Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation that the Senate has passed H.R. 4028, a bipartisan bill Representatives Grace Meng and Doug Collins introduced that amends the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to include the desecration of cemeteries among the many forms of violations of the right to religious freedom. Last month, Senator Risch and I introduced a Senate companion bill, S. 2466, to H.R. 4028. In 1998, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act to affirm America's commitment to religious freedom, enshrined both in the U.S. Constitution and in numerous international human rights instruments. The act acknowledges the pressure and persecution that many people around the world face because of their religious beliefs and requires the Department of State to issue an annual report on international religious freedom. Freedom of religion requires respect for those practicing their faith alone as well as in community with others. It also requires protection for those who identify as members of a religious community, for the symbols of the community, for the houses of worship, and for other institutions of the community. The defacing or destruction of a cemetery based on an affiliation with a particular religious or spiritual group should not be tolerated by governments and must factor into our international religious freedom reporting. This bill, H.R. 4028, will ensure inclusion of these acts in the annual State Department reports and will better aid those of us working to monitor and combat anti-Semitism and other religious discrimination. There is no question that we need to report on these crimes. In recent years, we have witnessed with growing concern a number of cases involving the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in the Netherlands, Hungary, Russia, Poland, France, Germany, Georgia, Moldova, and Argentina. This legislation is even more important and timely given the rise in anti-Semitism across Europe. In just the past few weeks, large- scale anti-Semitic protests have taken place in major cities across Europe. In this year's European Union elections, extremist parties espousing anti-Semitic platforms have made alarming progress. And in Hungary and Greece, extremist parliamentary parties associated with street militias have been successful in elections. I have served on the Helsinki Commission for nearly 20 years. During my tenure, I have worked tirelessly to combat anti-Semitism and religious discrimination. Ensuring that religiously motivated cemetery desecration is reported is the first important step to combating this serious crime. I thank Senator Risch for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Senators Menendez and Corker for taking up H.R. 4028 and moving it quickly through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Finally, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supporting this bill and for helping to recognize the desecration of cemeteries as a violation of the right to religious freedom.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Next week, between August 4 and August 6, the United States will welcome leaders from across the African Continent to Washington, DC. I first wish to acknowledge the work of our colleague Senator Coons, the chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Foreign Relations Committee, for the work he has done on behalf of the Senate to make this opportunity a real chance to strengthen the economic ties, to strengthen the strategic ties between the countries of Africa and the United States. We expect there will be robust discussions that will be encouraging economic growth, unlocking opportunities, and fostering greater ties between our country and Africa. One of the areas that I hope will get some debate and discussion during next week's meetings will be a key government trade initiative that makes these ties possible; that is, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA. AGOA provides qualifying sub-Saharan countries duty-free access to the U.S. market for a wide variety of products. It was first signed into law in 2000 by President Clinton and has been strengthened and extended by Congress and both President Bush and President Obama. AGOA enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout the years because its advocates recognize the crucial role Africa plays in the global economy. The African Continent is one of the world's fastest growing regions. For instance, by 2035, it is estimated that Africa will have a larger working-age population than China. I mention that because it is certainly in our interest to have stable partners who develop their economy and can work in strategic partnership with the United States, but it also means we are going to have stronger markets for U.S.- produced goods and products. As we have a growing middle class in Africa, it represents a market for U.S. manufacturers, producers, and farmers, which creates more jobs in the United States. AGOA allows the United States and Africa to both take advantage of this dynamism. Since the act was fully implemented in 2001, U.S. imports under AGOA have tripled. Nonoil AGOA trade has increased fourfold. Some of the sectors that AGOA has helped open are apparel, textiles, jewelry, handicrafts, and electronics. AGOA has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in those sectors, most of those in the apparel sector, where women comprise 75 to 90 percent of the industry. In sub-Saharan Africa women are at the highest risk of being poor. AGOA has tackled barriers to poverty reduction by eliminating tariffs on goods that come from many sectors in which women are employed. Modern trade agreements and initiatives are much more than just lowering tariffs. It also involves dealing with good governance practices. In an increasing global economy, we can no longer consider issues such as labor rights, human rights, and good governance as issues that are separate from trade. Trade with our country is a benefit with deserving nations that share our values. Strong commitments to the rule of law and human rights are an essential part of those values and level the playing field between the United States and our partners in the global marketplace. AGOA is no exception. The Act has been encouraging these commitments since it was first enacted. In other words, this is not only an opportunity by lowering barriers to our markets, it is also about expectations and enforcement that the African countries will improve their good governance and their labor rights so we have a more level playing field. To qualify for AGOA benefits, countries must establish or make continual progress on measures that promote good governance and a fair economic system. These include fundamental rights, the rule of law, a system that combats corruption, and policies that increase access to health care, education, and expand physical infrastructure. In other words, the African countries involved that take advantage of AGOA must have continuing progress on the good governance key issues. For example, as part of the annual AGOA review process, the U.S. Department of Labor examines AGOA countries' efforts to implement and enforce workers' rights, including the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, prohibitions on forced or compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and acceptable conditions of work. These are the International Labour Organization standards. The ILO standards are very much a part of the progress we made under AGOA in the African countries. Improvements in these areas have been shown to foster the kind of inclusive economic growth and opportunities that raise families and nations out of poverty. We understand that by developing stronger economies in African countries, we are building more stable African countries, countries that are more reliable to be partners with the United States in dealing with global issues. We understand that by doing that we are going to have a stronger partner sharing U.S. values. This is just one of the tools we use. We also use our transparency initiatives. We included in the Dodd-Frank legislation transparency on extractive industries that operate globally but also in Africa so we could find and make sure the wealth of a country is actually going to its people. That requires good governance. AGOA is one of our tools to accomplish that good governance. So these countries that have mineral wealth, the wealth is not a curse but truly benefits the people of that country. AGOA helps, the transparency initiatives that we passed help, but this is the issue: The current authorization of AGOA expires on September 30, 2015. Once again, Madam President, as you know, as you worked so hard, we need predictability in our law. Short-term extensions don't do much good. What we need is a long-term economic commitment with the continent of Africa. A bipartisan effort in Congress to extend and improve this important legislation is already underway. The U.S. Trade Representative has been reviewing AGOA's successes as well as the areas that can be improved. Later today in the Senate Finance Committee we will be holding a hearing on AGOA, and Ambassador Froman will be one of the witnesses at that hearing. So we will have a chance to work together, bipartisan members of Congress with the administration. One of the areas we are looking at is strengthening the eligibility criteria to further incentivize improvements in human rights, and I will be talking about that in the Finance Committee. Another area is providing coordinated technical assistance and capacity building. This is very important. Too often trade and development policies operate on separate tracks. Granting trade preference means little without providing countries with the ability to take advantage of those benefits. We have development assistance that we provide to countries. We have trade that we do. Let's combine it and recognize that these trade opportunities can only be taken advantage of if the country has the capacity to deal with the issues we are talking about. Capacity building is already underway in Africa. For instance, the Department of Labor provides capacity-building assistance to AGOA countries to improve workers' rights through partnerships with a broad range of organizations, from NGOs, to health organizations, to social and economic researchers. By providing this aid in a more efficient and clearly measurable fashion and seeking more input from local cooperatives and groups, we can help foster more sustainable growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. The time to develop consensus on AGOA improvements is now. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and strengthening the AGOA Act so we can maintain this important tool to increase the trade relations between the United States and Africa and fight global poverty. I look forward to seeing the results of next week's meetings with the African leaders. It is my sincere expectation that these meetings will produce concrete ways we can improve the ties between Africa and the United States, and I certainly expect it will help us lead to the improvement and reauthorization of AGOA. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I wish to draw attention to the fact that July 20 marked the 40th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by a Turkish army. Sadly, this year also marks more than 50 years since a power-sharing arrangement between the two communities on Cyprus collapsed following independence from Britain. As the situation in the eastern Mediterranean and the wider Middle East is becoming more volatile and fragile, it is time to end the forcible division of Cyprus, which has endured for far too long. The continued presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of Cyprus exacerbates a number of human rights concerns including property restitution, restrictions on freedom of worship, and damage to religious and archeological sites. I have consistently raised these concerns and want to emphasize that all religious sites in the north must be protected. It is gratifying that the Government of Cyprus remains fully committed to the U.N.-sponsored process to reach a sustainable and enduring settlement that would reunify Cyprus based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation in accordance with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. The joint statement agreed to by Greek Cypriot President Anastasiades and Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu on the island in February of this year lays a solid foundation for results-oriented talks. The basic parameters for a solution laid out in the statement should be fully respected. I applaud the efforts of both leaders to move this process forward. Following the signing of the joint statement in February, President Anastasiades called the chance for peace a ``win-win situation.'' ``I believe that a solution that would be accepted by the Greek Cypriots would create stability in the region. Greater cooperation with Turkish Cypriots will contribute to foster growth . . . to do that you have to have a settlement that is not at the expense of one community or to the benefit of the other,'' he said. After meeting in April with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu said that during negotiations with Greek Cypriot President Anastasiades, ``we'll try to bridge our differences and find a comprehensive settlement in the shortest possible time.'' ``We can finalize a settlement and take it to a separate simultaneous referenda in 2014.'' Many observers believe the discovery of vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean could be a game changer in pressing negotiations forward and could potentially also act as a stabilizing and unifying factor in the eastern Mediterranean. The cheapest and most expeditious way of exporting the reserves, discovered first by Israel and then by Cyprus, would be through an underwater pipeline to Turkey. I certainly hope this potential for economic empowerment for all of the people of Cyprus will help both communities to visualize and then implement a final settlement. In keeping with the numerous U.N. resolutions on Cyprus and the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, it is time for Turkey to remove its troops from the island. The people of Cyprus cannot wait another 40 years for reconciliation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I say to Senator Boxer, through the Chair, she is absolutely right. It is even worse than that, because the contractor could be using a subcontractor whose principal work may not even be directly related to the replacement. It would be virtually impossible to detect what they are doing on the replacement site as to what they are doing on other sites. So it could be absolutely used as a shield in order to avoid the laws that we have to protect public health, protect our clean waters, our drinking water, et cetera. It opens a huge potential abuse. It is throwing out the laws, rather than making the laws work. That is exactly what our committee did after a very lengthy debate and which, quite frankly, we did certain things that make it a lot easier for a replacement facility to be done in an expedited process.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this issue was dealt with in MAP-21 in the committee. My friend from Pennsylvania talks about using regular order, and we did. We had a very serious debate and we had many different views and we compromised, and there is an expedited process to deal with replacement facilities. It is in MAP-21. It deals with a way to get this done. The problem with the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is it totally eliminates all of the protections that are in the law. It eliminates all of the protections under the Clean Water Act and under the NEPA process. We handled this in the committee. It was bipartisan. It was done. There is no need for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. I would be glad to yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his comments and the manner in which we are proceeding. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Pennsylvania, and for many reasons. First, let me compliment Senator Boxer and the leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Because when we approved MAP- 21, we took up this issue. We dealt with it. It was not without controversy. We had strong views on both sides of this issue. Because what the Senator from Pennsylvania is doing is removing completely replacement facilities from any--not just the NEPA procedures, but also from the Endangered Species Act, from the Clean Water Act--basically putting a dome over the process so anything goes, basically. Anything. We debated that issue in the Environment and Public Works Committee. There were different views. Quite frankly, Senator Boxer was extremely accommodating to the legitimate concerns the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised. That is why there is an expedited procedure already in law, passed in MAP-21, that deals with this issue. The Senator talks about using the proper legislative process. We did that. The committee of jurisdiction debated it. We had difficult compromises, but we reached these compromises. Let the process work, because the process is working. Let me point out, I was one of those who was not excited about giving up any of our environmental protections on replacement facilities, because I pointed out the fact that when we had a bridge collapse in Minnesota, that bridge was replaced within a matter of a very short period of time, before we did our compromise, which now expedites the process. My point is, in emergencies we seem to work things out. But in order to deal with the concerns the Senator has raised, we put into the law this expedited procedure for replacement facilities. It is in MAP-21. It is the law. This amendment would open it to significant abuse. It is very conceivable that when you give this type of an exemption, you basically are exempting a geographical spot so that anything goes. It could be a total ending of the protections that we have in the Federal Clean Water Act. It could be eliminated. I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is unnecessary. It certainly opens it to tremendous abuse. We have a process in place. It was negotiated. I would urge my colleagues to accept it. Before I yield the floor, I want to thank Senator Wyden. I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Hatch--I see them on the floor--and Senator Carper for their incredible work on this bill. I agree with Senators Boxer and Wyden. It is very important that we pass a bill before we leave this week so that there is no delay in making sure the Federal Government pays its bills to our State and local governments on transportation projects. I strongly support Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch's effort in our committee to get a better funding flow for the patch so we deal with collecting the taxes that should be paid, rather than causing a disruption in some of the revenue sources that are in the House bill. I strongly support Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch's efforts in our committee. I certainly support Senator Carper's amendment that would say it is our responsibility to act in this Congress. Let me point out, we have 5 months left before this Congress goes out of business. It would be wrong for us to pass just a patch and not to do the 6-year reauthorization. The Environment and Public Works Committee, by unanimous vote, recognized that we could get a 6-year bill done. We have already talked about from where revenues can come. There are bills we could take up dealing with supplemental ways to fund infrastructure, infrastructure banks, using the Tax Code. I am sure we can get bipartisan agreement on some of these issues. The Carper amendment says we are going to get our job done in this Congress and we are not going to subject our States to the uncertainty of just a patch. In my State of Maryland, we have many long-term commitments that we are trying to get funded. A short-term patch will put us in a hole. We are okay to the end of the year, but let's make sure we enact a 6- year bill before this Congress leaves.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, in a few moments we are going to have the opportunity to vote on the confirmation of Pamela Harris for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am very proud to have joined Senator Mikulski in recommending to President Obama the appointment of Pamela Harris to the Fourth Circuit. I have interviewed many candidates for judicial appointments. I can tell you Pamela Harris is at the top, as far as her qualifications for this appellate court position. She is an extraordinarily talented person who has devoted the prime part of her life to public service and seeks this appointment for the right reasons--to continue her public service. I mentioned that Senator Mikulski and I both recommended her appointment. Senator Mikulski has set up, as the senior Senator in our State, a process by which we solicit the strongest possible candidates of interest to fill judicial vacancies. We understand these are lifetime appointments. We understand the importance of these appointments. We have a screening process and an interview process in addition to the White House and Justice Department vetting process, which we think will give us the highest quality person to fill these lifetime appointments. In Pamela Harris's case, I am extremely proud. I thank Senator Mikulski for her commitment to a process that gives us the very best people for these positions. Pamela Harris is the granddaughter of Polish-Jewish immigrants who came to this country to seek a better life for their children. Pamela's mother worked her way through law school. Pamela herself went to Yale College and then Yale Law School. She was helped in the process with Pell grants. She is a product of the Montgomery County public schools. We are very proud of the fact that she has really lived the American dream and has been able to accomplish so much in her career through hard work and believing in this country. When we take a look at her professional accomplishments, I don't know what else we could ask. She has the highest rating from the American Bar Association, which gives us that information on the candidates who are nominated for judgeships. She clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens in the Supreme Court of the United States. She has been an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, codirector of Harvard Law School's Supreme Court and appellate litigation clinic, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and she was in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy. At Georgetown University Law Center, her clinic prepares lawyers for their arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States. In other words, she is basically the person who teaches and gives practical experience for those who have to appear before the highest Court in this land. It is interesting that she has dedicated about half of her time to civil cases and about half to criminal cases, so she is well versed on the responsibilities of our appellate court. I don't think we could have found a more qualified person to fill this extremely important position on the Fourth Circuit. I also want my colleagues to know that she understands the responsibilities of a lawyer and a judge to provide access to all. She will take an oath if she is confirmed--and I am hopeful she will be in a few moments, literally--to serve justice regardless of a person's wealth or poverty. As a private attorney, she helped develop a relationship with the public defender of Maryland to provide help to indigent individuals who needed additional services. She is committed to pro bono service and she is committed to equal access to justice in addition to everything else she has done in her career. She really understands. She has the talent, she has the commitment to all in our communities, and she understands what the appropriate role is for a member of the bench, for a judge. I know Senator Grassley has mentioned his concerns, but Senator Grassley asked a lot of questions for the record, which is the right of any Senator to do. These are lifetime appointments, and I fully support that. But I wish to state Pamela Harris's own words in response as to understanding the difference between an advocate and a judge, between a lawyer representing a client and a judge. I know when I practiced law, I gave everything I could to help the clients I represented. I didn't always 100 percent agree with their position, but it was my responsibility to advocate for their position. That is how our system of justice operates. That is our rule of law. Pamela Harris said: I fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely different from the role of an advocate. If confirmed as a judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent impartially to the facts of a particular case. She gets it. She understands what the role of a judge is. Quite frankly, I want people who are active in the legal system to apply and become our judges because they understand the importance of the work a judge does. She continues: It is inappropriate for any judge or Justice to base his or her decision on their own personal view or on public opinion. . . . If confirmed as a circuit judge, I would faithfully follow the methodological precedence of the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, applying the interpretive approaches and only the interpretive approaches used by those courts. Perhaps that is exactly what we want from our judges. We want them to be worldly. We want them to understand the law. We want them to have been involved in the law. In Pam Harris's case, she has been a professor, she has taught the law, and, yes, she has been actively engaged. But once they become a judge, they need to apply the precedence from that circuit, from the Supreme Court, and that is exactly what Pam Harris said she would do. Her reputation for being straightforward and telling it exactly the way she believes has been well documented in the record before the Judiciary Committee. I thank Senator Leahy for the incredible manner in which he operates the Judiciary Committee in the best traditions of the Senate. They had a full hearing on Pamela Harris's nomination. They had a full record. One of the letters that is part of that record that is also part of the record of the Senate was a letter--the Judiciary Committee received numerous letters of support for Pamela Harris. I will quote from one letter that was signed by more than 80 of her professional peers, which included individuals appointed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents to key positions, including Gregory Garre, the former Solicitor General for George W. Bush. In that letter where these 80 signatories to that letter strongly endorsed Pamela Harris's confirmation for judge on the Fourth Circuit, it says: We are lawyers from diverse backgrounds and varying affiliations, but we are united in our admiration for Pam's skills as a lawyer and our respect for her integrity, her intellect, her judgment, and her fair-mindedness. Continuing: Many of us have had the opportunity to work with Pam on appellate matters. She has been co-counsel to some of us, opposing counsel to others, and a valuable colleague to all. In her appellate work, Pam has demonstrated extraordinary skill. She is a quick study, careful listener, and acute judge of legal arguments. She knows the value of clarity, candor, vigor, and responsiveness. Of equal importance, she has always conducted herself with consummate professionalism, grace, and congeniality, and has a humble and down-to-earth approach to her work. The letter concludes: Her well-rounded experience makes her well prepared for the docket of a federal appellate court. Pam's substantive knowledge, intellect, and low-key temperament will be great assets for the position for which she has been nominated. I pointed out before and I will again that there are many questions that were posed to Pamela Harris during the confirmation process. I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at those. I did. I read her answers to those questions. They were very well documented and very professional. Her reputation is one of being a straight shooter and saying exactly what is on her mind. Read her responses. She understands the role of a judge. She is well qualified to serve on this circuit. She has the strong endorsement of the two Senators from her home State, and I urge my colleagues to vote for her confirmation. We are very proud of her record on the Fourth Circuit. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this past Friday, July 25, marked the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation with the signature of President Nixon that established LSC with bipartisan support. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes almost all of its annual Federal appropriations to 134 local legal aid programs, serving communities in every State. In Maryland, according to the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, MLSC, services to clients in fiscal year 2013 increased 5 percent from the prior year, with MLSC grantees opening nearly 168,000 new cases, a record high, and benefiting almost 252,000 individuals and families. Family cases, about one-third of all cases, involved domestic violence, child custody, child support, and other matters and benefited nearly 80,000 people. Foreclosures, evictions, and other housing cases, also almost one-third of cases, benefited approximately 94,000 individuals and families. Debt collection, bankruptcy, and other consumer cases, which are one-fifth of all cases, directly benefited 23,000 individuals and families. The private bar handled almost 8,000 cases through MLSC- funded organizations. Pro bono attorneys gave nearly 69,000 hours, representing almost $19 million in donated legal services. And finally, helping to leverage pro bono, the judicare project referred about 1,000 judicare cases to nearly 500 reduced-fee attorneys that provided 22,000 hours of services, including at least 2,000 pro bono hours, which benefited 2,700 individuals and families. Let me just give a few examples of the excellent work done by MLSC grantees over the last year as a result of the grants given by LSC. ``Shirley'' was thrilled to move into her new house in Baltimore County after nearly 3 years in a nursing facility with help from the Maryland Disability Law Center, MDLC. Shirley had a special voucher for non elderly persons with disabilities who are transitioning from nursing homes to the community, but ran into obstacles finding the right place and location to meet her needs. MDLC's Sun shine Folk, a group of advocates with disabilities who were formerly institutionalized, and MDLC's housing lawyers helped Shirley get an extension of her voucher and a professional housing transition team, ensuring that her rights to reasonable accommodations were protected. Several years ago, Kenneth Brown's mother learned that her landlord was in foreclosure and that Fannie Mae wanted to evict her from her long-time Baltimore home. But through the Brown family's persistence, Public Justice Center's, PJC legal advocacy, and the support of community organizing partners, Kenneth and his brother Berveyn were able to buy the home this year. Together, PJC and the Browns challenged multiple eviction attempts in court and demanded needed repairs. PJC community organizing partners also secured a meeting with Fannie Mae executives. The Browns avoided eviction and ultimately bought the house from Fannie Mae. After visiting Baltimore Catholic Charities Immigration Legal Services years ago for getting help obtaining her legal permanent residence green card, ``Jeannette'' returned to apply for naturalization with the help of a volunteer attorney during one of ILS's regular naturalization clinics, and was sworn in as a U.S. citizen. I remain concerned about the access to justice gap that still exists today. We must do better than turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance because of the lack of LSC program resources. I support full funding of LSC's budget request for fiscal year 2015. I strongly support lifting unnecessary, burdensome, and counterproductive congressional restrictions, such as restrictions on filing class action lawsuits and recovering attorneys' fees. Congress should also remove restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds by LSC grantees. I commend the LSC, MLSC, and the many LSC-funded attorneys and private sector lawyers who have donated pro bono hours and who strive to live up to the commitment of our legal system to provide equal justice under law. Last week I attended a Federal judicial investiture ceremony in Maryland, and the judge swore to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Congress needs to live up to the same commitment that we require our Federal judges to make before sitting on the bench and deciding cases. Let us make sure that millions of Americans who need access to legal assistance are provided that critical help in cases that will have a profound impact on their lives, their family, and their community.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly we will have the opportunity to vote on a cloture motion on Pamela Harris for confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland. I urge my colleagues not only to support the cloture motion but to support her confirmation as a judge in the Fourth Circuit. Senator Mikulski and I have a process--and I thank the senior Senator from Maryland for that process--we use in screening recommendations to the President for judgeships. I am very proud of that process. It is very open. We think we have recruited the very best in the legal profession to serve as our judges, and I am proud to be part of it with Senator Mikulski. Of all of the candidates I have interviewed for the appellate court, Pamela Harris has stood out as one of the most qualified individuals we have in the legal community to sit on our appellate court. She is exceptional in her qualifications, well qualified. She is an excellent Supreme Court litigator, has clerked at the Federal appellate court, supervised policy initiatives at the Department of Justice, and she has dedicated her career and professional life to improving the administration of justice as a public servant. A little bit of background about her--particularly her family. Her grandmother was a Polish Jewish immigrant to the United States who valued education and worked hard to overcome personal adversity. Her mom put herself through law school, with young children, after a divorce, and died from cancer a few years later. Ms. Harris relied in part on Pell grants to attend college at Yale. Her story represents the American dream and the American experience and the opportunity in this country coming from an immigrant family. After graduating from public high school in Montgomery County, Walt Whitman High School, Ms. Harris received a B.A. summa cum laude from Yale College in 1985 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. After her graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and later clerked with Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of the United States between 1992 and 1993. She became associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Beginning in 2007, while she was still in private practice, Ms. Harris codirected Harvard Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Clinic and was a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center. In 2009 Ms. Harris was named the executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown, serving until 2010. Ms. Harris joined the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, where she served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General until returning to Georgetown in 2012. Ms. Harris is currently a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a senior advisor to the Supreme Court Institute. It is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given her the highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' for this appointment. She has appeared as counsel or cocounsel in approximately 100 cases before the Federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Her practice has been pretty evenly divided between criminal cases and civil cases. When it comes to Supreme Court litigation, I must tell you I don't think Ms. Harris has an equal as far as her qualifications. Her clinic at Georgetown which she supervises prepares litigants for the Supreme Court. In other words, she provides experience for those who are going to be before the Supreme Court as to how to properly litigate those cases, and she takes them on a first-come, first-served basis. It is not ideological at all. It is to make sure the highest quality presentations are made in the highest Court of our land so we get the best decisions made by the highest Court of our land, the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the type of person we need on our court of appeals. As I said, I don't know of a person whom I have interviewed who is more qualified to be an appellate court judge than Ms. Harris. She understands the different role of an advocate or someone writing an opinion or commentary column and a judge. I want to emphasize this. She is a person who brings--we all bring our views and our passion to life, but she understands what the judiciary is all about. As is the practice of the Judiciary Committee--and I serve on the Judiciary Committee and I am proud of my service--I thank Senator Leahy for his credible leadership. As you know, after the committee there are questions for the record that are submitted by the Senators. That is certainly true in Ms. Harris's case, and I have those answers here. I would like my colleagues to read these answers because I can imagine the people in the White House going through all the legal cites that Ms. Harris gave in each of the answers to the questions our colleagues requested. It is one of the most thorough answers I have ever seen and thoroughly vetted by the Supreme Court decisions. I mention that because it is exactly why I believe what she has told us is what she will do. She understands the role of a judge in our system. Quoting from her answer: I fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely different from the role of an advocate. If confirmed as a judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent impartially to the facts of a particular case. Pam Harris went on to state: It is inappropriate for any judge or Justice to base his or her decision on their own personal views or on public opinion . . . If confirmed as a circuit judge, I would faithfully follow the methodological precedence of the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, applying the interpretive approaches and only the interpretive approaches used by those courts. Don't take my word for it. Don't take her qualifications for it. Look at the record. Look at the letters that have been sent in support of Ms. Harris to the Judiciary Committee. There are numerous letters. I will quote from one that was signed by more than 80 of her professional peers, and I will tell you it includes individuals who were appointed by Republican Presidents to key positions, including Gregory Garre, the former Solicitor General for George W. Bush, but it includes many in that category, and I am reading from that letter. This letter is part of the record. It was made part of the record in the Judiciary Committee. I would ask unanimous consent it and another letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I yield back our time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have the honor to chair the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which is well known for its commitment to human rights. It is also our participating arm in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. Starting when I first joined the Helsinki Commission almost 20 years ago, I worked on the issues of antisemitism and trying to deal with combating antisemitism. This is overt actions against Jews and Jewish institutions, which were on the rise. We tried to do something about it. In the early 2000s, working with Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Hastings and Congressman Smith and others, we made a commitment in the Helsinki Commission to bring up the increasing episodes of antisemitism and what we needed to do about it. We saw increased episodes of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions. We saw that world events were used to try to justify antisemitic activities. As a result of the work of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, the OSCE determined that it was important enough to do a special conference on antisemitism. In 2004, we had the Berlin conference on antisemitism under the leadership of the United States and Germany. I was proud to be a member of the U.S. delegation to the Berlin conference. Good work was done in that conference. We developed best practices, from dealing with Holocaust education, to police training to deal with identifying hate crimes. We had the first uniform collection of hate crimes statistics in the OSCE region, the responsibility of leaders to speak up against antisemitic activities. We provided technical assistance to countries to deal with antisemitism and to share their best practices. We also recommended a special representative to the chair in office, to put a spotlight on antisemitism and ways to combat it. Today Rabbi Andrew Baker is that special representative to the chair in office. The chair in office this year is the Swiss chair in office. Tomorrow, I will chair a Helsinki Commission hearing that deals with antisemitism, racism, and discrimination in the OSCE region. There are now three special representatives, one to combat antisemitism, one to deal with discrimination against Muslims, and one to deal with racism, xenophobia, and other forms of religious intolerance. They are all related. We find that hate crimes are hate crimes; that if a community is susceptible to antisemitic activities, it is also susceptible to anti-Muslim activities or activities against a person because of their race. There is reason to be concerned. There is reason to be concerned about the rise of antisemitism today. This is 10 years after the Berlin conference. Last year the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency surveyed all of the EU countries. The results were alarming. Forty to forty-eight percent of the Jewish respondents felt it was not safe for them to remain in their country. We are talking about in Hungary, France, and Belgium. In those three countries, ranging between 40 and 48 percent, they were considering emigrating to Israel because they did not feel safe in their own country. These fears are not without justification. The Anti-Defamation League surveyed over 100 countries and documented persistent antisemitic prejudice. In the EU elections extremist parties espousing antisemitic activities made remarkable progress. In Hungary and Greece extremist parliamentary parties associated with street militias were successful in elections. In Hungary the extremist party Jobbik is the second most significant party and had erected a monument to a wartime leader and a self- declared antisemite. We also found laws passed in Europe that make it more difficult for Jews to practice their religion because of restrictions on being able to make kosher foods and making it difficult to wear head coverings. We have seen, unfortunately, violent acts. In Kansas, in the United States, three people were murdered outside of a JCC. In May, in Brussels, three people were murdered at a Jewish museum. I mention this because even as we visit Europe today, we see signs of antisemitism. It is troubling to all of us. This is the 10th anniversary of the Berlin conference coming up this year. We will be reconvening the OSCE states in order to evaluate the progress we have made over the last 10 years and additional progress that needs to be made. The Helsinki hearing tomorrow will give us an opportunity to concentrate on how the United States can continue to be a leader on this very important issue. I wanted to share those comments with my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, it is my understanding later today we are going to have an opportunity to approve a resolution that was voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that deals with the tragic events in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. I just want to read part of that resolution, the action part of the resolution, because I hope it expresses the views of each Member of the Senate. It reaffirms the Senate's support for Israel's right to defend its citizens and ensure the survival of the State of Israel. It condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel. It calls on Hamas to immediately cease all rocket and other attacks against Israel. It calls upon the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas to dissolve the unity governing arrangement with Hamas and condemn the attacks on Israel. We all are very concerned about the tragic consequences of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Our strongest desire is that we can end the attacks and the missiles and that we can get Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a peace agreement, a lasting agreement for two states living side-by-side, the Jewish State of Israel and a Palestinian State. But the recent military action taken by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza is a direct response to Hamas's barrage of rockets and mortar attacks against civilian targets in Israel. Labeled as a terrorist organization, Hamas is directly responsible for the innocent loss of life of both Israelis and Palestinians. It is very tragic what Israel is doing it is doing so to defend its civilian population from the incoming rockets. What Hamas is doing is indiscriminately sending missiles into Israel, targeting innocent populations. Hamas's actions to extend its reach deeper into Israel and its failure to end continuing attacks undermine efforts to attain peace and security in the region. The Israel Defense Forces began Operation Protective Edge Tuesday, July 8, with one goal, one goal in mind; that is, to stop Hamas's continued rocket attacks against Israel's civilians. Since the start of the operation, there have been over 1,000 rockets that have been launched into Israel. Most of those rockets hit targets. Fortunately, they were not major population centers because of Iron Dome. I thank the policy of this country, the United States, in providing Israel the Iron Dome missile defense system, which has been responsible for bringing down approximately 200 of the rockets that otherwise would have hit population centers in Israel. Earlier this week, Egypt proposed an immediate cease-fire, followed by a series of meetings in Cairo with high-level delegations from both sides. Israel accepted that cease-fire immediately. They said: Fine. Let's do it. We want to stop the attacks of rockets into our country. We want to have a discussion for peace. They did it immediately. For 6 hours the IDF suspended operations against Hamas, but during this time Hamas fired 50 rockets into Israel. So the Israel Defense Forces were ordered to resume attacks against terrorist targets following continued inbound rockets and Hamas's official statement that it rejected the cease-fire. I think what Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' on Sunday sums it up best. I am quoting from the Prime Minister: The difference between us is that we are using missiles to protect our civilians and they are using their civilians to protect their missiles. In other words, what Hamas is doing is putting its missile locations in population centers, in schools, in hospitals, in mosques, in a direct way to use human shields. What a difference. Israel is trying to protect its civilian population. Hamas is putting their civilian population at great risk. Hamas must end its rocket and mortar attacks, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and honor all past agreements to peacefully move toward a two-state solution. That is what we want to see. I strongly support Israel's right to defend its citizens against threats to its security and existence. Hamas must end. It must be marginalized. It cannot be allowed to continue its terrorist activities. We must find a way to advance a stable and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor and pay tribute to an exceptional leader, Col. Mariamne R. Okrzesik. After a lifetime of service to our Nation, Colonel Okrzesik is retiring from the U.S. Air Force and her current position as Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs, United States Central Command, at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL. On this occasion I believe it is fitting to recognize Colonel Okrzesik's extraordinary dedication to duty and selfless service to the United States of America. Colonel Okrzesik has served at all levels in the Air Force. Her career began when she received her commission in 1986 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program at the University of Maryland. Colonel Okrzesik's distinguished military service has taken her all over the world in defense of our Nation. Her career has included assignments and duties across a wide variety of command, intelligence, and staff positions throughout Europe, the Pacific, and the United States. Colonel Okrzesik has served as an intelligence flight commander; director of operations; executive officer; Major Command; Headquarters Air Force and Secretary of the Air Force staff officer; squadron commander; and Joint Combatant Command staff officer. Colonel Okrzesik has received numerous awards during her career, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Meritorious Service Medal with six oak leaf clusters, the Joint Commendation Medal, and Air Force Commendation Medal. It is a pleasure to recognize Colonel Okrzesik's long and decorated career today and also the great benefit to the Nation she has provided as a senior leader for the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense. Colonel Okrzesik has always achieved excellence during her career. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Colonel Okrzesik for a lifetime of service to her country. For all she has given and continues to give to our country we are in her debt. As Colonel Okrzesik retires to Lothian, MD, we express our gratitude for her faithful and dedicated service and wish her our sincerest best wishes upon her retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this Wednesday--July 16, 2014--marks the centennial of the Congressional Research Service, CRS. On this exact date 100 years ago, our oldest legislative support agency was created. But the idea for such an organization to provide objective information and analysis to legislators goes back to the start of our Republic. As Thomas Jefferson said 200 years ago, ``There is, in fact, no subject to which a member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.'' Jefferson's view gained adherents over time, especially at the State level first and then during the progressive era. Two Members of Congress during that early 1900s era--Senator Robert LaFollette and Representative John Nelson, both of Wisconsin--both championed legislation that authorized the Librarian of Congress to establish a legislative reference service composed of ``competent persons to prepare such indexes, digests and compilations of law as may be required for Congress and other official use.'' President Woodrow Wilson signed the legislation--the fiscal year 1915 appropriations bill for the Library of Congress--into law on July 16, 1914. Librarian of Congress Herbert Putnam established the Legislative Reference Service, LRS, in the Library of Congress by administrative order on July 18, 1914. The reference service's location in the Library of Congress--the library both of Congress and the American people--provided researchers then and now with a treasure trove of books, materials, and collections of various sorts to answer and address the questions and inquiries that emanate from the legislative branch. The LRS was renamed the CRS in 1970. Today, the responsibilities and roles of CRS have grown enormously. To meet the hundreds of thousands of requests made annually by Members and staff of the legislative branch, CRS employs over 600 total staff. Among the occupations represented at CRS are reference librarians, lawyers, political scientists, economists, budget analysts, scientists, engineers, and public administrators. The titles of its five interdisciplinary research divisions underscore the wide range of expertise housed in CRS: American Law; Domestic Social Policy; Foreign Affairs, Defense & Trade; Government & Finance; and Resources, Science & Industry. In addition, CRS has a Knowledge Services Group made up of research and information specialists who provide support services to CRS analysts and attorneys. In fiscal year 2013, Members and committees received information and analysis from CRS in more than 636,000 responses that took the form of 67,000 requests for custom analysis and research, 9,000 congressional participations in 350 seminars, and over half a million instances of Web site services. At the heart of CRS's charter is that it serves both the majority and minority parties and Members of Congress elected as Independents or with a third-party affiliation. This bedrock nonpartisan principle suffuses all of CRS's endeavors, which makes it unlike the many partisan interest groups and ``think tanks'' that populate the Nation's capital. CRS's straightforward mission statement says it all: ``The Congressional Research Service serves the Congress throughout the legislative process by providing comprehensive and reliable legislative research and analysis that are timely, objective, authoritative, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.'' Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: ``People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.'' CRS provides the facts. Providing unbiased, objective facts is an invaluable service not just to Congress but to the Nation. In my considered judgment, CRS has served Congress exceptionally well during the past 100 years and I am confident that it will continue to perform at the highest level in the years and decades ahead. No one can fully predict the challenges we will face. But I am confident that the in-depth knowledge and expertise housed in CRS will enable Members of Congress and their staff to better understand and address an increasingly complex array of domestic and global issues. I congratulate CRS and its outstanding and dedicated staff on the occasion of its 100th birthday.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Will my colleague yield on that point.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the memory of one of the world's most courageous humanitarians: Raoul Wallenberg. Seventy years ago today, Raoul Wallenberg arrived in Budapest, risking his own life to save the lives of tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews from the atrocities of the Holocaust. Raoul Wallenberg emerged as a champion of those who were persecuted during one of the darkest chapters of human history. Mr. Wallenberg served on the War Refugee Board, an independent government agency established in 1944 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and tasked with the ``immediate rescue and relief of the Jews of Europe and other victims of enemy persecution.'' Through his courageous work on the War Refugee Board, Mr. Wallenberg prevented the deportation of tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Wallenberg risked his own life and livelihood in order to save Jewish people through a variety of means by issuing thousands of protective documents for them; by securing their release from deportation trains, death march convoys, and labor service brigades; and by establishing the International Ghetto of protected houses. While the Holocaust showed us that human beings are capable of committing unspeakably evil acts, heroes like Raoul Wallenberg proved that we are also capable of bravery, selflessness, and goodness. It is only fitting that we passed legislation in 2012 bestowing one of America's highest civilian awards, the Congressional Gold Medal, to one of the greatest heroes this world has known. That actual medal is being awarded to Raoul Wallenberg's family in a ceremony today to honor his legacy. American citizenship is not a requirement for receiving the Congressional Gold Medal; but if it were required, Wallenberg would be eligible. He received honorary U.S. citizenship in 1981 thanks to the efforts of former Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA, 12th) who, as a 16- year-old in 1944, escaped from a Nazi forced labor camp outside of Budapest and hid with his aunt in a safe house Wallenberg had established. Throughout the world, streets have been named after Raoul Wallenberg including one here in Washington, where the U.S. Holocaust Museum is located. Monuments bearing his name are testaments to Raoul Wallenberg's heroism and to the thousands of lives he saved during the Holocaust. Awards are given in his name to honor humanitarians around the world. The most important reminders of all that he accomplished are the human ones the descendants of those who survived the Holocaust, thanks to Raoul Wallenberg's heroism. Raoul Wallenberg left this earth too soon but he accomplished more in his short life than most of us could ever hope to. We can honor Mr. Wallenberg by trying to live with the courage and conviction that he demonstrated in his short time. By doing so, we can do right by him, and we can do right by all those whose lives were lost or forever changed by the Holocaust.