Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, at the end of this month, the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in the case of West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Justices will consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The stakes could not be higher. This case will have lasting impacts in Maryland, the Nation, and the planet. As we follow the science and work to mitigate the damaging impacts of climate change, it is imperative that the Court respect EPA's authority, which Congress granted, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health and the environment. I would like to take a moment to consider where we are and how we got here. At issue in the case is the question of whether EPA acted outside of its statutory authority when it promulgated in 2015 the Clean Power Plan, the CPP, which established guidelines for States to limit carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants. The Trump administration repealed the CPP and issued in its place the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which eliminated or deferred the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated the Affordable Clean Energy rule as arbitrary and capricious. One of the challengers, North American Coal Corporation, challenged how broad the EPA's authority is to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, the Clean Power Plan was never implemented. Yet several of the parties challenging the plan are asking the Supreme Court to issue a decision far beyond whether the CPP constitutes a reasonable interpretation of section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The challengers have put forth interpretations of two legal doctrines--the nondelegation and major questions doctrines--that could, if adopted, strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases entirely. The Supreme Court has spoken on the Clean Air Act. In 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, a Supreme Court decision ruled that EPA has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in vehicle emissions. The majority found that the Agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could prove a scientific basis for its refusal. There is none. The same year, in Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy, the Court ruled unanimously with regards to the EPA's authority to regulate factories and powerplants that add capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. In the current case of West Virginia v. EPA, I joined Chairman Carper's amicus brief with nearly 200 Members of Congress. The brief illustrates EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from harmful pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and address the climate crisis. It also rejects arguments made by the petitioners challenging the EPA's authority to address carbon pollution. It is among a notable number of briefs filed in this case, many citing my home State of Maryland. In their brief in support of the respondents, climate scientists observe that heavy rain and snowstorms across most of the United States have increased in both intensity and frequency since 2001. The Northeast region also faces flooding, particularly in the historic districts of cities like Annapolis, MD--home to the U.S. Naval Academy--and Newport, RI, as well as portions of Washington, DC, near the Tidal Basin. For example, human-caused climate change made the exceptionally heavy precipitation and flooding events that occurred in 2018 in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington, DC, up to 2.3 times more likely. The Washington Post reported that more than 40 percent of Americans live in counties hit by climate-related disasters in 2021, including three in Maryland: St. Mary's County and Calvert County in Southern Maryland and Dorchester County along Maryland's Eastern Shore. According to FEMA data, each suffered declared disasters spawned by hurricanes. Because of the vulnerability in my home State, I took direct action in 2019. I was proud to lead an effort with over 20 of my colleagues in a joint resolution providing for the congressional disapproval of the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan. Maryland is at risk not only to extreme weather events but also to slow-onset climate impacts that are equally damaging. The National Parks Conservation Association in its brief remarks on Maryland's cultural history: The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park is located in . . . Maryland. The approximate elevation of the park is a mere three feet above sea level and is surrounded by the inlets of the Chesapeake Bay. Viewed another way, 3 feet is half the depth of one-quarter of the bay. As water levels continue to rise, this national historic park may be permanently lost. The National Park Conservation Association's brief discusses the obligations Congress conferred on EPA to protect public lands and their resources. On February 15, NOAA announced the interagency ``Sea Level Rise Technical Report,'' which provides the most up-to-date sea level rise scenarios, available for all U.S. States and territories. The report projects sea levels along the coastline will rise an additional 10 to 12 inches by 2050, with specific amounts varying regionally, mainly due to land height changes. This effort is a product of the interagency Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood Hazard and Tool Task Force, comprised of NOAA, NASA, EPA, USGS, Department of Defense, FEMA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as several academic institutions. The report leverages methods and insights from both the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ``Sixth Assessment Report'' and supporting research from the U.S. Department of Defense regional sea level database. The report tells us that the United States is expected to experience as much sea level rise by the year 2050 as it witnessed in the previous 100 years, and it must serve as a wake-up call. Maryland's urban and suburban centers, in addition to our rural communities and coasts, are in danger. The National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors in their brief state that Baltimore, MD, as well as other major cities, including Washington, DC, Philadelphia, and Boston, have all experienced significant increases in exposure to wildfire smoke that prevailing winds carry across the country. State and local governments are taking action. In their brief, the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors cite that in 2013, ``Baltimore developed comprehensive responses--touching infrastructure, building codes, natural coastal barriers, and public services--to threats from rising seas, heat waves, and storms. [In central Maryland], Annapolis developed a first-in-the-nation Cultural Resources Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2018 to mitigate climate impacts on important cultural and historical landmarks, and the Eastern Shore Climate Adaptation Partnership has brought together local governments from across the Eastern Shore to prepare for climate impacts.'' Private companies, too, are among subnational actors that are all-in on climate. Maryland's McCormick & Company has set a new, more ambitious goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 42 percent by 2030, after achieving its prior target of 20 percent by 2025--4 years earlier than expected. The spice manufacturer and Fortune 500 company has also announced a new commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, in line with the enhanced U.S. National Determined Contribution Secretary Kerry delivered ahead of the COP26 meeting that occurred last year. But the company cannot mitigate climate change alone. The Federal Government must support it. The Clean Air Act is an essential tool by which we do so. Through the Build Back Better agenda and elsewhere, Congress is taking an all-of-the-above strategy to combat climate change, complemented by the Biden administration's whole-of-government approach. I am proud that the draft Senate Environment and Public Works Committee title to fulfill reconciliation instructions includes funding legislation to make Federal buildings greener. But more is needed. The legislation also includes funding for water utilities to enhance their resilience to natural hazards as authorized by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Supreme Court must tread carefully in curtailing any specific tool, including the Clean Air Act, and must not intercede where legislative efforts to curb EPA's authority have failed. Conversely, we must continue to pursue as many avenues as possible to deal with the climate crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to finish my remarks prior to the scheduled vote at 11:30.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Black History Month. Black History Month provides an opportunity for our Nation collectively to reflect on and celebrate the contributions and legacies of Black Americans. And while we have chosen this month, February, to engage in collective celebration, we must also remember that we benefit from the contributions and legacies of these great Americans every single day. Today, I would like to focus my remarks on our Nation's black entrepreneurs. From Madame C.J. Walker to Baltimore's own Reginald F. Lewis and beyond, Black entrepreneurs have long been vital to the success of the American economy. Unfortunately, throughout history, those who seek to hold back the progress of the Black community view the successes of Black entrepreneurs as a threat. One need only look to the 1921 Tulsa Massacre--a dark incident in our Nation's history that has belatedly entered our collective consciousness. White residents of Tulsa, OK, bombed, burned, and destroyed the Greenwood District. In addition to an untold number of lives lost-- estimates range from dozens to hundreds--the riot destroyed homes, churches, schools, and businesses in the district. At the time, Greenwood was known as ``Black Wall Street'' due to its thriving Black middle class and successful businesses, and its destruction was one of the worst instances of racial violence in our Nation's history. It is with instances like Greenwood and the dozens like it in mind that I stand here today because while Black entrepreneurs no longer work under the threat of such violence, they still face many longstanding systemic barriers. My late friend and mentor, former Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, believed very strongly that the Federal Government had an important role to play in our efforts to right these historical injustices and support Black entrepreneurs. In 1977, Congressman Mitchell fought to pass an amendment to a $4 billion Federal public works program requiring city and State recipients to set aside 10 percent of the funds for minority-owned businesses. He would go on to call the amendment his proudest congressional accomplishment. I was incredibly proud last year to build on his legacy by working across the aisle and finally codifying the Minority Business Development Agency, MBDA, and giving the agency the resources and leadership necessary to help support entrepreneurs in the Black and other minority communities. This accomplishment is particularly important in Maryland, as the Presiding Officer knows, since we are the home to the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses in the country. While we have made progress, we must also continue working together to address these systemic inequities. At the height of the pandemic, we came together to create the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP program, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to improve the program once it became clear that it was leaving far too many of our most vulnerable small businesses behind. We invested in non-bank financial institutions like the community depository financial institutions and microlenders. We strengthened relationships between the Small Business Administration and our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities and minority- serving institutions. We created grant programs that reduced structural barriers instead of reinforcing them. Recent studies have shown that these policies directly address the inequities present during the phase 1 PPP, which favored larger businesses. Through thoughtful policy, we made the program more equitable with the share of loans made to minority-owned businesses during phases 2 and 3 of the program in proportion with their overall share of small businesses. As I speak here today, the Senate is still trying to find a path forward on President Biden's Build Back Better budget, which implements many of the lessons we have learned over the past 2 years. The bill contains many key provisions that will provide the SBA and the MBDA with resources to empower Black entrepreneurs even more. For instance, the Build Back Better Act would create a direct loan program at the SBA. It would create a new Uplift Accelerator program to deepen the relationships between SBA and HBCUs, and it would make the SBA existing loan products more accessible and affordable. The pandemic has demonstrated that when we come together to address the problems in our society free from partisanship and in good faith, we are able to make great strides. It also confirms that the Federal Government has a key role to play in addressing the historic injustices that have harmed--and continue to harm--Black entrepreneurs and the Black community at large. This Black History Month, let us commit to pairing our words with actions, just as we did during the pandemic. We need to enact these proven policies as quickly as possible. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as we celebrate Black History Month, I rise today to honor two American heroes from our Greatest Generation: Brigadier General Charles E. McGee and Staff Sergeant Waverly B. Woodson, Jr. McGee was a Tuskegee Airman who passed away peacefully in his home in Bethesda, MD, on January 16, 2021. He was 102. Woodson, an Army medic assigned to the 320th Barrage Balloon Battalion, landed on Omaha Beach on D-day and saved the lives of as many as 200 soldiers over the next 30 hours of continuous duty. Both of these Marylanders fought with valor and distinction on behalf of a Nation that discriminated against them. Brigadier General McGee's incandescent spirit, courage, and resolve led us to victory through some of our darkest times. He has left lasting impact on our country as a pilot, patriot, and civil rights advocate. He was born on December 7, 1919, in Cleveland, OH. His mother died soon after. His father, who was a minister, teacher, and social worker, moved the family frequently during McGee's childhood in search of work opportunities that were not easy to come by. Despite this adversity, McGee graduated from high school in Chicago in 1938 and joined the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC. McGee used the money he made in the CCC to help pay for college, attending the University of Illinois as an ROTC student. When we look at the extraordinary life of Charles McGee, one thing is explicitly clear: No matter how dangerous or difficult the call, if his country needed him, he always answered. This inspiring pattern of behavior started during his sophomore year in college when, on McGee's 22nd birthday, Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor. McGee began searching for a way to serve in the war. After he heard that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had authorized a unit of Black soldiers to train as pilots in the Army Air Corps, he applied and to start flight training at the Tuskegee Army Field in Alabama and was accepted. Charles McGee battled racial discrimination but completed flight school as 1 of only 1,000 pilots, earning his spot as a Tuskegee Airman in the first-of-its-kind, all-Black 332nd Fighter group. In 1944, just a year after graduating, he deployed to Italy as a fighter pilot in World War II. He moved up the ranks quickly, from lieutenant to captain. McGee's squadron was responsible for escorting heavy bombers of the 15th Air Force across Europe and for target-of-opportunity missions. McGee flew 136 missions across Europe. Our victory in World War II, however, was not the end of McGee's service. He remained in the Army Corps and the Air Force for another 30 years, flying in both the Korean and the Vietnam wars. He tallied a record of 409 aerial fighter combat missions over the course of three wars. In 2020, McGee received an honorary promotion to brigadier general. While there are few individuals living or dead who have had careers as successful or significant as Charles McGee's, what made him so remarkable was his undying positive attitude and kind nature, even in the most trying situations. As a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, he was constantly subject to racial discrimination, both in the military and back home where Jim Crow Laws prevailed. In an essay McGee penned for the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, he wrote, ``The prevailing opinion was that blacks did not possess the intelligence or courage to be military pilots. One general even said, `The Negro type has not the proper reflexes to make a first-rate fighter pilot.' The Tuskegee Airmen certainly proved men like him wrong.'' Until the day he passed away, Charles McGee educated others about the Black experience during this time and spoke of the ``equality of opportunity'' that he and the Tuskegee Airmen valiantly fought to achieve. I am humbled and proud to call Charles McGee a fellow Marylander. His daughters Charlene McGee Smith and Yvonne McGee, 10 grandchildren, 14 great-grandchildren, and a great-great-grandchild survive him. His legacy is intertwined with our Nation's legacy. He is a true American hero. Waverly Bernard Woodson, Jr., is another true American hero. He was born on August 3, 1922, in Philadelphia and attended Lincoln University in Oxford, Pa, where he was a pre-med student. McGee enlisted in the Army 8 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He joined the anti-aircraft artillery Officer Candidate School after scoring highly on a test, where he was one of only two Black Americans. He learned, however, that he could not become an officer because of his race. He trained as a combat medic at Camp Tyson in Paris, TN, where he experienced segregation and discrimination. He was assigned to the 320th Barrage Balloon Battalion, reaching the rank of corporal by the time Operation Overlord commenced. On D-day, the 320th Barrage Balloon Battalion was the only African- American battalion to participate. While Corporal Woodson was coming ashore at Omaha Beach, his landing craft tank--LCT--hit a naval mine and then was hit by an ``eighty-eight'' shell. Woodson suffered shrapnel injuries to his groin, inner thigh, and back. Once he reached shore and received treatment for his wounds, he set up a first-aid station and began treating other wounded soldiers. He worked continuously from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on the following day, setting fractured limbs, removing bullets, amputating a foot, dispensing plasma, and reviving three men who nearly drowned while exiting their LCT; Woodson provided artificial respiration to the three men, reviving them. Woodson's commanding officer recommended him for a Distinguished Service Cross for his actions, but the office of General John C. H. Lee determined that Woodson's actions warranted the greater honor of a Medal of Honor. U.S. Department of War special assistant to the director Philleo Nash proposed that President Franklin D. Roosevelt should give Woodson the award personally. Woodson ultimately received a Bronze Star Medal and a Purple Heart. The Philadelphia Tribune wrote, ``The feeling is prevalent among Negroes that had Woodson been of another race the highest honor would have been granted him.'' After World War II ended, Woodson hoped to study medicine, but was unable to find a medical school that would admit him as a Black American. He returned to Lincoln University and graduated with a degree in biology in 1950. Woodson served in the Korean war, initially training combat medics before running an Army morgue. He served in the United Kingdom, France, and the Asia-Pacific. Within the United States, he also served at Fort George G. Meade, Valley Forge General Hospital, the Communicable Disease Center, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Woodson left the Army in 1952 with a final rank of staff sergeant. After leaving the Army, Woodson went on to work in the bacteriology department of the National Naval Medical Center. In 1959, he began working in the clinical pathology department of the National Institutes of Health until he retired in 1980. Staff Sergeant Woodson married Joann Katharyne Snowden in 1952; the couple had two daughters and a son. He died in 2005 and was buried with military honors in Arlington National Cemetery. Last month, I joined Senator Van Hollen and Representative Trone in writing to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth to request that an award decision authority formally review and consider awarding the Medal of Honor to Waverly B. Woodson, Jr., posthumously. In June 2021, Commanding General of the First United States Army Thomas S. James, Jr., wrote in favor of Woodson receiving the Medal of Honor. Woodson's widow Joann announced that if he were to receive the Medal of Honor posthumously, she would donate it to the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture. These stories are just two examples of Black-American soldiers who fought to defeat fascism during World War II while simultaneously enduring virulent racial discrimination as servicemen and back home in America as civilians. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, powerful White officials in southern States sought to nullify the political outcome of the Civil War. They passed laws and instituted policies that enforced segregation. We all know those laws: the Jim Crow laws, the Black Codes, the institutionalized segregation. The intent was to disenfranchise minority voters with poll taxes and literacy tests and voter intimidation. Thanks to courageous leaders, we were able to reverse those laws. President Harry Truman integrated our military in 1948. Then, there was the landmark decision in 1954 of Brown v. Board of Education. We Marylanders are proud of Thurgood Marshall, a native son, with respect to the role that he played in arguing that case before the Supreme Court. In 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and followed that historic legislation with the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and the Fair Housing Act in 1968. Black Americans and other people of color have fought and died to preserve our freedom. As we celebrate Black History Month, if we want to honor Brigadier General Charles E. McGee and Staff Sergeant Waverly B. Woodson, Jr., and countless others like them, we need to continue to expand equal opportunity in America, and we can start by passing voting rights legislation, the need for which I have frequently spoken about on the Senate floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution provides that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.'' One of the most important constitutional responsibilities I have as a Senator is to provide advice and consent on a President's Supreme Court nominee. A new Justice is someone who could serve for a generation or more and have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans for decades to come. Recently, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer announced that he would step down once the Senate confirms his successor. In his remarks, while reflecting on what he learned during his nearly three decades on the High Court, he said: This is a complicated country. There are more than 330 million people, and my mother used to say it's every race, it's every religion--and she would emphasize this--and it's every point of view possible. Justice Breyer has built a reputation and cemented a legacy as a champion of civil rights and fought to protect American consumers and our very democratic system of government from the attempts to undermine our campaign finance system and weaken the sacred franchise of the right to vote. His thoughtful scholarship on the importance of safeguarding human rights and respecting international law will continue to influence democratic governments around the world for years to come. When I think about a successor to Justice Breyer, I want to see someone who can serve as a strong and thoughtful presence on a Court that is tasked with some of the most complicated legal problems and questions in our Nation. Each new Justice is someone who could serve for a generation or more and have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans for decades to come. The Supreme Court will make decisions on a broad range of issues, such as voting rights, healthcare, women's reproductive freedoms, equal rights for women, climate change policy, gun safety, campaign finance, civil rights issues, and so much more. A nominee should represent the values of our Constitution in such a way that allows us to expand, not restrict, the civil rights of all Americans and keep powerful special interests and corporations in check. The U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document, but its authors designed a system of government around the rule of law and protection from abuses of power. Abuses could come from special interests or the government itself. Our Constitution created the Supreme Court of the United States as the protector of our constitutional rights. A Justice should have a healthy respect for the separation of powers and checks and balances in our constitutional system. A nominee should strive to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and protect the prerogatives of each branch of government, including Congress and its duly-enacted laws. A strong nominee must be respectful of the diversity of the American experience and live up to his or her constitutional oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as their judicial oath to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' Thus far, 115 Justices have served in our Nation's history, including Baltimore's own Thurgood Marshall, who was the first Black Supreme Court Justice. It is long past time to improve diversity on our Nation's Court, which promises ``equal justice under the law'' to all those who enter its hollowed chambers. The Supreme Court and its Justices should look more like the America it serves in both its demographic and professional diversity. Madam President, I know you are aware that of the 115 Justices who have served throughout the history of the United States on the Supreme Court, 108 of those 115 are White males. We need greater diversity in our courts, and we need greater diversity on the Supreme Court of the United States. In Maryland, for years, I have worked diligently when vacancies arise to recommend highly qualified lawyers to the President who will better diversify our Federal bench. Our Federal district court in Maryland consists of 10 active district court judges who sit in Baltimore and Greenbelt. I am proud that our court reflects the breadth and depth of the demographic and professional diversity in Maryland, including the first Black woman to serve as a Federal judge in Maryland and the first Asian-American Federal judge in Maryland. Half of the active district judges in our State are now women. I chuckle when I recall the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comment on how many women should be on the Supreme Court, as she was only the second female Justice in the Court's history. This is her quote: When I'm sometimes asked `When will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]?' and I say `When there are nine,' people are shocked. But there'd been nine men, and nobody's [even] raised a question about that. Our Federal judges in Maryland come from a wide variety of legal backgrounds, including having served as prosecutors, public defenders, private law firm attorneys, and judges in other courts. Maryland now has its first Black U.S. attorney in our State's history, whom I was pleased, along with Senator Van Hollen, to recommend to President Biden and who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. I believe that a more diverse court and justice system inspires the confidence of Marylanders who seek their day in court and want to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect. I am confident that the Senate, under the leadership of Majority Leader Schumer and Judiciary Chair Durbin, will conduct a fair hearing, vetting, and confirmation process for President Biden's eventual pick to replace Justice Breyer. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate over the coming months to give full and fair consideration to President Biden's nominee to replace Justice Breyer in order to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court. I am hopeful the American people will be proud of the process that unfolds in the Senate as they watch and learn more about the Constitution and the three branches of government that interact in this unique process to select the next Justice who will dispense justice on the highest Court in our land. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask for yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today is a sad day. While we gather here in session, a memorial service is being held to honor three Baltimore, MD, firefighters who gave their lives in service to their community. These tragedies are a stark reminder of the commitment and sacrifice that firefighters throughout our great Nation make on a daily basis serving communities large and small. They are truly our domestic defenders and epitomize their moniker of ``America's Bravest.'' International Association of Fire Fighters--IAFF--Baltimore Fire Officers Local 964 Lieutenant Paul Butrim and Baltimore Firefighters IAFF Local 734 Acting Lieutenant Kelsey Sadler and Firefighter/ Paramedic Kenneth Lacayo died after a partial collapse trapped them in a burning rowhouse in west Baltimore last Monday. These fallen brothers and sister leave behind grieving family members, a devastated firefighter family, and a community in mourning. We owe them the deepest gratitude and respect. During this difficult time, I ask my Senate colleagues to hold in their prayers the families and friends of the victims, the members of the Baltimore City Fire Department, and the citizens of Baltimore. This tragedy affects us all. Families lost a mom, a dad, a sister, a brother, an aunt, an uncle, a firefighter, a friend. In the pre-dawn hours of Monday, January 24, 2022, Baltimore City firefighters were dispatched to the 200 block of South Stricker Street for a reported rowhouse fire. As the firefighters responded, the dispatcher relayed that there was a ``report of persons trapped.'' Shortly after they arrived at the scene, the building partially collapsed, killing Lieutenant Butrim, Acting Lieutenant Sadler, and Firefighter/Paramedic Lacayo. A fourth firefighter, Baltimore IAFF Local 734 member John McMaster, was transported to Shock Trauma and has since been released to recover from his injuries. Please keep him and his family in your prayers, too. Lieutenant Butrim was just 37, but already a 16-year veteran of the Baltimore City Fire Department. He was no stranger to putting himself in harm's way. He was called to the job in 2005 when he began his training as a firefighter/paramedic. Immediately after completing his training, he joined the Baltimore City Fire Department. He was always looking to improve his skills as a firefighter/paramedic, eventually earning the rank of lieutenant. Those who knew him say that he was not just an excellent firefighter; he was also an all-around good guy and always willing to help. Paul was a big sports fan and especially liked following NASCAR, baseball, and hockey. He married Rachel, his best friend and love of his life, in 2015. Their son, Nolan, was born in 2016. Tragically, Nolan passed suddenly in February 2019, leaving the family heartbroken. Ms. Sadler, 33, a firefighter for 15 years, was serving as an acting lieutenant for the department when she was killed in the partial rowhouse collapse. Three days after her death, the Baltimore City Fire Department officially promoted Kelsey to the rank of lieutenant. Lieutenant Sadler began her career with the Baltimore City Fire Department after graduating from high school in 2006. Lieutenant Sadler had a big heart, a strong will, and the determination to get any task done. Family was her priority. Her presence in any room made everything better and brighter. She was an amazing wife to Brandon, an incredible stepmom to Mila, and the best aunt to Lily and Emmett. When it came to the job, she earned the respect of her colleagues doing what she did best. Everyone who witnessed the beauty and dedication in how she lived her life will remember her. Firefighter/Paramedic Lacayo, 30, was a native of Montgomery County, MD. He became a firefighter in 2012 and a paramedic in 2014, serving first with the Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad, where he received multiple citations for going above and beyond the call of duty. He joined the Baltimore Fire Department in 2014 and was assigned to Engine 14 in August 2021. All those who knew Firefighter/Paramedic Lacayo well describe him as the pinnacle of what a good person should be: kind and humble, always putting others before himself. His exceptional skills as a firefighter and paramedic were matched by his bright smile and his unfailing good nature. Kurt Vonnegut said, ``I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire engine.'' I agree. There are no adequate words to describe the pain and the severity of these losses. But today, this tribute remembers and celebrates their lives, memorializes their sacrifice, and commemorates their service. These public servants worked every day on the frontlines, answering the call whenever sudden danger occurred until the very end. On January 24, these brave men and woman made the ultimate sacrifice. Knowing what I know about these fire fighters is best described with words like service, sense of duty, response, commitment, courage, and sacrifice. And while those are strong reasons by which to live, sadly, in the firefighting profession, they are also the reasons by which they die. It is important to rejoice in the lives and contributions these lost souls have given, knowing that this world is a safer place because of the men and women across this country who continue to give their lives so others may live. From this moment forward, we will honor these three firefighters who lost their lives for their bravery and courage. Today, I ask that, in their honor--and for firefighters everywhere-- please help protect our firefighters in their heroic efforts to save lives.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the terrible tragedy that befell the people of Burma 1 year ago today, when the Tatmadaw, the Burmese military, reclaimed total power in the coup d'etat of February 1, 2021. Since then, the military has waged a brutal campaign against its own people, a people that has nonetheless stood up to challenge the crackdown through civil disobedience, strikes, and protests. And when that failed to move the junta, the people of Burma have been forced to resort to military action against their oppressors. Burma is a complex, polyglot society made up of many ethnic groups and religious tradition. Yet the one thing that seems to have united a wide cross-section of the Burmese people has been this violent rupture of what for more than decade had been a fitful trend toward increasing democratization. Today, the opposition to the military has galvanized the people to such an extent that organized resistance has turned to increasingly well-organized paramilitary action against the military and its institutions of repression. As authoritarianism grows around the world, we must work with like- minded nations to fight corruption, protect human rights, increase transparency, and work with civil society to defend democracy and the freedom of marginalized people around the world. Throughout its independence, Burma's history has suffered decades of repressive military rule and civil war with ethnic minority groups, and what we are seeing today in Burma is no different. The February 1 military coup and the capture of elected government officials in Burma was a clear attack on the democratic process of free and fair elections and the will of the Burmese people. This affront poses a direct threat to the ongoing stability of the country, its economy, and the health and welfare of its citizens. On the very same day the newly elected Parliament was set to assume office, the Burmese military, the Tatmadaw, staged a coup rather than see their grip on power and corrupt gains threatened by the will of the Burmese people. Since the coup took place, Burma's human rights situation has deteriorated exponentially. The military has detained over 11,000 people for exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly and killed more than 1,400 civilians, including children. Fighting between Myanmar's military and several ethnic armed groups continued, with government forces committing increased abuses against ethnic Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Chin, Rakhine, Rohingya, and Shan minority populations. Military and police abuses were amplified with arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, and killings in custody. These actions by the military have driven hundreds of thousands from their homes and thousands more to flee across Burma's borders into Thailand, India, and Bangladesh. We have also seen the Tatmadaw put the democratically elected civilian leadership of Burma, including President Win Myint and State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, through sham trials for fabricated crimes and sentenced them to lengthy prison terms in order to remove them from political competition. On February 4, just 3 days after the coup, I introduced this resolution with Senator Young condemning the military's February 1 military coup. The resolution has been revised through amendments offered by colleagues and updated to reflect recent events. It retains the same essential message, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of all those detained and for elected officials to be allowed to resume their duties without impediment. I was heartened to see President Biden take action through a series of executive orders since last February. I am especially pleased to see that the Biden administration has issued sanctions in coordination with our allies. This is not something the U.S. should be acting on unilaterally. It is imperative that we move forward with a floor vote on this resolution, and I am hopeful that we can do the same in the coming days on the bill I introduced in October, the BURMA Act. This important legislation authorizes the President to impose sanctions on individuals and entities who helped stage the February 1 coup d'etat in Burma and are responsible for the subsequent repression of fundamental freedoms, perpetuation of human rights abuses, use of indiscriminate violence towards civilians, and other gross atrocities. Additionally, the bill authorizes increased humanitarian assistance for Rohingya refugees and provides support for civil society and independent media; prohibits the import of gemstones from Burma into the U.S.; calls for the United States to pressure the United Nations to take more decisive action with regards to Burma; and requests a genocide determination regarding the persecution of the Rohingya. It is important for the international community to continue to pressure the military junta to restore democracy for the people of Burma. The behavior of the Tatmadaw has not and will not change without concrete and robust actions from the international community to bring justice, accountability, and restore democracy. I remain committed to continuing to work with the Biden administration and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that the U.S. and international response to the military coup is coordinated and targeted to have a strong impact on those responsible, while also encouraging a peaceful transition of power back to the civilian government. I continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Burma and condemn the ongoing violence against them.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I disagree with the last speaker's characterization of the issue he was bringing up, but I want to stay focused on voting rights because this is an important moment for the U.S. Senate. This is our opportunity to debate the need for voting protection and voting rights, but I do want to make one comment. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that they welcome an opportunity to debate voting rights legislation and talk about ways that we can get this bill to have bipartisan support. The majority leader, several weeks ago, offered a motion to proceed on voting rights. He filed cloture so that we could get on the bill and have the type of debate that my colleagues now are telling us they want to have, and not a single Republican voted to proceed on voting rights legislation at that time. So I find it a little bit disheartening to hear this newfound desire to start taking up voting rights when we have been negotiating and talking and debating this issue now for this entire Congress. We also have a historic opportunity to vote on voting rights if we take advantage of that opportunity. I represent the State of Maryland, and I know we have talked about 19 States that are moving in the wrong direction on protecting voting rights. Maryland is not one of those States. In fact, the Maryland Legislature has taken steps to make it easier for voters to be able to register and cast their votes. The Voting Rights Act was authored by my Congressman, John Sarbanes, and I am proud of the work that he has done because Marylanders recognize that we administer elections locally but that we need national standards, and that is why this legislation is under consideration. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, powerful officials sought to nullify the political outcome of the Civil War. They passed laws and instituted policies that enforced segregation. We all know those laws: the Jim Crow laws, the Black Codes, the institutionalized segregation. They were enabled by Jim Crow laws that were aimed at disenfranchising minority voters with poll taxes and literacy tests and voter intimidation--rationalized in protecting our national security and voter integrity. Thanks to courageous leaders, we were able to reverse those laws--by Presidents such as Harry Truman, in 1948, in integrating our military; by our courts in the landmark decision in 1954 of Brown v. Board of Education, and Marylanders are proud of Thurgood Marshall, a native son of Maryland's, in the role that he played in arguing that case before the Supreme Court; and by our Congress with its historic action in 1964 to pass the Civil Rights Act, in 1965 to pass the Voting Rights Act, and in 1968 to pass the Fair Housing Act. Today, we are now seeing a renewed effort for Jim Crow-type laws, aimed at disenfranchising targeted voters. My colleagues have talked about it, and I am not going to repeat it here today because I know that time is running short. We know that these laws are aimed at making it more difficult for minority communities to be able to cast their votes. My colleague from New Jersey talked about students. Marginal groups are targeted because those who are enacting these laws think it will help them politically. Why now? The answer is pretty simple: the 2020 election. It was an election in which more people voted than ever before, and it was judged to be the most secure election in American history. But because Donald Trump lost, for the first time in the history of this Nation, we had the loser claim that the election was stolen in order to rationalize his loss. That Big Lie is what motivated legislatures to pass laws to make it more difficult for vulnerable people to be able to vote, to effect election results, presenting a clear danger to our democracy itself on voter integrity and in the confidence of voters that our system is actually working. Now is the time for the Senate to show courage to debate, as we are doing today, and to vote on two bills. The Freedom to Vote Act sets minimum Federal standards with State- administered election laws. We have gone through all of the different provisions, so I am not going to go through them again, but we need to have these national standards because of the actions of these 19 States and other reasons, such as the dark money that my colleague from Rhode Island pointed out, voter intimidation issues, and restoring democracy. There are so many issues that are in it that are important in order to restore voter confidence. We need to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act, because of the Supreme Court's decision, and restore precertification. As has been put out by my colleagues, this has been historically supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Again, we need one Republican to vote to proceed to this, for those who are saying they are willing to debate this issue. Today, Senators will have the opportunity to vote and to be on the right side of history. The Senate filibuster prevented the passage of civil rights legislation to reverse the Jim Crow laws until, finally, in 1964, the filibuster ended, and the Senate voted. By invoking cloture, we can vote now to protect the voting rights of Americans. We can do it right now by passing cloture and being on the right side of history. If cloture is denied, we will have the opportunity to restore the Senate to its best traditions--to debate and vote; to require those who want to use rule XIX--and rule XIX is our filibuster rule--to actually be on the floor and debate. No more pocket filibusters. As for the Senate rules changes that we have all been talking about-- and I have been listening to my colleagues--let me just talk a little bit about changing Senate practice--let alone a constitutional issue, such as voting rights, should have priority over any of the procedural issues that we have here on the floor of the Senate and let alone restoring the Senate to a working body should have priority over the interpretations of some of our rules. Let me talk about the rule itself. If you look at the 20th century, basically, legislation was considered on the floor of the Senate through comity and debate and compromise, and we were able to bring issues to the floor for a vote. Rarely--very rarely--was a filibuster used. Why? Because you had to come to the floor and talk. It was very time-consuming. It took a lot of time off the Senate floor. It was inconvenient for the Member to have to stand up here and talk. So we were able to come together. It wasn't through a cloture vote that it ended; it ended because people didn't want to go through the inconvenience of talking or we were able to resolve it. We are talking about restoring the Senate to its best traditions. Many have talked about, we are going to change the filibuster rule. No, we are not suggesting changing the filibuster rule. The filibuster rule is coming to the floor to speak. It is the cloture that is the 60 votes. You don't need cloture if you run the clock on the filibuster. What we need to do is prevent dilatory actions, and that is why the leader's point is going to be important. We are trying to restore the Senate to a body that can work together by requiring that Members come to the floor and speak and vote by how the Framers of the Senate rules intended at the end of the day. To my friend from West Virginia, this gives us the chance to start to work together. I couldn't agree with him more. We do need to come together in a bipartisan way and let our committees work. We need to look into the Senate rules. But we first need to move on action, and this is a fundamental bill that we need to move forward. The leader is framing this in a very narrow way so he can get this bill moving and use this as an example to work together, Democrats and Republicans, so the Senate can restore its practices and so we all can be proud Members of a body that debates and votes. That is what we can do while respecting each Member's rights and respecting minority rights. I urge my colleagues to support cloture and, if cloture fails, to support the leader's point and be on the right side of history. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an act, co- sponsored by Senator Hagerty, that addresses the importance of foreign affairs training to national security and, more specifically, intends to improve training and professional development of the Foreign Service officers and civil service staff at the U.S. State Department. This act calls for the State Department to move beyond its traditional approach towards a more robust professional training program, incorporating innovative education and training courses, methods, and opportunities. Employees of the State Department have a long, honorable tradition of providing excellence in diplomacy, but it is time to modernize the training and professional development they receive, enabling them to more effectively promote our national security interests abroad and ensuring the retention of our best and brightest employees. The legislation will accomplish the following: provide a more effective and updated training program for employees of the State Department, to include increased virtual instruction that is interactive and more accessible to personnel deployed around the world, as well as increased training provided by partner organizations such as universities, industry entities, and nongovernmental organization, NGOs: establish a Chief Learning Officer position to serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary of State and strategist for State Department training and development; and establish a nonpartisan Board of Visitors to provide independent advice and recommendations regarding training at the Foreign Service Institute. Other key elements of the legislation include establishment of a clear link between required employee training and promotional opportunities and assignments at the State Department; a ``training float'' strategy that will allow 10 to 15 percent of Foreign Service and civil service officers and staff to participate in training at any given time; a call for the State Department to establish new fellowship programs for Foreign Service and civil service officers and staff in addition to the current Pearson and Brookings Fellowship Programs, allowing them to participate in short- and long-term opportunities at think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, the Department of Defense, industry entities, and relevant university programs; and establishment of a Center for Innovation in Training and a Provost position at the Foreign Service Institute, to evaluate all courses and curriculum offered by FSI and identify necessary updates to meet the frequent changes required by officers due to changing global dynamics. The Department of State is a crucial national security agency, whose employees, both Foreign Service and civil service, require the best possible training at every stage of their careers to prepare them to promote and defend U.S. national interests and the health and safety of U.S. citizens abroad. As chair of the Subcommittee on U.S. State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development, along with Ranking Member Senator Hagerty, I have presided over the first two in a planned series of subcommittee hearings on modernization of the State Department. The most recent hearing, held in November of last year, made clear that the numerous studies issued about the State Department's need to change its culture, starting with an innovative training and professional development program, were on the mark. During the hearing, we heard that ``everything is fine'' at State in terms of training, while the Department's retention rate indicates the loss of experienced Foreign Service officers and civil servants. External witnesses Ambassador David Miller, president of the Diplomatic Studies Foundation, and Joshua Marcuse, who formerly served as the Executive Director of the Defense Innovation Board, painted a very different picture, calling for an overarching effort to change the culture of the State Department--which as one of the oldest Federal Departments is steeped in tradition and protocol--to transform it once again into the lead Agency executing American foreign policy overseas. The level of challenges the State Department faces now around the world are almost unprecedented, with the return of great power competition, the rise of authoritarianism, the collapse of Afghanistan, climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and--not least--assisting American citizens around the world. Professional education and training must be top priorities at the State Department, and we must strengthen the professionalization of our diplomats through a career-long program that focuses on mastery of substantive foreign policy issues, diplomatic expertise, superb customer service for American citizens abroad, and leadership. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a speech last fall on ``Modernizing American Diplomacy,'' and one of the five pillars he described is that of building and retaining a diverse, dynamic, and entrepreneurial workforce, and empowering and equipping State Department employees to succeed. This bill will kick-start the rebuilding effort Mr. Blinken spoke about, putting the emphasis on training and professional development of the Department's greatest asset: its people. I remain committed to continuing to work with the Biden administration and my colleagues in Congress to provide every opportunity for State Department employees to receive the best possible training at every stage of their careers, to prepare them to promote and defend U.S. national interests and the health and safety of U.S. citizens abroad.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight legislation I am introducing with the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, to address prescription drug shortages. We rely on prescription drugs to battle infectious diseases like SARS-CoV-2, for the treatment of cancer and hormonal disorders and in countless other facets of modern medicine. When drug shortages, which are unforeseen supply disruptions, occur, healthcare teams must scramble to develop new plans of care because the optimal treatment is no longer available. The Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act will help tackle drug shortages by enabling the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to extend the shelf of certain drugs at risk of shortage in a safe fashion. Prescription drug shortages are a persistent problem, leading to diminished access to vital medications and potentially catastrophic outcomes for patients. FDA wrote in its 2019 Drug Shortages Task Force Report that discarding drugs if they exceed an unnecessarily short expiration date can exacerbate drug shortages. Essentially, the shelf life for certain drugs can be safely extended, and I support empowering authorities to do so to prevent drug shortages. Last year, I introduced the Drug Shortages Prevention & Quality Improvement Act. The legislation would address some of the main causes of drug shortages and provide solutions to mitigate their effects. The legislation would give the FDA additional tools to mitigate drug shortages, such as extending shelf lives for certain essential drugs. This legislation also seeks to address prescription drug shortages by creating incentives for manufacturers to upgrade their facilities to prevent shortages. Some of the facilities FDA has tied to drug shortages have been operating continually since the 1960s with minimal upgrades to manufacturing lines and facilities. The FDA Drug Shortages Task Force report found that quality concerns caused 62 percent of drug shortages from 2013 to 2017. Last April, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee Chair Murray and Ranking Member Burr announced plans to develop a bipartisan initiative to prepare the Nation for future public health emergencies in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. I applaud this effort to modernize our national response efforts for the current pandemic and future pandemics and look forward to consideration of this legislation on the floor of the Senate. I was particularly pleased to see language included in the HELP Committee's discussion draft for this preparedness initiative from the Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act. Extending shelf lives of certain drugs is not only critical to prevent drug shortages but also to enable our prescription drug supply chain to be more responsive and better prepared to respond to public health emergencies. Domestically, we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. We are nearing record-high hospitalizations due to COVID-19, including record- high levels for children. In my State of Maryland, we have encountered a new record-high hospitalization level every day since December 29. For many patients, the severity and mortality rates are lower due to higher vaccination levels and better treatments gleaned from our experience in battling COVID-19 so far, but these high hospitalization rates are straining an already overburdened system. As we continue fighting the pandemic, in addition to other diseases and illnesses, timely access to medications is essential for our healthcare providers and their patients. The Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act would require FDA to update guidance tied to manufacturer testing of the shelf life of prescription drug and to report to Congress on actions taken to update the shelf life dates of relevant drugs. Shelf life expiration dates are established through regulations governing prescription drug stability testing, which need to be reexamined since they have not been amended since 1981. I look forward to working with the Biden administration as it implements this essential legislation and related regulations. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in support of the Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act to improve access to essential prescription drugs and to prevent or mitigate future drug shortages. No one should have to go without essential prescriptions drugs when usable supplies are available but have potentially inaccurate use-by dates stamped on their box or bottle.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an act, co- sponsored by Senator Hagerty, that addresses the importance of foreign affairs training to national security and, more specifically, intends to improve training and professional development of the Foreign Service officers and civil service staff at the U.S. State Department. This act calls for the State Department to move beyond its traditional approach towards a more robust professional training program, incorporating innovative education and training courses, methods, and opportunities. Employees of the State Department have a long, honorable tradition of providing excellence in diplomacy, but it is time to modernize the training and professional development they receive, enabling them to more effectively promote our national security interests abroad and ensuring the retention of our best and brightest employees. The legislation will accomplish the following: provide a more effective and updated training program for employees of the State Department, to include increased virtual instruction that is interactive and more accessible to personnel deployed around the world, as well as increased training provided by partner organizations such as universities, industry entities, and nongovernmental organization, NGOs: establish a Chief Learning Officer position to serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary of State and strategist for State Department training and development; and establish a nonpartisan Board of Visitors to provide independent advice and recommendations regarding training at the Foreign Service Institute. Other key elements of the legislation include establishment of a clear link between required employee training and promotional opportunities and assignments at the State Department; a ``training float'' strategy that will allow 10 to 15 percent of Foreign Service and civil service officers and staff to participate in training at any given time; a call for the State Department to establish new fellowship programs for Foreign Service and civil service officers and staff in addition to the current Pearson and Brookings Fellowship Programs, allowing them to participate in short- and long-term opportunities at think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, the Department of Defense, industry entities, and relevant university programs; and establishment of a Center for Innovation in Training and a Provost position at the Foreign Service Institute, to evaluate all courses and curriculum offered by FSI and identify necessary updates to meet the frequent changes required by officers due to changing global dynamics. The Department of State is a crucial national security agency, whose employees, both Foreign Service and civil service, require the best possible training at every stage of their careers to prepare them to promote and defend U.S. national interests and the health and safety of U.S. citizens abroad. As chair of the Subcommittee on U.S. State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development, along with Ranking Member Senator Hagerty, I have presided over the first two in a planned series of subcommittee hearings on modernization of the State Department. The most recent hearing, held in November of last year, made clear that the numerous studies issued about the State Department's need to change its culture, starting with an innovative training and professional development program, were on the mark. During the hearing, we heard that ``everything is fine'' at State in terms of training, while the Department's retention rate indicates the loss of experienced Foreign Service officers and civil servants. External witnesses Ambassador David Miller, president of the Diplomatic Studies Foundation, and Joshua Marcuse, who formerly served as the Executive Director of the Defense Innovation Board, painted a very different picture, calling for an overarching effort to change the culture of the State Department--which as one of the oldest Federal Departments is steeped in tradition and protocol--to transform it once again into the lead Agency executing American foreign policy overseas. The level of challenges the State Department faces now around the world are almost unprecedented, with the return of great power competition, the rise of authoritarianism, the collapse of Afghanistan, climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and--not least--assisting American citizens around the world. Professional education and training must be top priorities at the State Department, and we must strengthen the professionalization of our diplomats through a career-long program that focuses on mastery of substantive foreign policy issues, diplomatic expertise, superb customer service for American citizens abroad, and leadership. Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a speech last fall on ``Modernizing American Diplomacy,'' and one of the five pillars he described is that of building and retaining a diverse, dynamic, and entrepreneurial workforce, and empowering and equipping State Department employees to succeed. This bill will kick-start the rebuilding effort Mr. Blinken spoke about, putting the emphasis on training and professional development of the Department's greatest asset: its people. I remain committed to continuing to work with the Biden administration and my colleagues in Congress to provide every opportunity for State Department employees to receive the best possible training at every stage of their careers, to prepare them to promote and defend U.S. national interests and the health and safety of U.S. citizens abroad.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight legislation I am introducing with the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, to address prescription drug shortages. We rely on prescription drugs to battle infectious diseases like SARS-CoV-2, for the treatment of cancer and hormonal disorders and in countless other facets of modern medicine. When drug shortages, which are unforeseen supply disruptions, occur, healthcare teams must scramble to develop new plans of care because the optimal treatment is no longer available. The Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act will help tackle drug shortages by enabling the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to extend the shelf of certain drugs at risk of shortage in a safe fashion. Prescription drug shortages are a persistent problem, leading to diminished access to vital medications and potentially catastrophic outcomes for patients. FDA wrote in its 2019 Drug Shortages Task Force Report that discarding drugs if they exceed an unnecessarily short expiration date can exacerbate drug shortages. Essentially, the shelf life for certain drugs can be safely extended, and I support empowering authorities to do so to prevent drug shortages. Last year, I introduced the Drug Shortages Prevention & Quality Improvement Act. The legislation would address some of the main causes of drug shortages and provide solutions to mitigate their effects. The legislation would give the FDA additional tools to mitigate drug shortages, such as extending shelf lives for certain essential drugs. This legislation also seeks to address prescription drug shortages by creating incentives for manufacturers to upgrade their facilities to prevent shortages. Some of the facilities FDA has tied to drug shortages have been operating continually since the 1960s with minimal upgrades to manufacturing lines and facilities. The FDA Drug Shortages Task Force report found that quality concerns caused 62 percent of drug shortages from 2013 to 2017. Last April, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee Chair Murray and Ranking Member Burr announced plans to develop a bipartisan initiative to prepare the Nation for future public health emergencies in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. I applaud this effort to modernize our national response efforts for the current pandemic and future pandemics and look forward to consideration of this legislation on the floor of the Senate. I was particularly pleased to see language included in the HELP Committee's discussion draft for this preparedness initiative from the Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act. Extending shelf lives of certain drugs is not only critical to prevent drug shortages but also to enable our prescription drug supply chain to be more responsive and better prepared to respond to public health emergencies. Domestically, we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. We are nearing record-high hospitalizations due to COVID-19, including record- high levels for children. In my State of Maryland, we have encountered a new record-high hospitalization level every day since December 29. For many patients, the severity and mortality rates are lower due to higher vaccination levels and better treatments gleaned from our experience in battling COVID-19 so far, but these high hospitalization rates are straining an already overburdened system. As we continue fighting the pandemic, in addition to other diseases and illnesses, timely access to medications is essential for our healthcare providers and their patients. The Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act would require FDA to update guidance tied to manufacturer testing of the shelf life of prescription drug and to report to Congress on actions taken to update the shelf life dates of relevant drugs. Shelf life expiration dates are established through regulations governing prescription drug stability testing, which need to be reexamined since they have not been amended since 1981. I look forward to working with the Biden administration as it implements this essential legislation and related regulations. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in support of the Drug Shortages Shelf Life Extension Act to improve access to essential prescription drugs and to prevent or mitigate future drug shortages. No one should have to go without essential prescriptions drugs when usable supplies are available but have potentially inaccurate use-by dates stamped on their box or bottle.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled at 5:30 commence immediately.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow will mark the first anniversary of one of the darkest moments in our Nation's history. One year ago tomorrow, a mob attacked this building. A mob of Americans, incited by a sitting U.S. President, was determined to prevent the peaceful transition of power that is the hallmark of our representative democracy. A mob of Americans savagely attacked and overwhelmed the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police departments, smashed their way into this sacred space, and disrupted the joint session of Congress fulfilling its constitutional duty to count the electoral college ballots awarding the Presidency to Joe Biden. January 6, like December 7 and September 11, is a date which will live in infamy. I refer to the U.S. Capitol as a sacred space because it is so much more than a building where the Senate and House of Representatives meet and conduct business. It is the embodiment of our ideals, our aspirations and hopes, not just to Americans but also to all of humanity. In the 1960 essay on ``national purpose'' for the New York Times and LIFE magazine, Archibald MacLeish wrote: There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American Dream. Insurrectionists desecrated this sacred space and everything it stands for, including liberty, self-government and the rule of law. The Architect of the Capitol can measure the damage they did to this building in millions of dollars. The damage they did to our moral standing in the world is inestimable. I want to take this moment to acknowledge and pay tribute to the thousands of people who work in Congress or cover it for the press and continue to suffer from the trauma of January the 6th. I am talking about the brave police officers who protected us. They engaged in a battle that one officer described as ``medieval.'' And 140 of them, including Metropolitan Police Department officers, suffered physical injuries. One of them, Officer Brian Sicknick, died. I imagine all the officers who defended the Capitol bear the psychological scars of the attack. Four officers--Howard Liebengood, Jeffrey Smith, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag committed suicide in the aftermath. But I am also talking about the staff who work here in the Capitol, in the Senate and House Chambers: the doorkeepers, the Parliamentarian's office, the bill clerk, the Congressional Record staff, the floor and cloakroom staff, and so many others. Many of them had to shelter in place. They had to barricade themselves in offices, hoping the police would get to them before the insurrectionists did. I am talking about the committee and legislative staff in our DC offices and back in our State and district offices, who watched the attack in horror and disbelief and feared for the safety of their friends and colleagues, who answer the phones and hear death threats and obscenities. I am talking about the food service workers, custodial staff, and other Architect of the Capitol and Sergeant at Arms employees who were caught in the mayhem and then immediately went to work cleaning up the mess, repairing the damage, and providing other essential services, all in the midst of a raging pandemic. I am talking about those reporters who documented the insurrection at great personal peril after Donald Trump spent the previous 4 years calling them the enemies of the people and openly encouraged his supporters to attack them at his rallies. Congress could not function without this community of patriotic and hard-working Americans. This community is hurting. On New Year's Day, the Washington Post ran an article entitled ``Shaken by the Jan. 6 attack, Capitol workers quit jobs that once made them proud.'' ``Quit jobs that once made them proud''--what a terrible thing, what a loss to our Nation. The danger our Nation faced on January 6 has not dissipated. As the New York Times editorial board stated a few days ago, ``the Republic faces an existential threat from a movement that is openly contemptuous of democracy and has shown that it is willing to use violence to achieve its ends.'' The leader of this movement, of course, is Donald Trump. The organizing principle is the Big Lie that Democrats ``stole'' the election. The mindset is what historian Richard Hofstadter called ``the paranoid style in American politics,'' which ``produces . . . strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed.'' The response to nearly nonexistent voter fraud is to engage in massive voter suppression. The objective is not election reform; it is election repeal. It is important to understand that the insurrection on January 6 was not a spontaneous event. As Ed Kilgore wrote in a New York magazine article entitled ``Trump's Long Campaign to Steal the Presidency: A timeline,'' ``The insurrection was a complex, years-long plot, not a one-day event. And it isn't over.'' Rightwing media personalities and QAnon conspiracy followers feverishly and cynically stoke the movement for their own gain. Elected Republican officials, fearful of Donald Trump's wrath or eager to curry favor with him, enable it. In 1950, Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine issued her ``Declaration of Conscience'' in response to another authoritarian bully, fellow Republican Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin. Senator Smith was no fan of the Truman administration, but she said the following: [T]o displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to the nation. . . . I do not want to see the Republican party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny--Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear. I doubt if the Republican party could do so, simply because I do not believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans are not that desperate for victory. I do not want to see the Republican party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow the example of Margaret Chase Smith. There is nothing conservative about advocating force over the rule of law. There is nothing conservative about pledging loyalty to a man over upholding the U.S. Constitution. I understand that many Americans are disinclined to believe that the President of the United States would blatantly lie to them, but it is exactly what Donald Trump has been doing since he claimed that millions of people who voted illegally cost him the popular vote majority in the 2016 election. In fact, his lies go back even further, to his vile birther claims about President Obama. We have the opportunity and the imperative for a course correction to save our Republic, and that is to restore, expand, and protect voting rights. The Senate must consider S. 2747, the Freedom to Vote Act, and S. 4, the bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. On multiple occasions, Senate Democrats voted unanimously just to begin considering these bills to protect people's right to vote, which has come under sustained assault. Each time we have tried to proceed to these measures, every Republican Senator has voted to sustain a filibuster. Senate Republicans put gridlock and partisanship before the rights of voters. They are blocking the Senate from having a chance to consider options and amendments and do what the Founding Fathers intended us to do: debate and legislate. Within the next few days, our Republican colleagues in the Senate will have yet another opportunity, a chance to do the right thing. Many Senators have worked diligently to come up with compromise legislation that still preserves the essential elements of S. 1, For the People Act, that the House of Representatives has already passed. And President Biden is absolutely correct that we need to enact voting rights legislation to repair the damage the Supreme Court did to the Voting Rights Act. President Biden rightly calls efforts to limit ballot access across the country as a 21st century Jim Crow assault. He warned Americans that the Republican efforts to restrict voting rights as a result of their selfish challenge of the 2020 election results represent ``the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.'' In many States, Republican legislatures and Governors have responded to the falsehoods of the 2020 election by restricting voting accessibility. Donald Trump's Big Lie has directly led to disenfranchisement and suppression of the right to vote of millions of Americans. I urge my colleagues and my fellow American citizens to reflect on the state of our democracy and the rights we hold so dear. A blatant attempt to falsify an election and persistent efforts to deny the American people access to the ballot box has eroded American democracy to a dangerous level and undermined the freedom and liberty that so many Americans have fought to defend and advance. After elections are over and we win, we celebrate. We celebrate the fact that we have garnered the support of the majority of the voters. If we don't win--I think many of us have been involved in campaigns where our candidates have not been successful--we go to work and try to attract more voters in the next election so we can celebrate a victory. That is what participation in a free society is all about. That is what democracies are about. And repressive, autocratic regimes never accept the will of the people so they look at ways in which they can undermine the voting record, what the voters want, and the voters' will. We should all celebrate the record number of people who cast their ballots in the 2020 Presidential election. More Americans cast their votes for the Presidential candidate than ever before. After the election, both Democrats and Republicans conducted numerous reviews at the Federal, State, and local levels. Those reviews verified the simple fact that there was no widespread corruption or election fraud; that the will of the people prevailed; and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were duly elected. Congress and Vice President Pence counted the electoral votes for President and Vice President and did their duty under the Constitution on January 6, notwithstanding the armed insurrection at the Capitol. But that did not stop Donald Trump from promoting the Big Lie, and that, in turn, has prompted Republican-led States to make it harder for people to cast their votes. The Brennan Center has pointed out that we are in the middle of the worst assault on voting rights since Jim Crow. So what are these laws doing? They are making it more difficult for people to register to vote. They are making it more difficult to vote by mail. They are making it more difficult to vote in person. Republicans apparently believe that demographic trends will prevent them from winning elections so they are surgically attacking the voting rights of people--mostly people of color--they believe will not vote for them. We have States that have 100 percent voting by mail. There has been no indication of fraud in voting by mail. But now, some States have shortened the time for requesting mail-in ballots, making it more difficult for individuals to vote by mail. They are making it more difficult for people to deliver their ballots by limiting the availability of ballot drop boxes, all because they think that will be utilized more by people who will not vote for them. The Republicans in charge of these States want to make it harder for people to vote in person too--stricter signature requirements, reducing the number of places where people can vote, purging voter rolls simply because a person didn't vote, and the list goes on and on and on; all of these making it more difficult for people to register to vote or be eligible to vote who are more likely to vote for their opponents. Some of these States are even opening up the possibility that election officials can substitute their judgment for the will of the people. The Freedom to Vote Act provides a basic Federal floor on protecting the right to vote. The legislation includes commonsense items such as automatic and online voter registration, uniform early voting, same-day voter registration, voting by mail and drop box standards and uniform national standards for voter identification. The Freedom to Vote Act ends political gerrymandering by creating nonpartisan redistricting commissions, requires voter-verified paper ballots and reliable audits, and ends the dominance of Big Money in political systems by increasing disclosure and transparency. S. 2747 includes two provisions I authored: First, it includes the Democracy Restoration Act, which deals with laws that many States passed at the end of the Civil War that are still on the books that disqualify a person convicted of a felony from voting for the rest of his or her life. The definition of ``felony'' can be quite general in many States so the impact of these laws fall disproportionately on people of color, which was its intent. There are States where one out of five Black Americans have been disqualified from voting because of a felony conviction, even when that individual has served his or her sentence and has returned to society. We need to remove that disqualification on voting. I am proud that S. 2747 also includes my Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. Spreading false or misleading information or intimidating the electorate remain regularly employed and effective methods to keep individuals, particularly Black Americans and racial minorities, from voting. Advancements in communications, including the rise of social media platforms, have made it easier for bad actors to use these strategies. My provisions prohibit individuals from knowingly deceiving voters about the time, place, eligibility or procedures of participating in a Federal election. It criminalizes intentional efforts to hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another person to vote or register to vote. The late John Lewis of Georgia was a dear friend and a former colleague. We first won election to the U.S. House of Representatives on the same day. Representative Lewis recalled an important lesson that he learned from the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., when he said that ``each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up, and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act. And each generation must do its part.'' Well, we need to follow Congressman Lewis' admonition. We can do our part by passing the bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, S. 4. Congress has a historic and bipartisan tradition of coming together across party lines to safeguard and strengthen the right to vote, which is the bedrock of our democracy. Congress passed and the States ratified the 15th Amendment after the Civil War, which declared that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote should not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' The 15th Amendment also states that Congress--Congress--has the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. That is exactly what the Senate is trying to do with the John Lewis legislation. The bill would restore key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court severely weakened in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. Fifty-seven years ago, Congress designed the Voting Rights Act to protect equal access to elections for all eligible Americans and passed the measure to respond to widespread disenfranchisement--particularly of racial and language minorities--between the post-Civil War period and the 1960s. S. 4 would require the Federal pre-clearance for certain changes to voting laws and procedures. It would block changes that restrict the right to vote, particularly changes that disproportionately disenfranchise minority communities. The bill would allow plaintiffs and the Justice Department to bring lawsuits that deny or abridge the voting rights of minority voters and restore legal tools needed to enforce nationwide, permanent Federal bans on voter suppression efforts targeting minorities. We cannot pass voting rights legislation as long as the Senate Republicans continue to filibuster even just to proceed to S. 2747 and S. 4. Inaction on voting rights is not an option as we prepare for our 2022 elections, which must be free and fair so that the American people have faith in our elections and their outcomes, particularly after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. We need to change the filibuster rule. As President Biden just said before the holidays, ``If the only thing standing between getting voting rights legislation passed and not getting it passed is the filibuster, I support making the exception of voting rights for the filibuster.'' I agree with President Biden. We cannot take action to safeguard voting rights if we don't start right now. States are already drawing their 2022 political boundaries to comply with population changes from the 2020 census, and we cannot start our work unless my colleagues allow us to proceed to this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I urge my colleagues not to filibuster the right of the U.S. Senate to start the debate on protecting voter integrity, where each Member will have the opportunity to debate the issue and offer amendments. Many Senators have offered suggestions about how we can improve these two voting rights bills. Collectively, we have a chance to come together for the American people, something they elected us to do. We will not reach a consensus if we cannot even proceed to the bills. I will support changing the Senate rules, returning the Senate to its historic role of debating and voting on critical issues. Voting rights legislation needs to be debated in the Senate and voted upon by a majority vote in the U.S. Senate. Our noble experiment representing democracy is in grave danger. Let us come together and protect the integrity of the Senate, respond to the threat we saw on January 6 of last year, and take up and pass voting rights legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I yield back time.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on March 3 of this year, over 9 months ago, President Biden nominated Dilawar Syed to be the Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration. Mr. Syed has spent decades building and scaling successful businesses, as well as advocating for struggling entrepreneurs and small business owners in underserved areas. It is clear that he is eminently qualified to help lead the SBA at a time when the Agency is providing unprecedented assistance to help small businesses survive and recover from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Last April, during Mr. Syed's hearing before the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, my Republican colleagues raised concerns about PPP and EIDL loans received by Lumiata, the company for which Mr. Syed served as CEO. As chairman of the committee, I gave a commitment to work in a bipartisan manner to secure additional information from the SBA about these loans. I kept my word. On June 8, the SBA made materials on the loans available for my review, for the ranking member's review, and for the review of every Member of the committee. The materials proved that there was absolutely nothing irregular about these loans. In fact, the company did the right thing and repaid the forgivable PPP loan after its lenders determined that the company did not require that level of government assistance. You wish more companies would have followed the lead that this company did. But then, a week later, a new issue arose. Republican Members accused Mr. Syed of having anti-Israel bias because of his involvement with Emgage, a nonprofit organization that supports the Muslim American community. This accusation was completely unfounded. As the American Jewish Committee wrote: The unsupported accusation that somehow Jewish businesses or those with ties to Israel may not fare as well under Mr. Syed's leadership in the Small Business Administration (SBA) has no factual grounding. Indeed, he has specifically disavowed support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks the dissolution of Israel. The AJC went on to say that Republican accusations against Mr. Syed were ``un-American.'' Two weeks later, after the AJC released its statements, Republicans on the committee concocted yet another reason to block Mr. Syed's nomination. This time it was Planned Parenthood. Committee Republicans announced that they would boycott all votes on the nomination because Planned Parenthood affiliates received loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, despite the fact that these loans were made during the Trump administration and had nothing to do with Mr. Syed. In response to Republican demands, on November 24, Administrator Guzman sent the committee a detailed four-page response that gave a full explanation of SBA's policy on providing PPP loans to nonprofits, including Planned Parenthood. The SBA provided the specific data on the number of loans to Planned Parenthood affiliates, as well as the total dollars loaned and forgiven. The Administrator's letter makes clear that the SBA is implementing affiliation standards for Planned Parenthood in the same manner it is implementing the affiliation standards for other nonprofits such as United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Goodwill. Then there was another request for information and, once again, the SBA sent another detailed letter to our committee to the ranking member, Senator Rand Paul, dated December 15, 2021. That letter spells out the specifics on every loan given out by the SBA--again, under the Trump administration, initially--to the Planned Parenthood affiliates: the numbers that apply for PPP; the numbers that withdrew those applications; the total dollar amounts; the loans that were forgiven under the original PPP amount and the total dollar amounts; the amount of PPP No. 2 loans given out requested by Planned Parenthood; the number that were withdrawn; the dollar amount that was given out; the dollar amount that has been forgiven. All that has been made available to our committee by the Small Business Administration. Quite frankly, I don't know what else we can do. The SBA is required to carry out the laws that Congress passed. We made it clear we wanted nonprofits eligible for the help under the small business loan programs that we created. We made it clear that the affiliation rules would be applied, and the affiliation rules were applied the same way they were applied to all nonprofits that have a national affiliation. And the initial determination made under the Trump administration was reviewed under the Biden administration to make sure that those affiliate rules were applied and they were applied fairly to all nonprofits. Thanks to the hard work of the SBA personnel, tens of millions of small businesses and nonprofits have received Federal assistance to keep their doors open and their employees on staff. The SBA has provided relief through multiple rounds of the Paycheck Protection Program, EIDL loan program, targeted grant programs, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program, and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. Unfortunately, the SBA has had to implement these programs without the benefit of a Deputy Administrator, the person whose job it is to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Agency, and it gives us an opportunity to have a confirmed person at the SBA who is answerable to Congress and the American people. Many nonpartisan, small business organizations support the nomination of Mr. Syed, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Investor Alliance, and the Small Business Entrepreneurship Council. I could read into the record numerous recommendation letters from the whole gambit of the stakeholder community. In April, the Chamber of Commerce wrote to the committee stating: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the nomination of Dilawar Syed to be Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). We believe that it is essential for SBA's senior leadership team to be in place to deliver on the agency's COVID-19 small business emergency relief responsibilities and we believe Mr. Syed is well qualified for this position. I agree. That is why, again, I am going to ask that the nomination be discharged from the Small Business Committee and Mr. Syed receive an up-or-down vote on this nomination. I might tell you that we have had action in our committee. So this is not inconsistent with the action of our committee. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Small Business Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the following nomination: PN231, Dilawar Syed, of California, to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statement be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CARDIN. I certainly regret that an objection has been made, but let me at least correct the record. PPP money, Paycheck Protection money, does not go to healthcare services. It goes to personnel costs. It goes to related expenses. It does not go to healthcare services. The law that we pass is the law that the administration implemented. There were no restrictions referenced to what Senator Paul is referring to included in the Paycheck Protection Program. The restrictions on a nonprofit dealt with affiliation rules. Those affiliation rules were applied to Planned Parenthood as they were applied to similar organizations that I already put into the Record. What Senator Paul is complaining about could have been taken up during the debate of the Paycheck Protection Program, but it was not. The bill was passed with Republican majorities in this body and with President Trump signing it into law. It would have been against the will of Congress for the Trump administration under the SBA or under the Biden administration under the SBA to use its own judgment and not the judgment of the policymaking branch of government--the legislative branch of government. So I just want to put on the record that the response by Senator Paul is not the factual circumstances that we are dealing with. We are dealing with a qualified person who should be confirmed by this body, and the administration is carrying out the will of Congress in the way that it has implemented the Paycheck Protection Program. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to take note of the enduring support by the American people and by this body for the cause of democracy and human rights in Poland. It is difficult to acknowledge so much time has passed, but it was 40 years ago this week, on December 13, 1981, that the Soviet-backed communist government and General Wojciech Jaruzelski declared a state of war in Poland. People called it ``martial law;'' in fact, it was quite literally a war declared by a government on its own people. The U.S. Senate, led by the late statesman and Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, acted quickly to adopt S. Res. 268. On December 15, on the last day of the first session of the 97th Congress, this body adopted by vote of 95 to 0, S. Res. 268, ``on the imposition of martial law in Poland.'' The resolution declared that: ``it is the clear and unassailable right of the Polish people collectively to determine their own future'' It also directed that: ``the President and his Administration should consult intensively with our allies to develop a concerted and sustained response to the threat to the democratization process in Poland.'' By 1989, thanks to continuing support for the people of Poland that this Senate expressed 40 years ago today, democracy prevailed in Poland. Only two Members of today's Senate were present and voting on December 15, 1981, and I want to express my appreciation, these many years later, for their support for the resolution: Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, then in his very first year in the Senate, and Senator Patrick Leahy, then already in his second term in the Senate. The trade union Solidarity had emerged on August 31, 1980, at the Gdansk Shipyard when the communist government of Poland signed the agreement allowing for its existence. Lech Walesa and others soon formed a broad anti-Soviet social movement ranging from people associated with the Catholic Church to members of the anti-Soviet left. Polish nationalism, together with pro-American liberalism, played an important part in the development of Solidarity in the 1980s. Solidarity advocated nonviolence in its members' activities. In September 1981, Solidarity's first national congress elected Walesa as its president and adopted a republican program, the ``Self-governing Republic''. The first resolution adopted by Solidarnosc, at its First Congress in 1981, expressed a vision for the world, one based on the principle of its name. It stated: The ultimate goal of Solidarity is to create dignified conditions of life in an economically and politically sovereign Poland. By this, we mean a life free from poverty, exploitation, fear and lies, in a democratically and legally organized society. By December, the government in Warsaw and its backers in Moscow decided that they had enough of an assertive civil society. And so martial law was declared and the repression commenced, 40 years ago this week. The terrible repression next door in Belarus today compares, but even it does not match the brute force of the war against the people of Poland declared by General Jaruzelski, the simultaneous deployment of hundreds of thousands of riot police, soldiers, armed vehicles, and tanks to occupy all workplaces and cities and to crush the resistance of an entire society organized in independent, self-governing unions. Yet Solidarity lived. A democratic movement in Belarus also lives today. It is not inevitable, however, that it will win, just as it was not inevitable that Solidarity would win. Much depended on the indomitable will of the Polish people--and also on the actions of Western democracies. The first people in the United States to stand up on behalf of the people of Poland were writers and intellectuals who formed the Committee in Support of Solidarity, including Susan Sontag, Adam Ulam, Czeslaw Milosz, and others. An energetic young man named Eric Chenowith and wise strategist named Irena Lasoda soon became familiar faces in the Halls of Congress, circulating information about the struggle of solidarity and people in Poland to endure the repression they confronted. The political force that kept the democratic world focused on support for the people of Poland then was the American labor movement, led by its president Lane Kirkland and his secretary-treasurer Tom Donahue. They immediately established the AFL-CIO's Polish Workers Aid Fund and put Tom Kahn, the international affairs director of the AFL-CIO, at its helm. They persisted in making the steady argument, even after December 1981, that in Solidarnosc lay the potential for a new, more democratic, more just, and more peaceful world. It was the AFL-CIO, representing 16 million people, that gave voice and strength to the free trade union Solidarity in the United States. We forget how many were willing to forsake Solidarity in the period of martial law. Indeed, only the AFL-CIO, backed by the committee, pressured President Reagan and his administration to adopt stronger sanctions in response to the state of war. As importantly, it was the AFL-CIO that made sure Solidarity was sustained through financial and material help, some of which was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, after its creation in 1984. Thanks to that support and steadfastness, eventually the government relented, especially once Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in the USSR and began to pull back the support for the repressive policies in Poland and elsewhere in the Warsaw Pact. Roundtable Talks between the government and Solidarity-led opposition led to semi-free elections in June of 1989. In an arrangement that was similar in some ways to what transpired more recently in Burma, partially free elections were organized in which a large block of seats in the legislature were reserved--in the case of Burma for the military and in the case of Poland, in 1989, for the Communist party and its allies. All seats in the newly recreated Senate of Poland were to be elected democratically, as were 161 seats--35 percent of the total--in Sejm. The remaining 65 percent of the seats in the Sejm were reserved for the Polish United Workers' Party--the Communist Party--and its satellite parties. These seats were still technically elected, but only government-sponsored candidates were allowed to compete for them. In addition, all 35 seats elected via the countrywide list were reserved for the Communist Party's candidates to ensure that the most notable leaders of the Polish United Workers Party were elected. But in the June elections, the people of Poland voted so overwhelmingly for the representatives nominated by Solidarity that the Communists and the military lost all credibility. By the end of August, a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed, and in December, Tadeusz Mazowiecki was elected Prime Minister. Poland has since then developed into such a strong democracy and economically liberal country that it has led its neighbors into joining the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has become in every sense an ally of the United States. And in the past 2 years, it has again been true to the heritage of Solidarity by providing safe haven for many political refugees from Belarus and elsewhere. While many of us continue to have concerns about some aspects of Polish Government policy, its treatment of certain media outlets, and the fate of the rule-of-law in the country, the government of Poland is a friend with whom we can have honest conversations. Indeed, I am sitting down later this afternoon with the newly arrived Polish ambassador to Washington, Marek Magierowsk, to continue these conversations. This is especially important at this time because Poland will become the chairman-in-office next month of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--the OSCE--and will play a major role in shaping the OSCE's response to efforts by Russia and others to undermine the work of the organization and stability in the region. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of S. Res. 268 from the 97th Congress, as adopted on December 15, 1981, be printed in the Record at this point, along with the announcement of December 15, 1981, of the creation of the Committee in support of Solidarity.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly, I am going to be making a unanimous consent request in regard to the confirmations of several nominations that are currently pending before the U.S. Senate. My colleagues have been pointing out that these are unprecedented times with the number of Presidential nominations that have cleared our committee and cleared committees with overwhelming votes--in some cases, near unanimous votes--of people who are well qualified for the positions to which they have been nominated, but they cannot take their responsibilities, their oaths, until after we have confirmed them before the U.S. Senate. So, for reasons unrelated to their qualifications or the need to have confirmed nominees in positions, we have seen individual objections to allowing these nominations to go forward--objections from Republican Members of the U.S. Senate. I say that because these are unprecedented. We have never seen mass numbers like we have seen in this Congress. We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to confirm Presidential nominations so that they can carry out the missions that we want them to carry out and the responsibilities that go with the reasons why we think it is important enough for the Senate to confirm those nominations. We then have a responsibility to take these nominations up in a timely way and act on them. Secondly, when we have a confirmed person in position, we get greater accountability on the responsibilities of that Agency. We have a person whom we can hold accountable because of the actions that we have taken in confirming that individual. Both are missing in regard to not having these confirmed positions. I chair the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that deals with the management of the State Department, and I am going to be asking unanimous consent in regard to seven nominees who passed out of our committees a long time ago and have been pending in the Senate for months. There is no question as to the qualifications of the individuals, but they are not able to take on the responsibilities for why we decided it was important enough to have nominations with the confirmations of the Senate. That is just not right, and I think we need to point that out. First, I want to just talk about the individuals, and then I will make my consent. One is Adam Scheinman, as the Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of Ambassador. The nomination has been pending before the full Senate since October 19-- for over 50 days. Adam Scheinman is the Special Representative of the President for the Nuclear Nonproliferation, a position that is essential to national security as a U.S. Special Representative on the nuclear nonproliferation treaties and the support of activities to strengthen global nuclear nonproliferation regimes. Can you think of a more important position? Mr. Scheinman is eminently qualified for the position to which he has been nominated, and there is no stated reason not to confirm his nomination. The second is Jack Markell, to be Representative of the United States to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, with the rank of Ambassador. Jack Markell is the nominee to be the Ambassador of the OECD, known as the heavy-weight multilateral organization in the area of anti-corruption and keeper of the OECD's anti-bribery convention, which is one of the most important international anti- corruption treaties. We all talk about our commitment to fight corruption, and yet we are holding back a confirmed ambassador to that position. Jack Markell is a former Governor and is eminently qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. There is no reason why we should not confirm his nomination. Marcela Escobari was appointed to be the Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. The Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean oversees all USAID activities in the region, including the 13 field offices for regional programs and 3 Washington, DC-based programs. Ms. Escobari served in the same position for which this nomination is being made under the Obama-Biden administration. I must tell you, I was on a call with Senator Blunt yesterday with regard to Colombia, the need to up our game in regard to USAID activities in that one country and so many more. Ms. Escobari is eminently qualified for the position to which she has been nominated. Indeed, she served in this position under the Obama- Biden administration, and she should be confirmed today. Atul Gawande has been nominated as the Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, another USAID appointment. He would lead the U.S. international health, development, and humanitarian efforts worldwide. Now, more than ever, we know we need a confirmed person in the USAID to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Our leadership is desperately needed. We are asking lots of international questions today from the Biden administration. Wouldn't it be nice to have a confirmed ambassador who is responsible for this? The nomination has been pending before the full Senate since September 29, for over 70 days. Dr. Gawande is eminently qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. There is no good reason not to confirm him today. Next will be Marcia Bernicat, as the Director General of the Foreign Service and Chair of the Board of the Foreign Service, Department of State. The Director General of Foreign Service, who serves concurrently as the Director of Global Talent Management, is responsible for leading the GTM Bureau's mission of recruiting, retaining, and sustaining a diverse, talented, and inclusive Foreign Service and Civil Service workforce at the Department of State. The position is critical in the modernization of the State Department and making sure the Department is attracting and training the necessary talent needed to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. This nomination has been pending before the full Senate since September 13, over 86 days. I recently held a hearing in the subcommittee on the retention and training of our State Department personnel. We had lots of questions, lots of good things we need to do. We need a confirmed administrator in order to have a person responsible to carry out the changes that we need in regard to the personnel at the State Department. There is no reason why she should not be confirmed without any further delay. My next unanimous consent will be in regard to Julieta Valls Noyes to be Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration. Now, more than ever, with the administration dealing with a backlog that has been heightened by COVID and with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration needs to have a Senate-confirmed representative in place. This nomination has been pending for over 50 days. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are questioning the State Department and asking what they are doing to get people out of Afghanistan. We are asking valid questions. There is no reason to hold up this nomination from the point of view of her qualifications. We need this position filled in order to carry out our responsibility to those Afghans who are at risk today and migrants who are at risk around the world. Lastly, I will be asking consent with regard to Anne Witkowsky, the nominee for Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations and Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. The Conflict and Stabilization Operation Bureau is responsible to anticipate, prevent, and respond to conflicts that undermine U.S. national interests. We are putting our national security at risk without leadership in the Conflict and Stabilization Bureau to assess how the United States will engage in emerging conflicts. We were trying to stop conflicts from happening. We all recognize that. The risk factors couldn't be greater around the world for conflict. We need to have a confirmed Assistant Secretary responsible for this portfolio in place immediately. This nomination was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 4. Her nomination has been awaiting confirmation for 126 days. Dr. Witkowsky is fully qualified and should be confirmed without further delay. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 323, 327, 328, 461, 462, and 528; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; and the Senate resume legislative session.