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several

smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north

of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big

[bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not

detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded.

There were small holes in the ground. The holes were

dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.

Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.

Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.

One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I

saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the

streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I

saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his right arm.

Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded bomblet.

Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.

Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.

However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their use.

In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than one percent failure rate.

That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.

So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster bombs with high failure rates.

How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?

While we wait, the international community has taken action.

On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years-- formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 77 countries.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.

But it does not include the United States.

The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

This is unacceptable.

Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more years.

That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should take another look at this policy.

In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.

On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.

The administration should complete this review without delay.

Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well- known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?

What does that say about us?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own

policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action until 2018.

If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the books.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high failure rates to our own arsenal.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common- sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect opportunity to exercise it.

Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath Souliyalat.

Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.

The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine, until his 16th birthday.

Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.

According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one- third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one percent of that area has been cleared.

Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians that the United States did not intend to target.

After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We have to do more.''

I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.

As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Nepal has a per capita income of $540.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $3 a day.

Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.

Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels signed a peace accord.

Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution.

Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a new constitution.

Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.

In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on garment imports were removed.

This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers with cheaper labor markets.

The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 and 10,000.

Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 million in 2011.

The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.

The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 21 percent.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot afford it. This makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal.

But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.

Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.

But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.

By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of living for the Nepalese people.

Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this legislation.

Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's poorest countries.

This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of their citizens living on less than $1 a day.

Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.

In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of U.S. tariffs.

Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.

Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.

So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent with our values?

Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the beneficiary countries in this bill.

Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope for millions of people struggling with poverty.

But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.

This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and

ensuring that we help all of those in need.

In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.

Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.

Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.

Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that hold out the best hope for export growth.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their own two feet.

We will also help ourselves.

First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.

This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own country.

But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference programs for these countries.

We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.

Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for terror.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific countries is far less than any military intervention.

We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume a larger role and contribute more effectively.

When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance helps.

Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more options.

It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on apparel imports.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific countries.

Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about this bill.

First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the absence of rule of law.

Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference program?

Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our efforts will fail.

Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on domestic manufacturers.

If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American consumer. We should seize this opportunity.

I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this important initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster munitions. It prevents any funds from being spent to use cluster munitions that have a failure rate of more than one percent.

In addition, the rules of engagement must specify that the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets; and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

Our legislation also includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

However, if the President decides to waive the prohibition, he must issue a report to Congress within 30 days on the failure rate of the cluster munitions used and the steps taken to protect innocent civilians.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop and armor formations spread over a half mile radius.

But, in reality, they pose a deadly threat to innocent civilians.

In Afghanistan, between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians lost their lives due to cluster munitions, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed by cluster munitions since 1991.

During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israeli cluster munitions, many of them manufactured in the U.S., injured and killed 343 civilians.

Sadly, Syria is just the latest example.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Syrian military has used air- dropped and ground-based cluster munitions near or in civilian areas.

In October, residents of Taftanaz and Tamane reported that helicopters dropped cluster munitions on or near their towns. One resident told Human Rights Watch:

On October 9, I heard a big explosion followed by several

smaller ones coming from Shelakh field located at the north

of Taftanaz. We went to see what happened. We saw a big

[bomb] cut in half and several [bomblets] that were not

detonated. I personally found one that was not exploded.

There were small holes in the ground. The holes were

dispersed and spread over 300 meters.

Another resident reported that an air-dropped cluster munitions released bomblets that landed between two neighboring schools.

Last month, Human Rights Watch issued another report that Syrian forces used ``notoriously indiscriminate'' ground-based cluster munitions near Idlib and Latamenh, a town near Hama.

Not surprisingly, the residents of these towns also reported that many of the bomblets were dispersed over a wide area, failed to explode, and killed or maimed innocent civilians.

One resident of Latamneh told Human Rights Watch:

I heard a big explosion followed by smaller ones. . . . I

saw wounded people everywhere and small bombs covering the

streets. The damage caused to the buildings was minimal. I

saw a lot of unexploded bomblets.

One civilian was killed during the attack and 15 more, including women and children, were wounded. Another civilian was later killed by an unexploded bomblet. One video shows a baby with shrapnel along his right arm.

Videos taken after the incident also show that the civilians who came across the munitions were unaware of the deadly power of an unexploded bomblet.

Men, and even children, can be seen handling these weapons as if they were toys or simply souvenirs from the war.

Now, the United States has rightly condemned the Syrian military's use of cluster munitions against innocent civilians.

However, our moral leadership is hampered by the fact that we continue to maintain such a large arsenal of these deadly weapons and our continued resistance to international efforts to restrict their use.

In fact, the United States maintains an estimated 5.5 million cluster munitions containing 728 million submunitions. These bomblets have an estimated failure rate of between 5 and 15 percent.

According to the most recent data, only 30,900 of these 728 million submunitions have self-destruct devices that would ensure a less than one percent failure rate.

That accounts for only 0.00004 percent of the U.S. arsenal.

So, the technology exists for the U.S. to meet the one percent standard, but our arsenal still overwhelmingly consists of cluster bombs with high failure rates.

How then, do we convince Syria not to use these deadly weapons?

While we wait, the international community has taken action.

On August 1, 2010, the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions--which would prohibit the production, use, and export of cluster munitions and requires signatories to eliminate their arsenals within eight years-- formally came into force. To date, it has been signed by 111 countries and ratified by 77 countries.

This group includes key NATO allies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, who are fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan.

It includes 33 countries that have produced or used cluster bombs.

But it does not include the United States.

The United States chose not to participate in the Oslo process or sign the treaty.

This is unacceptable.

Instead, the Pentagon continues to assert that cluster munitions are ``legitimate weapons with clear military utility in combat.''

Recognizing that the United States could not remain silent in the face of widespread international efforts to restrict the use of cluster munitions, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a new policy on cluster munitions in June, 2008 stating that, after 2018, the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent would be prohibited.

This policy is a step in the right direction, but would still allow the Pentagon to use cluster bombs with high failure rates for five more years.

That runs counter to our values. I believe the administration should take another look at this policy.

In fact, on September 29, 2009, Senator Leahy and I were joined by 14 of our colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to conduct a thorough review of U.S. policy on cluster munitions.

On April 14, 2010, we received a response from then National Security Advisor Jim Jones stating that the administration will undertake this review following the policy review on U.S. landmines policy.

The administration should complete this review without delay.

Until then, we are still prepared to use these weapons with well- known failure rates and significant risks to innocent civilians?

What does that say about us?

The fact is, cluster munition technologies already exist that meet the one percent standard. Why do we need to wait until 2018?

This delay is especially troubling given that in 2001, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen issued his own

policy on cluster munitions stating that, beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster munitions must have a failure rate of less than one percent.

Unfortunately, the Pentagon was unable to meet this deadline and Secretary Gates' policy essentially postpones any meaningful action until 2018.

If we do nothing, close to twenty years will have passed since the Pentagon first recognized the threat these deadly weapons pose to innocent civilians.

We can do better.

First, it should be noted that in 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included a provision that prohibits the sale and transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent.

That ban has been renewed on an annual basis and remains on the books.

Our legislation simply moves up the Gates policy by five years and extends the ban on the sale and transfer of cluster munitions with high failure rates to our own arsenal.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned that it may be too soon to enact a ban on the use of cluster munitions with failure rates of more than 1 percent, I point out again that our bill allows the President to waive this restriction if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States to do so.

I would also remind my colleagues that the United States has not used cluster munitions in Iraq since 2003 and has observed a moratorium on their use in Afghanistan since 2002.

In conclusion, let me say that Senator Leahy and I remain as committed as ever to raising awareness about the threat posed by cluster munitions and to pushing the United States to enact common- sense measures to protect innocent civilians. This body constantly talks about America's moral leadership, and this is the perfect opportunity to exercise it.

Senator Leahy and I continue our efforts for people like Phongsavath Souliyalat.

Last year, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Laos and met Phongsavath, a 19-year old Lao man who lost his eyesight and his hands to a bomblet just three years before.

The bomblet that injured Phongsavath was dropped more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam War. It lay unexploded, a de facto landmine, until his 16th birthday.

Sadly, he is not alone. The U.S. dropped 270 million bomblets over Laos, and 30 percent failed to explode.

According to an article from the Los Angeles Times, civilians in one- third of Laos are threatened by unexploded ordinance, and only one percent of that area has been cleared.

Since the Vietnam War, more than 20,000 people have been killed or injured by these deadly weapons. All of them were innocent civilians that the United States did not intend to target.

After Phongsavath described the suffering of those who, like him, had been injured by unexploded bomblets, Secretary Clinton replied: ``We have to do more.''

I agree wholeheartedly. As a first step, Congress should pass the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free status to imports of Nepalese garments for a seven year period.

As a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 years, I believe this bill will promote economic prosperity and lasting political stability in one of the world's poorest countries.

Nepal has a per capita income of $540.

Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in poverty.

The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and most Nepalese live on $3 a day.

Nepal's poverty was also compounded by a devastating, 10-year Maoist insurgency which resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people.

Thankfully, on November 21, 2006 Nepal's government and Maoist rebels signed a peace accord.

Two years later, Nepal became a republic and a Constituent Assembly was elected to draft a new constitution.

Unfortunately, this momentum has stalled and Nepal remains without a new constitution.

Challenges persist for Nepal's economy.

In 2005, in accordance with an international agreement, all quotas on garment imports were removed.

This has had a devastating impact on Nepal's garment industry as U.S. importers have shifted their orders to China, India and other suppliers with cheaper labor markets.

The number of people employed by the Nepalese garment industry dropped from over 100,000 people--half of them women to between 5,000 and 10,000.

Garment exports fell from approximately $139 million in 2000 to $47 million in 2011.

The number of garment factories plummeted from 450 to 10.

The U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports dropped from 90 percent to 21 percent.

Despite Nepal's poverty and the collapse of the garment industry, Nepalese garments are still subject to an average U.S. tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.

In essence, we are penalizing an impoverished country which cannot afford it. This makes no sense.

I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.

The purpose of the Nepal Trade Preferences Act is to ensure that we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by other developed countries. No more, no less.

Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical components of our efforts to help Nepal.

But we should also help the Nepalese people help themselves and open the U.S. market to a once thriving export industry.

In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

The impact on the domestic industry will be minimal. At most, Nepalese garments have accounted for 0.26 percent of all garment imports in the United States generating $14 million in revenue.

Nepal will continue to be a small player in the U.S. market.

But to allay any concerns that Nepalese garments will somehow flood the market, this bill does place sensible restrictions on the amount of garments that will receive duty free status. That amount will rise every year up to a specific percentage of all U.S. garment imports.

By passing this legislation, we will help ensure that the garment industry will be a big player in contributing to Nepal's economic growth and development. This will be more jobs and a rising standard of living for the Nepalese people.

Let there be no doubt, it is my hope that this bill will also spur Nepal's political parties to come together, resolve their differences, and finalize a new constitution. Lasting political stability is essential if Nepal is to fully realize the economic benefits of this legislation.

Almost 7 years ago, the Nepalese people embraced peace and reconciliation. Let us show our solidarity with them and demonstrate our commitment to the success of the peace process by passing this commonsense measure.

I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Asia- South Pacific Trade Preferences Act of 2013, a bill to promote economic growth, democracy, and political stability in some of the world's poorest countries.

This legislation will provide duty-free and quota-free benefits for garments and other products similar to those afforded to beneficiary countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA.

The countries covered by this legislation are 13 Least Developed Countries, LDCs, as defined by the United Nations and the U.S. State Department, which are not covered by any current U.S. trade preference program: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, East Timor, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

These countries are among the poorest in the world with the bulk of their citizens living on less than $1 a day.

Despite this widespread poverty, their exports are subject to some of the highest U.S. tariffs, averaging around 16 percent.

In fact, these developing countries pay a disproportionate share of U.S. tariffs.

Bangladesh, for example, is the 9th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs even though it is the 46th largest source of U.S. imports.

Cambodia is the 12th largest contributor of U.S. tariffs but ranks as the 60th largest source of U.S. imports.

So, in essence, these two developing countries pay more in U.S. tariffs than many European countries. How is that fair or consistent with our values?

Unfortunately, the United States is the only developed nation that has not provided an enhanced trade preference program to the beneficiary countries in this bill.

Indeed, we maintain duty preference programs for Haiti, the countries of sub-Saharan African and other developing countries and rightly so. These programs are critical components of our efforts to provide hope for millions of people struggling with poverty.

But it makes no sense to exclude other countries at the same level of economic development. We should not hesitate to correct this inequity.

This is not about pitting one developing country against the other. Rather, it is a simple matter of fairness and

ensuring that we help all of those in need.

In fact, this effort goes hand in hand with my long-standing support for a strong and effective foreign aid budget for the United States as an essential tool in helping lift these countries out of poverty and put them on the path to economic prosperity and political stability.

Especially in these difficult fiscal times, however, humanitarian and development assistance should not be the sum total of our efforts.

Make no mistake: these programs help stabilize poor and war-torn countries, save lives, and lay the foundation for future prosperity.

Yet, the key for sustained growth, jobs, and rising standards of living will be the ability of each of these countries to create vital export industries to compete in a free and open global marketplace.

It is clear that the textile and apparel industries in many of the Asia-South Pacific countries in this bill are those industries that hold out the best hope for export growth.

We should help these countries help themselves by opening the U.S. market to their exports as we have done for other developing countries in the past.

By doing so, we will demonstrate the best of American values: reaching out to neighbors in need and helping them to stand on their own two feet.

We will also help ourselves.

First, as these countries become more prosperous, we will see new opportunities for our own exports in their growing markets.

This, in turn, will create jobs and economic growth in our own country.

But if we maintain high tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, those opportunities will likely go to the European Union and other developed countries that already have trade preference programs for these countries.

We should not put ourselves at such a disadvantage.

Second, as the Asia-South Pacific countries become more stable politically, we will help protect U.S. national security interests by preventing failed states which could become breeding grounds for terror.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of lowering tariffs on the imports of textile and apparel products from the Asia-South Pacific countries is far less than any military intervention.

We will also help ourselves by securing partners in the fight against global threats such as terrorism, climate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. leadership is essential in those efforts. But they require a global, multilateral response. As these countries grow, they can assume a larger role and contribute more effectively.

When it comes to our national security, every bit of assistance helps.

Finally, at a time of economic uncertainty, by eliminating tariffs on imports from the Asia-South Pacific countries, this bill will help lower prices for the American consumers and provide them with more options.

It will also help the 3 million American workers whose jobs depend on apparel imports.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Asia-South Pacific Trade Preferences Act is a win-win for the U.S. and the Asia-South Pacific countries.

Now, let me address some of the concerns that may be raised about this bill.

First, many of the Asia-South Pacific countries have struggled in the past with corruption, a lack of democracy, human rights abuses, and the absence of rule of law.

Some may ask: why reward these countries with a trade preference program?

Make no mistake. These countries will not automatically receive the trade benefits provided by this legislation.

This legislation has been drafted to ensure that the benefits are granted on a performance-driven basis.

That is, to be eligible, a beneficiary country must demonstrate that it is making continual progress toward establishing rule of law, political pluralism, the right to due process, and a market-based economy that protects private property rights.

So, this legislation would help promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law while sustaining vital export industries and creating employment opportunities.

The beneficiary countries have a clear incentive to stay on the right path or they will lose the benefits of this bill.

If we ignore any problems, we will sustain the status quo and our efforts will fail.

Finally, whenever we discuss the creation of a new trade preference program, understandable concerns are raised about the impact on domestic manufacturers.

If this bill becomes law, however, the impact on U.S. jobs will be minimal.

Currently, the beneficiary countries under this legislation account for only 4 percent of U.S. textile and apparel imports, compared to 24 percent for China, and 72 percent for the rest of the world.

These countries will continue to be small players in the U.S. market, but the benefits of this legislation will have a major impact on their export economies.

By passing this legislation we will have an opportunity to change lives, protect our national security interests, and help the American consumer. We should seize this opportunity.

I respectfully ask for the support of all my colleagues for this important initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the Senator for her leadership on bringing much needed attention to the arbitrary and damaging cuts of sequestration on important government programs.

I would like to start by highlighting the impact of sequestration on national security activities. A semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration, or NNSA, is responsible for safeguarding the country's nuclear weapons stockpile.

NNSA has recently embarked on a major modernization effort. The purpose is to upgrade aging infrastructure and replace aging components in nuclear weapons. These investments are being made so that NNSA can reduce the size of the stockpile, consistent with New START Treaty obligations, and certify each year that nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and effective without underground nuclear testing.

Sequestration would cut close to $600 million from the nuclear weapons program, essentially freezing and reversing modernization efforts. Specifically, cuts in funding would put at risk NNSA's ability to refurbish nuclear weapons that are needed by the Air Force and Navy to meet nuclear deterrence missions, delay construction of facilities needed to replace old facilities that do not meet modern health and safety standards but are necessary to manufacture critical nuclear weapons components, result in furloughs and/or lay-offs of up to 5,000 contractors at the eight NNSA sites across the country, and reduce oversight of NNSA nuclear facilities resulting in less frequent and thorough audits and evaluations of security at the sites. This would come at a time when security lapses have occurred at a major site storing nuclear weapons materials.

NNSA has sufficient funding to meet the 4 year goal, but securing materials is not the same as permanently removing and disposing of them. Even with the 4 year goal nearly complete, thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium enough materials for dozens of nuclear weapons still present a terrorism risk. Terrorists are indifferent to sequestration.

The sequester would impose cuts of nearly $200 million from the nonproliferation program. Efforts to remove additional nuclear materials would be delayed In addition, NNSA would not be able to deploy additional radiation detection equipment at border crossings that are most vulnerable to nuclear and radiological smuggling. Of particular concern is NNSA missing the deadline to build and deploy new, more accurate sensors that can detect other countries' nuclear weapons tests. NNSA would not be able to build the sensors before the Air Force is scheduled to launch its satellites.

The Department of Energy maintains U.S. leadership in scientific and technological innovation by supporting basic research through its Office of Science. The goal is to advance energy technologies and operate world-leading facilities to accelerate scientific discoveries.

Sequestration would cut about $250 million from the Office of Science. Specifically, these cuts would result in hundreds of layoffs at national labs, universities, research facilities, and private sector companies that rely on Office of Science funding grants for energy research, reduce operations of major scientific facilities, meaning less research and development in one of the highest priority research areas designing novel materials which is critical to advancing energy technologies, stop almost all construction projects that are replacing aging infrastructure at the national labs that are needed to support science missions and attract the best scientists from around the country and the world, and allow no, or very few, new awards to advance high performance computing to stay ahead of Chinese competition and develop the next generation system, known as exascale, before the U.S. reaches the limits of current technology.

These cuts would come at a time when many other countries are making significant investments in energy research and development. Many experts are already warning that current investments are not sufficient to maintain U.S. competitiveness in energy technologies.

With sequestration, the Corps would likely have to close 57 recreation areas and partially close 186 recreation sites. There would also be no funding for 52 ongoing studies that were funded in FY 2012, 65 construction projects that were funded in FY 2012, and 43 dredging projects that were funded in FY 2012.

As the studies and construction projects are cost shared with non- Federal sponsors, over 115 local sponsors would be left with no Federal share to match their contributions for these studies and projects, further delaying completion of these studies and projects. In addition, only the bare minimum funding for dredging of ports and harbors will be available. This will lead to inefficiencies in transportation due to required light-loading which will ultimately lead to increases in consumer costs.

The long term effect of these delays is increasing the costs of construction projects. More money needed to complete current construction projects means less or no funding for future projects already planned.

I thank Senator Mikulski for the colloquy today on this issue.