Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, at the end of fiscal year 2021, the 5-year authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, our Nation's foundational prekindergarten through 12th grade law, is due to expire. While I understand that previous reauthorizations took 13 years and allowed an entire generation of students to matriculate through school systems around our Nation, I am here today to stress that our kids can't wait for the needed transformational changes to our Nation's Federal, State, and local education policies and additional funding investments. To provide a stronger Federal partnership to States and local communities that have worked together to support transformational change that will ensure educational equity and quality for all public school students, I introduced the TRUE EQUITY Act. It stands for the Transformational Reforms and Updates to Ensure Educational Quality and Urgent Investments in Today's Youth Act. My home State of Maryland has been long recognized as having one of the best public school systems in the country, according to the independent newspaper Education Week. This ranges from having entire county-based local school systems ranked as near the top in the Nation to individual schools producing national leaders in academic achievement. In addition, Maryland was one of the first States to offer half-day preschool for 4-year-olds, has broad access to Advanced Placement courses for high schoolers, and pays for dual-enrollment courses for high school students at our local community colleges. I am proud of these accomplishments. However, not all of our students have found success. In 2016, the Maryland General Assembly and the Governor of Maryland established the Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, chaired by the former chancellor of the University System of Maryland, William ``Brit'' Kirwan, to identify the policies and practices so that Maryland's schools perform at the level of the world's highest performing school system. The commission was charged with a number of tasks, including a review of the current funding formulas and accountability measures utilized to ensure educational equity and equality, how Maryland schools prepare students for postsecondary education in the workforce, and to make recommendations for the State on needed funding improvements across the State and local school districts. These reviews are necessary to support growing populations of children with disabilities, how to improve and expand programs supporting postsecondary credential attainment, and other policy changes to address the academic achievement gap that has persisted along racial, ethnic, and income levels of students of color and low-income students compared to their higher income and White peers. To meet this expansive charge, the commission included stakeholders from across our State, including representatives of the Maryland General Assembly, including our now speaker of the Maryland House Delegates and our now State Senate president, the Governor's office, county elected leaders, education leaders, including State and local school board representatives, our State and local superintendents, leader of our State's public university system, teachers, business leaders, and leading education advocacy organizations, such as the Maryland State Education Association, Maryland Parent Teacher Association, and Maryland Family Network. In addition to the members of the commission, the commission actively sought input from the public with numerous meetings soliciting public comment held across our State. In January 2019, the commission unanimously released their interim report that found Maryland students scored in the middle of the pack on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the ``Nation's report card,'' which is given to representative samples of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in every State. The gaps in achievement between socioeconomic, racial, and children with disabilities were far too large in a State like Maryland that has committed resources and established policies that are meant to provide a world-class public education system. The commission also reported that less than half of kindergartners entering our school system were ready to learn, and fewer than 40 percent of students who are graduating from high school truly are ``college or career ready.'' This is in spite of the estimates that by 2022 nearly two-thirds of the jobs in Maryland will require at least postsecondary credentials, whether they be nationally recognized industry certificates or 2-year or 4-year college degrees. For instance, in 2017, just under half of all students across Maryland high schools received a proficient score on their English 10 exam. That exam helps evaluate the students' readiness for college or career. Disaggregated data shows the continued struggle to close academic achievement gaps among racial and socioeconomic groups. Along racial lines, 77 percent of Asian students and 67 percent of White students were proficient. However, only 34 percent of Hispanic students and 29 percent of African-American students earned proficiency scores. The commission's interim report highlighted that despite Maryland being ranked as one of the top five States with the highest household median income, a large number of Maryland students are living in poverty. Forty-three percent of Maryland students are low income and eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, meaning that they come from families at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty line. For every 10 public schools across our State, there is a concentration of poverty where enrollment consists of at least 55 percent of students living in poverty. These schools are in all of our subdivisions except one. In 15 percent of Maryland schools, at least 80 percent of children are low income. Students attending schools with a concentration of poverty receive less funding per pupil than other school districts. For example, 53 percent of African-American students attend schools with concentrations of poverty, while only 8 percent of White students attend these schools. The academic achievement gap between Maryland students with means and our low-income students is stark. On the English 10 exam, 62 percent of economically advantaged students earned a passing score, while 28 percent of those students who are on free and reduced-price meals were deemed proficient. These statistics are stark. We know we have a problem. We have to deal with it. The commission reported that these academic achievement disparities continued into college enrollment, with fewer students of color and low-income students enrolling in college than their higher income and White peers. We will find similar numbers throughout our Nation. We need to do something about this. Concerns about the state of education in Maryland was not limited to student performance. The commission's interim report also found that students face a rotating carousel of teachers throughout their time in schools. With the average salary for teachers in Maryland approximately 25 percent less than professionals with comparable levels of education, it is difficult to attract to the profession. Sixty percent of our new teachers are recruited from outside our State each year. This is a common problem we have throughout the country. Once those individuals arrive in the classroom, 47 percent will leave by the start of their third year. The turnover is tremendous. It is salary issues. It is working conditions. It makes it difficult to get the true professionalism and commitments that we need in education. This difficulty in recruiting individuals and the constant churn leaves Maryland students and local education systems facing shortages in critical need areas, such as special education, language, and the STEM fields. In order to address these inequities in education, the commission unanimously agreed on a proposal with five transformative policy recommendations in their interim report that would provide significant, additional investments in Federal, State, and local funding and modify policies for Maryland's prekindergarten through 12th grade education system. The five main policy recommendations would first invest in high- quality early childhood education and care through a significant expansion of full-day preschool, to be free for all low-income, 3- and 4-year-olds, so that children have the opportunity to begin kindergarten ready to learn. Second is to invest in teachers and school leaders by elevating the standard and status of the teaching profession, including a performance-based career ladder and salaries comparable to other fields with similar educational requirements. Third, it creates a world-class instructional system with an international benchmark curriculum that enables most students to achieve ``college or career ready'' status by the 10th grade and then pursue pathways to include early college, Advanced Placement courses, or a rigorous technical education leading to industry-recognized credentials and higher paid jobs. Fourth, it provides support to students who need it the most, with broad and sustained support for schools serving high concentrations of poverty, with after-school and summer academic programs and student access to needed health and social services. Finally, it ensures excellence for all through an accountability oversight board that has the authority to ensure that transformative education system recommendations are successfully implemented and produce the desired improvements in student achievement. These reforms would be implemented over a 10-year period, creating a sustained and coordinated effort to transform Maryland's public education system into a world-class system, elevating the teaching profession, and eliminating educational inequities. An independent analysis conducted in November 2019 confirms that the cost to implement the commission's recommendations will pay for themselves shortly after the 10-year implementation period. Last year, the Maryland General Assembly recognized that our children could not wait to implement the commission's recommendations and established the Blueprint for Maryland's Future to lay the groundwork for the implementation of the commission's recommendations. Starting this year, the Blueprint for Maryland's Future is assisting low-income families' access to expanded services and early childhood education, including free prekindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds from low-income families. The Blueprint for Maryland's Future is assisting in the recruitment of new teachers to the profession through increased teacher pay and career ladders for exiting teachers to help train the next generation. A newly established career readiness standard will allow Maryland high school students to succeed in dual-enrollment courses offered by local community colleges. The ``Blueprint'' addresses Maryland's education formulas to better target resources to students who need additional assistance, including children with disabilities, English learners, and students in schools with high concentration of poverty. This is all done while increasing accountability to ensure that the additional investments are properly implemented and help our students succeed. That is the path that we are on. I agree with advocates and elected leaders who understand our kids cannot wait for adoption of these recommendations at some point in the future. We need to act now. We need to implement these recommendations now and view them as a national model for other States to aspire to. Without transformative change, we will continue to hope for significantly different results with only incremental changes, or we can be bold and change the future of our children and our country and every child with the high-quality education skills training that they need to be successful and climb out of poverty. I reject the arguments from those who would claim that the recommendations are too costly to implement. Without the full implementation of the commission's recommendations, we are failing in our primary goal in government of providing a better future for our children, allowing them to slip behind their national and international peers. These arguments also fail to see that the investments in our children can lead to a lifetime of reduced costs in public safety and healthcare costs, as children can grow and support themselves and their future families through the education they receive in public schools. These investments will pay back dividends in a stronger economy that will benefit all of us. I believe we should not allow States and local communities to make these transformative changes on their own. The Federal Government should be a strong Federal partner in ensuring accountability and in addressing educational inequities for our children. That is why I introduced the TRUE EQUITY Act. This legislation, which is purposely modeled after the commission's recommendation, establishes four new, supplemental Federal grant opportunities for State and local school districts that are committed to addressing educational inequities while holding States and local school districts accountable for failing to properly support their students. In strengthening the Federal Government's commitment as a partner in education, the four new TRUE EQUITY grants would provide an additional $1 of Federal funds for every $2 of State and local funds that are committed to education beyond their fiscal year 2019 spending levels. State and local school districts that receive grants would be required to meet a maintenance of effort to ensure that the State and local educational spending is maintained and would not allow the Federal Government's funding to backfill reductions in State and local commitments to educational funding. As a requirement to receiving one of the four new TRUE EQUITY grants, a State would be required to have an independent oversight board to ensure that the State and local districts would be meeting their State- designated educational equity goals, and the oversight board would have the ability to hold the State and local school districts accountable for not meeting their targeted goals. These grants are flexible to allow local communities to meet their needs over a several-year period, whether it be through the establishment of a college and career readiness pathway to support a high school student's dual enrollment at a local community college and provide a jump-start on college; additional funding to expand the number of early learning hubs in the State--in Maryland, these are known as Judy Centers--or training for teachers on how to address the needs of our children with disabilities. As Congress begins to look at the next reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of the Marylanders across our State who know that our kids can't wait for the implementation of these recommendations and support the TRUE EQUITY Act. I congratulate the members of the commission who thoughtfully researched and crafted this national model for States to be able to see transformative change and raise their educational systems to that of a world-class school system. We owe our children nothing less than to provide them with the best possible outcome in our Nation's public schools. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to thank Algene Sajery, a senior member of my foreign policy legislative staff, for her incredible service to the State of Maryland, our country, and by virtue of her foreign policy and national security legislative achievements, to the international community. I am incredibly grateful for all that we have accomplished during her tenure. Algene has served as my senior foreign policy and national security advisor since 2012 and concurrently as democratic policy director for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 2015 through 2018. Over the years, Algene has served as my lead staff author and/or negotiator of several landmark national security and foreign policy laws, including the Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, P.L. 114-328; the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act, P.L. 114-191; the African Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge Act Modernization Act, AGOA and MCA Modernization Act, P.L. 115-167; the Global Food Security Act, P.L. 114-195; and the Electrify Africa Act, P.L. 114-121. These accomplishments demonstrate the wide- ranging policy areas over which Algene has extensive knowledge. Her ability to leverage her knowledge to help negotiate and advance such policies into law and her passion for doing so are what set Algene apart from most others in this highly competitive field. But Algene's accomplishments do not end with advancing landmark human rights, transparency, foreign assistance, and international development legislation. Algene has also worked tirelessly at my direction on several bills related to human rights in conflict zones, including the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act and the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act P.L. 115-441. Algene's efforts have helped cement my legacy in these arenas and as Special Representative for Anti-Semitism, Racism, Intolerance for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--OSCE--Parliamentary Assembly, to help propel my work to create a world where the promise of ``never again'' in response to genocide will one day bear truth. Our work together has transcended several Presidential administrations. We have observed Executive overstep with regard to war powers on numerous occasions. We have opened our eyes to the use of U.S. manufactured weapons to commit war crimes and repress human rights around the world. In response, Algene and I also developed my signature arms sales oversight legislation, the Enhancing Human Rights Protections in Arms Sales Act of 2019, and numerous bills, resolutions, and amendments on authorization of use of military force, conflict prevention, peace and reconciliation, and community resiliency policies. Algene's successful legislative record is testament not only to her expertise on foreign policy and national security issues but also to her keen negotiating skills, ability to work across the aisle, and incomparable political acumen. But Algene's service on my legislative staff has gone far and beyond helping me draft and advance legislation. One of the most striking qualities of Algene's character and, in my opinion, one of the most noteworthy accomplishments as a part of her distinct legacy on my team, is her dedication to helping others around her. Algene is one of only a handful of women of color working on foreign policy and national security issues and the first African-American woman to serve in a leadership position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Over the years, she has served as a mentor to women of color at various stages in their careers, offering advice, support, and guidance. Algene has always made time to support those around her because she understands the challenges of launching and navigating a career in foreign policy and national security, and she genuinely wants to propel others towards similarly successful career paths. Algene is a highly effective legislative negotiator, strategist, coalition builder, and a true trailblazer. Her knowledge and expertise are unparalleled, but her passion, creativity, and tenacity truly are what have made her an asset to my team and a voice that I will greatly miss in my office. It has been an honor working with Algene over the years, and I wish her nothing but happiness and success as she transitions her career off Capitol Hill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, in 1619, Africans were first brought to Virginia, against their will, to be enslaved. From that moment on, White Americans systematically and violently denied the rights of citizenship to Black Americans. The adoption of the 15th Amendment, ratified in February 1870, was a historic effort to correct course. It recognized the right of all male citizens, including Black men, to vote. This amendment was the first time that we promised to protect the right of African Americans to full and equal participation in our democracy. In the 150 years since then, we have tried to expand on that promise many times, like when women of all races and ethnicities finally won the right to vote in 1920. Yet our promise remains elusively unfulfilled. Today, in honor of Black History Month, I would like to take a moment to discuss the trajectory of that broken promise, as well as its impact on our character as a nation. We began to break our promise shortly after we made it. During the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras, White men and women across the country developed a number of techniques--some obvious and brutal, some subtle and pernicious--to keep African Americans away from the polls and out of government. The broader goal of these tactics was to hamper the Black population's ability to recover from slavery by blocking their access to education and the economic means of building wealth. I believe that it is important to acknowledge that Maryland partook in these pernicious behaviors right alongside other States. Maryland residents and government officials engaged in ballot tampering, imposed literacy and property restrictions, stoked racist fears to galvanize the White vote, and intimidated Black voters using outright violence. My intention here is not to condemn my home State. To the contrary, I am exceedingly proud of the struggles for justice that have bloomed in Maryland through abolitionists like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas and civil rights leaders like Thurgood Marshall. I draw inspiration from the lineage of African-American public servants in Maryland who overcame enormous obstacles in order to amplify the voices of their brothers and sisters. These public servants include Verda Welcome, the first Black woman ever elected to any State's senate, as well as Adrienne Jones, the current speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, who is the first African American and first woman to serve in that position. They also include my friend and hero, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the son of sharecroppers who devoted his life to fighting for equality and fairness and lifting up our beloved community of Baltimore. I am likewise grateful for all of the Marylanders whose names we might not know, but who nevertheless work every day to expand educational equity, reform our justice system, shrink the wealth gap, deliver healthcare, and otherwise make our society better. Thanks to brave and dedicated people like these in Maryland and across the country, we have made significant strides toward racial justice. I began my remarks by discussing Maryland's bleaker moments in history for two reasons. First, to demonstrate that we must never take progress for granted--Maryland has not always been a tolerant, inclusive State, it did not become one by accident, and it will not continue to be one unless we work to make it so. Democracy and the rule of law do not just happen; we need to protect and nourish them every day. Second, to illuminate how those injustices that still exist, of which there are many, are not new and are not incidental--they are not just disparate effects of forces beyond our control. They are deeply rooted in policies and systems intentionally designed to subjugate African Americans. One of the strongest, most disheartening examples of this phenomenon is the ongoing assault on the right to vote. This is not ancient history. States all over the country continue to ``modernize'' strategies developed a century ago to suppress African-American voting power. Some of these strategies are blatant and recognizable, like mass purges of voter rolls; the gerrymandering of districts with ``surgical precision,'' according to one court; and intimidation of Black voters. Some of the strategies are disguised behind excuses or fear tactics, like obstructive voter ID laws and felony disenfranchisement. Regardless, these tools of oppression are alive and operating as intended. One in every 13 African Americans has lost his or her right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement. Seventy percent of the voters purged from one State's roll in 2018 were African Americans. Studies reveal that implementing strict voter ID laws widens the Black-White turnout gap by more than 400 percent. So long as we allow these sorts of practices to continue under the exaggeration of voter ``fraud,'' we are denying African Americans their full right to vote and breaking the promise we made 150 years ago. This is a problem on principle, of course, but also for practical reasons; when we exclude people from fully participating in our democracy, we prevent them from achieving the social, economic, and civic reforms they need to strengthen their families and communities. So what are we going to do about that? I know what I will do; I will fight for laws that will guarantee every American a voice in our democracy. That is why I have introduced bills to restore the Federal right to vote to ex-offenders and to penalize the voter intimidation and deception efforts so frequently aimed at people of color. These measures alone will not eliminate suppression of the Black vote, but they are steps in the right direction. The racism that we vowed to root out a long time ago is still here. We may have reined it in, or it may have taken new forms that we do not recognize yet, but it is still here. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. remarked, ``It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.'' It is true that we cannot legislate love, but we can and must legislate equality. Until we guarantee the right to vote regardless of race, we fall short of the unique promise and potential of the United States of America. How can we be, at last, the Shining City on the Hill, while we continue to deny people their right to vote because of the color of their skin? For the sake of our democracy and our common humanity, for the sake of those who have suffered and died, for the sake of those living and those yet to come, let us make good on our 150-year-old promise. Let us build on the progress we have achieved, and let us stay vigilant about the threats that remain. Let us fulfill the right to vote.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments to thank and congratulate Dr. Phoebe Stein for her lifetime commitment to advancing the humanities. At the end of this week, Phoebe will leave her post as the executive director at Maryland Humanities, a position she has held for more than 11 years. But Maryland's loss is the Nation's gain. Effective May 1, Phoebe will succeed Esther Mackintosh as president of the Federation of State Humanities Councils. The federation is the national member association of the 56 State and jurisdictional humanities councils. The Federation's purpose is ``to provide leadership, advocacy, and information to help members advance programs that engage millions of citizens across diverse populations in community and civic life.'' I can't think of anyone better suited for the job. Phoebe, a Maryland native, arrived at Maryland Humanities in 2008 after serving as the director of public affairs at the Illinois Humanities Council, now called Illinois Humanities. She received her B.A. in English from the University of Michigan and her M.A. and Ph.D. in English from Loyola University of Chicago. Phoebe has effectively advocated for the humanities at the local, State, and Federal level for more than 20 years. Even though Phoebe became executive director at Maryland Humanities at the beginning of the Great Recession, she managed to expand the council's partnerships, programs, staff, financial support and other resources, and, most importantly, its reach. She hosted a radio spot, ``Humanities Connection,'' while advancing several of the council's flagship programs, including Maryland History Day, Museum on Main Street, and One Maryland One Book. The organization now offers more than 1,000 free events annually in partnership with more than 500 organizations in more than 150 communities statewide. Phoebe has brought Maryland History Day winners to meet with their elected representatives at the Maryland State House and here at the U.S. Capitol. She helped to foster a responsive environment following the death of Freddie Gray in 2015 and launch a Humanities Fund for Baltimore. She introduced student authors to author Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche at One Maryland One Book events in 2017. Through it all, Phoebe has been a joyful and indefatigable advocate, coming up to the Hill or to Annapolis to lobby or traveling throughout Maryland to bring the humanities to the people. In 2016, ``The Daily Record'' rightfully recognized Phoebe as one of Maryland's Top 100 Women. The National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH, provides funding to State humanities councils through NEH's Federal/State Partnership Office. The councils also receive funding from private donations, foundations, corporations, and from the States themselves. This year, we will celebrate the 55th anniversary of the NEH's creation. On September 29, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act into law. The act called for the creation of the NEH and the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, as separate, independent agencies. More than 200 people filled the Rose Garden for the bill signing ceremony, including Gregory Peck, Dumas Malone, Ansel Adams, Ralph Ellison, Walter Gropius, and Paul Mellon. President Trump's fiscal year 2021 budget request once again tendentiously proposes to terminate the NEH, the NEA, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In previous years, Congress has ignored these proposals, and I am optimistic we will do so again this year. I would note that Federal funding for the NEH peaked in 1994 in nominal terms at $177.5 million; in inflation-adjusted terms--2019 dollars--Federal funding peaked in 1979 at nearly three times its current level. On a per capita basis, Federal funding for the NEH amounts to less than the cost of a single postage stamp. That is a rather paltry investment since, as author and essayist Mark Slouka wrote in his book, ``Essays from the Nick of Time: Reflections and Refutations,'' ``[T]he humanities are a superb delivery mechanism for what we might call democratic values.'' He went on to say: The case for the humanities is not hard to make, though it can be difficult--to such an extent have we been marginalized, so long have we acceded to that marginalization--not to sound either defensive or naive. The humanities, done right, are the crucible in which our evolving notions of what it means to be fully human are put to the test; they teach us, incrementally, endlessly, not what to do, but how to be. Their method is confrontational, their domain unlimited, their ``product'' not truth but the reasoned search for truth, their ``success'' something very much like Frost's momentary stay against confusion. Phoebe Stein understands how important the humanities are to our individual, collective, and civic well-being. While we Marylanders will miss her at Maryland Humanities, all Americans are fortunate that she will be heading the federation, where her passionate advocacy will extend beyond Baltimore, the Eastern Shore, and the Cumberland Narrows to redound to the benefit of people and communities across our Nation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss solutions to the climate crisis, which threatens the health and well-being of my constituents in Maryland and Americans across the Nation. The urgency of climate change asks us to be our most cooperative and collaborative selves and to seek policy solutions that far outlast our legacies in office. As the threat of climate change becomes more and more visible to the American public, people are demanding action from their Federal Government. This year, we have seen an unprecedented level of interest from Americans of all ages and walks of life on real solutions to this complex problem. A variety of comprehensive solutions have been proposed, some that represent a departure from how the Federal Government has addressed climate change in the past, while others utilize existing Federal frameworks to drive climate action. History tells us that our Federal agencies have an incredible capacity to evolve to meet the threats of their time. In previous administrations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been a dynamic steward of domestic environmental law throughout the last half- century and is well-practiced in addressing environmental concerns as they emerge. Unfortunately, Congress and the President have failed to provide the EPA with the direction and funding it needs to address the issue of climate change in earnest. I support Senator Carper's Clean Economy Act for this very reason. The Clean Economy Act understands that the EPA lies at the center of America's climate future and empowers it to address climate change proactively. The Clean Economy Act provides the agency with the clear goal of net- zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to match the urgency to reduce warming global temperatures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's--IPCC--October 2018 Special Report on climate warns that warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will have a catastrophic impact on our global systems. The United States reaching net-zero is an essential component to keep global temperature warming below the 1.5 degrees Celsius cap. Many of this administration's nominees are fond of pointing out that they are not scientists, implying that they are not qualified to make decisions related to climate change. I will point out that most of us are not economists either, but that doesn't stop us from making decisions that affect the economy. We have a responsibility to make informed decisions affecting our climate, environment, and natural resources, which are at the heart of our ability to maintain a healthy sustainable economy. There are some tough decisions to make in the face of climate change that reasonable people will disagree about, but the basic science should not be ignored. Whether to accept the facts of the matter should not be a partisan debate. Fortunately, the IPCC, to which the U.S. Government and scientific community is a leading contributor, continues to provide a well- documented guide for what we need to do to respond to the climate crisis. According to the IPCC's landmark Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 deg.C, the model pathways that would enable us to limit global warming to the critical benchmark of 1.5 deg.C above pre- industrial levels reach net zero global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions by approximately 2050.This bill is based on the science that demonstrates the importance and value of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by not later than 2050. We can do this, and making the necessary investments to do so will strengthen our economy, create jobs, and protect our public health and national security. The most expensive and unrealistic course of action is to ignore the mounting costs of climate change and fail to respond. The legislation ensures that the EPA's plan incorporates greenhouse gas reduction, while expanding opportunities for the U.S. labor force. After all, any conversation about a new U.S. energy future without the participation of working people is incomplete. The Clean Economy Act ensures the EPA has the power to invest in the development and deployment of low- and zero-greenhouse gas emitting technologies and that the U.S. workforce reaps the benefits of an equitable transition away from fossil fuels. The support of the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor unions like the United Steelworkers and the Utility Workers Union of America and environmental organizations like the League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council demonstrates that a diverse collection of interests see a net-zero future for our country. This legislation builds off bipartisan progress we have made this Congress using existing Federal frameworks to reduce emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change that are already here. In November 2018, the Fourth National Climate Assessment concluded that climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S. and its territories.'' The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee favorably reported the American's Transportation Infrastructure Act in July 2019 that for the first time included a Climate Title. The Federal assistance in it will help the transportation sector lower emissions through infrastructure for electric and alternatively fueled vehicles. The bill also supports States and local agencies preparing our Nation's roads and bridges to withstand climate impacts. I encourage my colleagues across committees to work together to enact both pieces of legislation to prepare all sectors of the clean economy for the climate reality before us today. One of the most critical climate change impacts that we must take immediate action on is the threat to our water infrastructure. This week, GAO is releasing a report on water infrastructure and climate change in response to a request I made with my colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. We asked the GAO to study what is known about the effects of climate change on the Nation's domestic water systems and the potential fiscal risks posed by those effects and evaluate Federal actions that may be taken to reduce such risks. Therein, EPA estimates that drinking water and wastewater utilities need to invest almost $744 billion to repair and replace their existing infrastructure over the next 20 years. GAO finds climate change is increasing these costs. In 2017, it cost the Federal Government over $300 billion to repair damage resulting from climate- and weather- related events, including damage to drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, according to NOAA. The faster we act to make our water infrastructure resilient to climate change impacts, as well as address the root cause of climate change through legislation such as the Clean Economy Act, the better we can reduce the risks and control the costs. Our drinking water and wastewater treatment systems are at great risk from climate change impacts such as heavy rainfall, sea level rise, and flooding that local managers are experiencing today. The GAO report shows a path toward minimizing future damage. This study documents the need for the Federal Government to work with States and local utilities to strengthen the resilience of water infrastructure to climate impacts and makes practical suggestions that we should implement immediately through incorporating climate effects into infrastructure planning and providing enhanced technical and financial assistance. My colleague Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and I introduced S. 2636, the Clean Water Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Act to prepare our publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities for the impacts of climate change. These efforts will work in tandem with the goals of the Clean Economy Act to seek net-zero emissions while preventing further damage to our national infrastructure by the extreme weather events we are already seeing. The Clean Economy Act directs the EPA to coordinate with other Federal agencies to encourage the restoration of ecosystems such as forests and wetlands that sequester carbon and improve climate resilience, particularly on Federal and Tribal land. The fight to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change is not unlike the challenge we face in cleaning up and restoring water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams. Many of the solutions, such as restoring natural carbons sinks like wetlands, are the same. Wetlands act like natural sponges, storing excess carbon in soils, as well as soaking up stormwater and trapping pollutants before they reach rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. The original Chesapeake Bay Agreement was a simple, one-page pledge signed in 1983 recognizing that a cooperative approach was necessary to address the bay's pollution problems. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement set the first numeric goals to reduce pollution and restore the bay ecosystem. Today, the EPA-led Chesapeake Bay Program partnership engages dozens of agencies and organizations in the effort to restore the bay and its rivers. I am encouraged to see a number of the agencies named in section 2 of the Clean Economy Act are Federal agency partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--U.S. Department of Defense--DOD--and U.S. Department of the Interior--DOI. This body recently unanimously passed proposals I authored that will benefit the Chesapeake Bay watershed and wetlands nationwide. Foremost was a provision increasing the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization to a historic $92 million. The bills were part of a bipartisan package of wildlife conservation legislation, the America's Conservation Enhancement--ACE--Act. The ACE Act served as a substitute amendment for the North America Wetlands Conservation Extension Act-- NAWCA--which provides grants to protect wetlands. We have demonstrated our ability to respond legislatively to challenges that seemed insurmountable 30 years ago. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this new consensus bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 68, which, as I understand, we will be voting on tomorrow. It is a resolution that was introduced by Senator Kaine. I acknowledge Senator Kaine's longstanding commitment to the U.S. Senate's and Congress's carrying out our constitutional responsibilities as they relate to the authorization for use of military force, which rests solely with the Congress of the United States, and we have a responsibility to speak as to that authority. In the last Congress, with Senator Flake, there were efforts in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to try to bring us together in regard to the passage of an AUMF, the authorization for use of military force, because we had seen successive administrations using our military without their having authorization from Congress. S.J. Res. 68 is aimed at one specific conflict for which we can come together, and I am optimistic that we will be able to act on this resolution. It deals with the use of force in Iran. It is very specific as to say that, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force against Iran, there is no authority to use our military against Iran. Now, certainly, for legitimate reasons, the President can use force to defend us from an imminent attack. That is, certainly, how I think all of us perceive the authorization for use of military force from Congress needs to be qualified. In the case of an urgent situation, the President can, in fact, act. Why do we need this resolution passed now? I need not tell my colleagues that there is a heightened sense of tension between the United States and Iran. It has been building for some time--certainly, with the U.S. military action in which General Soleimani was killed. He was the leader of the Quds Force in Iran, and he was taken out by our U.S. military. That has presented a heightened tension between the United States and Iran. Congress has the sole responsibility to commit our troops to combat. It is in article I, section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war. This is not a decision made by the President; it is a decision made by Congress. Our Founders were very concerned about having the appropriate balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch. It is called checks and balances. We did not want a monarchy. We wanted to make sure that there was sufficient support before war was declared; that it was in our national security interest; that the Congress and the President and the American people were all together in the effort if we were going to initiate war against another country; that the use of the military should always be a matter of last resort; and that we should always exhaust diplomacy--that we should always exhaust other means before America initiates war against another country or the use of military force. This authority that rests in Congress was tested in the Vietnam war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress at the early stages during the Vietnam conflict to give the President the authority to use force to defend our military against attacks coming from Vietnam. It was never intended to lead us into an act of prolonged war, but, as we know, it was used by successive administrations for maintaining a prolonged war in Vietnam. I think historians would agree that this was an abuse of the interpretation of authorization and that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was never intended for offensive military operations in Vietnam. Yet it was used for that purpose. In 1973, Congress took action to make sure this would never happen again. It passed what is known as the War Powers Act. Now, the War Powers Act was passed in a strong bipartisan vote by both the House and Senate, and it was vetoed. Congress overrode the President's veto because we knew that it was our responsibility to commit our troops to battle. What does the War Powers Act require? First, it requires consultation by the President with Congress, in every possible instance, before our committing troops to war. That is the exact language in the War Powers Act. There are consultation requirements. Then there has to be reporting within 48 hours of American troops being sent into hostilities or into situations in which imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. Third, the War Powers Act requires an end to foreign military action after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue an authorization for use of military force, an AUMF. Why do we need S.J. Res. 68 if we have the War Powers Act? Like Vietnam, now in Iran, the President is usurping the constitutional powers of Congress by saying he has certain authorities that go well beyond what was intended in the Constitution or in the War Powers Act. Let me get to General Soleimani for one moment. He was killed on January 2, 2020, in Baghdad. There is no sorrow over his loss. He was an evil person who caused the death of so many different people. He was clearly a person who is not missed in this world. That is absolutely accurate. But President Trump's actions violated all three of the provisions of the War Powers Act that was passed in 1973 to try to prevent this type of circumstance that happened in Vietnam from happening again. Now, why do I say all three? Well, first, was there an imminent threat that allowed the President to make this decision without congressional authorization? Well, we have been through a classified briefing, and I am not going to talk about what was presented in that classified briefing, but I think it is fair to say that we were not presented with the documentation at all that there was an immediate threat against America. The President has not made that case, and we have heard public comments that have been made by administration officials that they did not know about specific threats at that particular time. So, one, the War Powers Act was violated because there was not an imminent threat before the President used military action. No. 2, we now know that this had been planned for some time as one of the potential operations that could have been given to the President to respond to Iranian action; that is, taking out General Soleimani. So there was plenty of time to consult with Congress, but yet, before the military action, there was no prior consultation with Congress--a second violation of the War Powers Act. Then, third, congressional notification and removal of troops within 60 days. The President has not submitted nor does he intend to submit to Congress an authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war against Iran. He clearly does not intend to do it, but he has made it clear by his own statements that he will use force again against Iran if he believes it is justified, and his determination of justification is not what Congress intended when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973. Even more urgent, the President claims that he has authorization from Congress. So the President, through his lawyers, has said: Well, OK, maybe we don't have the inherent power, but we have specific authorization that has been previously passed by Congress that allows us to use military action against Iran. So let me go through the two authorizations that are still active and used by Presidents. First, we had the authorization to use military force that was passed in 2002. This is the authorization that was passed to go after Iraq. Now, I must tell you I voted against this authorization. I thought that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. I didn't think there was evidence of that so I opposed that resolution in the House of Representatives when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. That resolution says the use of force to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. We are talking about Iran, not Iraq. How could the President conceivably use the 2002 authorization to claim that he had authority to go after an Iranian general? I don't understand that. I can't figure that out for the life of me, but that argument has been made. Then we have the old fallback of the 2001 AUMF that was passed immediately after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. That authorization was passed ``to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001.'' Now, this has been used by many administrations so it goes back well before President Trump in the misuse of the 2001 authorization. Iran was not involved in the attack on our country in 2001, 9/11. So how do you use this authorization to say you have authorization now to take out a general in Iran or use force in Iran? It is clear to me that that is a total misreading of the authority of Congress. Congress never intended, when they voted for that authorization now 19 years ago-- almost 19 years--that it intended that it would be used as it is being used today. That is a total misuse of the authorization by Congress. So in regard to Iran today, there is no AUMF; we have not passed authorization for Iran; the President has already shown that he will act and will not comply with the War Powers Act; and he is likely to use force again that could lead to a lengthy military engagement with Iran. That is a possibility. So we need to pass S.J. Res. 68 because it is specific--it is specific to Iran--that there is no congressional authorization. And just as importantly, if the President wants to use the military, he must seek prior authorization from Congress as is envisioned in the Constitution of the United States. It gives the President the power to protect us against imminent threat. So for good reason, Congress has the constitutional powers here. My generation paid a very heavy price because of the Vietnam war in the way that we got into the Vietnam war without the voice of the U.S. Congress giving the specific authorization. Let us not cede our responsibility under the Constitution or allow the President to exceed his. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for S.J. Res. 68. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, constitutional experts will be debating President Trump's misconduct for generations to come, but I think they will reach consensus as to the misconduct of the Senate in the Trump impeachment. This is the first time in the history of impeachment that no witnesses and documents were allowed to be called by the U.S. Senate. It violates the Constitution in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump by its failure to hold a constitutionally fair trial. At one time, I had the opportunity to present as a House manager an impeachment case here in the U.S. Senate on a district court judge by the name of Nixon. I remember, when I appeared before the Senate, I was cautioned immediately, even though Judge Nixon had been convicted of a bribery type of an offense in a criminal court, that it was incumbent for us to present the witnesses and documents in the U.S. Senate and that the Senate would conduct its own record in regard to the proceedings. Yet, here, we are not having witnesses in the President's impeachment trial. We had some help from the Supreme Court on this. In Nixon v. United States, 1993, pertaining to Judge Nixon's trial, Justice Byron White had a concurring opinion. Justice White said that the term ``try,'' as used in article I, section 3, clause 6, meant that the Senate should conduct a proceeding in a manner that a reasonable judge would deem a trial. We failed to conduct a constitutionally fair trial here in the U.S. Senate, and we can look to the President's own counsel here for help in evaluating our own conduct of this trial. The President's counsel, Philbin, said that you need to cross-examine witnesses in order to get to the truth. We had no witnesses under oath and no witnesses cross- examined. The tragedy here is, if the President is acquitted, there will always be a question as to whether this was a legitimate trial here in the U.S. Senate. Let me just spend a moment comparing the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton's versus those of President Trump's. With President Clinton, there was a trial in the Senate. It was acknowledged to be fair. Witnesses were called. President Clinton and his administration officials had testified under oath and had been subject to cross-examination. President Clinton showed remorse for his conduct and apologized for his misconduct, and President Clinton's misconduct was personal in nature. Compare that to President Trump. He blocked all witnesses and documents and then, through counsel, prevented the Senate trial from calling any witnesses or producing any documents. He has never shown any remorse. Even though most Senators here know that what he did was wrong, he has shown no remorse whatsoever, and his misconduct was that of abusing his office for personal gain--getting a foreign power to help in his election campaign. Let me briefly go through article I. Article I states that he solicited a foreign government, Ukraine, to interfere in the 2020 elections by its publicly announcing investigations that would benefit his reelection, conditioned on official U.S. Government acts of significant value to Ukraine. The House managers have submitted a voluminous amount of information that supports that, and I refer to that in my attached statement, so I will not spend the time here to go through that. Yet, even though there is enough in the full record to establish the charges, there are other issues that add to the President's committing these acts. First, as I mentioned before, the President issued a blanket obstruction for any witness with firsthand knowledge of the President's conduct to provide testimony on these articles here in the U.S. Senate. Yes, we can infer that, if the President had exculpatory witnesses, he would have produced those exculpatory witnesses. Secondly, the President's impeachment attorney, Mr. Sekulow, said that you cannot view this case in a vacuum. I agree. The President has consistently misrepresented the facts and defamed anyone who challenges him. Let me just give you one concrete example: the Mueller investigation, which has been cited in this impeachment trial. The President denies Russia's initial involvement in our elections. He resisted efforts to hold Russia accountable. He defamed the reputation of the special counsel. He willfully impeded the investigation. He attacked the integrity of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He also wrongfully claimed that the investigation exonerated him. He has done that over and over again. The findings in the report speak to a contrary conclusion. It says Russia interfered in our 2016 elections in a sweeping and systematic fashion. It reads: ``If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.'' There are numerous instances in which the President may have obstructed justice, but we left the further pursuit of that to Congress or to a prosecutor after he leaves office. Since he has taken office, the President's pattern has been to mislead and misstate facts and to act as a bully against those who have had anything to say against him that he has not liked. It makes it easier for us to understand how the illegal scheme in article I unfolded. I have one additional fact of why this points to establishing the facts. The President has consistently shown no remorse. He continuously tells us that the summary of the July 25 call shows a perfect call. We know how controversial that call was. It was far from perfect. The next hurdle was, is this an impeachable offense? I concluded that it was. It is an abuse of power, which is an abuse of trust, which is clearly what our Founders intended as being a high crime and misdemeanor while in office. The President's own analysis of this leads to the only conclusion, that being that abuse of power must be an impeachable offense. I say that because we had the President's counsel--once again, Professor Dershowitz--who told us that it was not an abuse of power and that it was not an impeachable offense. Professor Dershowitz said that if your election is in the public interest--if a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest--that it cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Well, that is an absurd situation if you adopt the logic of the President's counsel that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. It is clearly an impeachable offense. The President's conduct has jeopardized America's global leadership in promoting our values. Our values are our strength. I thought it was very telling, the conversation of Ambassador Volker with Mr. Yermak, who is the principal counsel to President Zelensky of Ukraine. Ambassador Volker said: Don't start an investigation in Ukraine on your opponent in your election because that will sow division in your community. Mr. Yermak responded: Do you mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden? President Trump's conduct has endangered our national security, our global leadership, and American values. Article II is a lot easier--obstruction of Congress--because the facts clearly establish that the President's blanket obstruction, which he orchestrated, denied any access to individuals or to documents in order to facilitate a coverup of what was uncovered under article I of the Articles of Impeachment. It is essential for Congress to carry out our responsibilities and to be able to get that type of information from the President. It is exactly what the Framers of our Constitution intended when they developed the checks and balances in our system--that there would be no branch that would have absolute power. We do not have a Monarch. President Trump has crossed the line with his personal interests over the country's interests. He used the power of his office for his own personal benefit. No one is above the law. We must act to protect the Constitution and our democratic system of government. It is with a heavy heart that I will support both Articles of Impeachment. Senators have a grave responsibility when it comes to the power of impeachment, particularly when it involves the President of the United States. This is a very profound responsibility in which Senators have to do what is right for our country. Our decision here will affect not only this President but the future of the Presidency itself. The Constitution leaves to the Senate ``the sole power to try all impeachments.'' The Constitution clearly requires the Senate to conduct a trial. The Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, has given the Senate some guidance in carrying out its responsibility to conduct impeachment trials. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, in a concurring opinion in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), found that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution clearly intended ``that the term `try' as used in article I, section 3, clause 6 meant that the Senate should conduct its proceeding in a manner that a ``reasonable judge'' would deem a trial. Justice White acknowledged that the Senate ``has very wide discretion in specifying impeachment trial procedures,'' but stated that the Senate ``would abuse its discretion'' if it were to ``insist on a procedure that could not be deemed a trial by reasonable judges.'' Justice Blackmun concurred in Justice White's opinion. The Senate has the sole power to ``try'' impeachments. Yet how can the Senate hold an actual ``trial'' without hearing direct evidence from witnesses? The Senate chose not to hear additional relevant evidence and key witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the President's conduct. However, the Senate is not bound solely to the House record when conducting an impeachment trial. The Senate should have heard new and relevant evidence that bore directly on the Articles of Impeachment, including testimony from former White House National Security Advisor John Bolton, Acting White House Chief of Staff and Acting OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, as well as various other OMB and DOD officials. The Senate should have demanded additional documents from the White House, State Department, OMB, and DOD that bore directly on the Articles of Impeachment. The Senate should have been able to receive further evidence before concluding its trial in this case, whether or not the additional evidence was incriminating or exculpatory. As one of President Trump's counsel Mr. Philbin said during the trial, the best way to find out the truth is for witnesses under oath to be subject to cross-examination. The Senate therefore failed in its responsibility when it did not conduct a constitutionally fair trial. I suspect that Justice White in the Nixon case would have concluded that no ``reasonable judge'' would conclude these proceedings constitute such a trial. The evident deficiencies of the Senate trial has made it more difficult for me to carry out my responsibility, and if the Senate fails to convict, that acquittal will always be questioned because of the absence of a fair trial. This process is not fair to the House, Senate, American people, or the President. Now, in regards to the specific Articles of Impeachment, article I alleges ``abuse of power'' by the President, stating: ``Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.'' I reluctantly conclude that the President has indeed engaged in the conduct alleged. I come to this conclusion based first on the record during this impeachment trial. In weighing the facts and evidence in this case, I have listened carefully to all of the trial proceedings and taken extensive notes, including during the managers' presentations and Senators' questioning period. Let me highlight a few key facts and pieces of evidence that were determinative for my thinking, with the understanding that this is not an exhaustive list. First, President Trump indicated his strong interest in having Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky open a political investigation into the Bidens, in a July 26, 2019, phone call between the President and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Second, Acting Chief of Staff and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney admitted that a quid pro quo existed in terms of tying the release of U.S. funding to Ukraine to the opening of a political investigation to help President Trump. Third, there are numerous examples in the record of direct pressure on the Ukrainian Government to open political investigations for the personal benefit of President Trump, including a September 1, 2019, Warsaw meeting between Ambassador Sondland and Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to the Ukrainian President, which directly tied U.S. military assistance to Ukraine to the opening of political investigations to hurt President Trump's political rivals. These accounts were later confirmed in testimony by other U.S. diplomats, and on September 7, Ambassador Sondland reiterated these themes following discussions with President Trump. Fourth, before the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker communicates with Yermak and conditions a White House visit to the launching of a political investigation against the President's rivals in Ukraine. Fifth, on July 10, 2019, the White House held a series of meetings with high-level Ukrainian defense officials, which conditioned a White House visit from the Ukrainian President with the opening of political investigations in Ukraine sought by President Trump. Notably, former National Security Advisor John Bolton refused to be part of any ``drug deal'' and asked his staff to report these meetings to National Security Council lawyers. It was explained by National Security Council Member Fiona Hill that, by ``drug deal,'' Ambassador Bolton was referring to conditioning a White House meeting for the President of Ukraine with the Ukrainians starting the political investigations desired by the President. Mr. Bolton should have testified before the Senate, and we should not have to wait for his book release, after this Senate trial concludes, to get a full accounting of firsthand conversations here that bear directly on the impeachment charges against the President. Press reports indicate that, in his upcoming book, Bolton will state that the President explicitly told him that he did not want to release $391 million in aid to Ukraine until it announced investigations into his Democratic rivals, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Also, the President specifically asked Bolton to arrange a meeting for President Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, with President Zelensky to further the illegal scheme. Notably, the former White House Chief of Staff at the time, John Kelly, believes Bolton's account. Sixth, the language used in the July 25, 2019, phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was a direct solicitation of foreign interference (a ``favor'') by using a political investigation to help President Trump's campaign and hurt his Democratic rivals. Seventh, why did the Administration keep secret its hold on assistance to Ukraine in order to allegedly combat corruption? The U.S. has generally notified countries, Congress, and the public when it is withholding foreign aid in order to change the country's behavior and let them know what steps they need to take to resolve the hold. As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission and as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I know the importance of promoting American values in foreign policy. The President's conduct has weakened America's global leadership in fighting corruption, promoting democracy, and strengthening the rule of law. President Trump's corrupt use of his foreign policy power compromised America's ability to help shape the global community that protects American values. The record shows that Ambassador Volker tried to discourage Mr. Yermak and the Ukrainian Government from trying to prosecute the country's previous President. Ambassador Volker says he warned it would sow deep societal divisions. Ambassador Volker says that Mr. Yermak quipped in response, ``You mean like asking us to investigate Clinton and Biden?'' In addition to the record, I am supported in my conclusions by three other considerations. First, why hasn't the President presented to the impeachment trial the testimony of the witnesses that have direct knowledge concerning the factual allegations in the Articles of Impeachment? I draw from the absence of such testimony that it would only corroborate the record presented by the House Managers. Secondly, counsel to President Mr. Sekulow acknowledged ``you cannot view this case in a vacuum.'' I agree. President Trump, during his Presidency, has consistently misrepresented the facts and defamed anyone who has challenged him. One clear and relevant example of this is how he tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation and how, to this date, he mischaracterizes its conclusion. The President was not exonerated by the Mueller report, which found that Russia interfered in our 2016 Presidential election in a ``sweeping and systematic fashion.'' President Trump consistently took steps to deny Russia's involvement in tampering in our elections, resisted efforts to hold Russia accountable, besmirched the reputation of the special counsel while trying to dismiss him or willfully impeded his investigation, and repeatedly attacked the integrity of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Indeed, the Mueller report stated: ``If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.'' At a press conference, Special Counsel Mueller reiterated: ``If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.'' The report detailed numerous instances in which the President may have obstructed justice, but left further pursuit of the matter to Congress or future prosecutors once the President leaves office. With such a track record, it is easier to understand how the facts presented by the House managers tie together supporting an illegal scheme, orchestrated by the President, to get Ukraine involved in our 2020 elections to help Mr. Trump's reelection. Third, the President has consistently failed to show any remorse for his conduct, leading to the conclusion that he will continue to violate the sacred trust of the office. Having been satisfied that the President did commit the offenses in the first Article of Impeachment, the next hurdle is whether these constitute impeachable offenses. I conclude they do. President Trump is not a King or Monarch. The Founding Fathers wisely created a system of separation of powers and checks and balances so as not to concentrate power in only one office or department of government. The Senate must reject President Trump's statement on July 23, 2019, that his right under article II of the Constitution is ``to do whatever I want as president.'' As noted in the House Judiciary Committee report on constitutional grounds for Presidential impeachment (December, 2019), President Trump's claim here ``is wrong, and profoundly so, because our Constitution rejects pretensions to monarchy and binds Presidents with law. That is true even of powers vested exclusively in the chief executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an abusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President is subject to impeachment for `high crimes and misdemeanors.' This is a core premise of the impeachment power.'' I agree. The President's counsel notes that abuse of power could become too subjective a standard for Presidential impeachments. But as Representative William Cohen remarked in President Nixon's case, ``It has also been said to me that even if Mr. Nixon did commit these offenses, every other President . . . has engaged in some of the same conduct, at least to some degree, but the answer I think is that democracy, that solid rock of our system, may be eroded away by degree and its survival will be determined by the degree to which we will tolerate those silent and subtle subversions that absorb it slowly into the rule of a few.'' The premise that abuse of power being a too subjective standard belies common sense and could lead to the absurd conclusion given by Professor Dershowitz--one of President Trump's impeachment counsel-- during the trial. He stated: ``Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.'' Abuse of power, as used by President Trump, to further a scheme to get Ukraine to help in President Trump's campaign must be an impeachable offense if we believe our Constitution guarantees that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the law. The President's counsel also observes that, when initiating Articles of Impeachment, the House should only proceed if there is bipartisan support, but that decision is left solely to the House. Once the House has acted, the Senate shall proceed to trial and must render a decision based upon the case presented. There are clear distinctions between the Clinton and Trump impeachments. In Clinton, the trial was acknowledged to be fair; witnesses testified before the Senate; President Clinton and members of his administration testified under oath; and documents were produced for review by the President. President Clinton showed remorse for his conduct and apologized. His misconduct was personal in nature. In contrast, President Trump blocked all witnesses and documents, and the Senate called no witnesses to testify under oath. President Trump has shown no remorse, continuing to say that the controversial call with President Zelensky was ``perfect.'' Unlike President Clinton's misconduct, President Trump has abused the power of his office for personal gain. Turning to the second Article of Impeachment, Obstruction of Congress, the House alleges, that, in response to their impeachment inquiry, President Trump ``directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives . . . without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to exercise of the `sole power of impeachment' vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.'' In particular, the second article alleges that the President: No. 1, directed the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents; No. 2, directed other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents, including OMB and the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy; and No. 3, directed current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the investigating committees, including Mick Mulvaney and numerous other officials. After reviewing the evidence, I believe that the Senate record supports conviction under article II as an impeachable offense. President Trump carried out an extraordinary and unprecedented campaign of obstruction of Congress. Note that President Clinton provided evidence that was requested by the House and Senate during impeachment proceedings, and allowed multiple White House aides to testify in the underlying investigation. President Nixon cooperated to an extent in his investigation, allowing numerous White House officials to testify and providing substantial evidence to Congress in its inquiry. By contrast, President Trump issued an edict directing his administration to refuse to ``participate'' in all aspects of the House's impeachment inquiry. In particular, the October 8, 2019, letter from the White House Counsel did not even attempt to assert any specific privileges. This trial has been very difficult for the Senate and our Nation, but each Senator must in his or her own judgment carry out the oaths we have taken as Senators to support the Constitution as well as our special oath to do ``impartial justice'' as participants in this Senate impeachment trial, with Chief Justice Roberts presiding over the Senate. Weighing the credibility of President Trump, I find a clear pattern of misconduct in office. President Trump's obstruction of Congress shows a deep and abiding disrespect for Congress and lack of appreciation for the separation of powers and system of checks and balances in our government. As the President and Commander in Chief, President Trump used his power to compromise and corrupt America's values. Our values are our strength. In particular, President Trump has undermined the rule of law, weakened our efforts to fight corruption both at home and abroad, damaged our national security, and helped our adversary, Russia. President Trump's conduct clearly crossed the line when he put his own personal interests over the country's interests, using the power of his office for his own personal benefit. No one is above the law. We must act to protect the Constitution and our democratic system of government. It is with a heavy heart that I support both Articles of Impeachment, requiring the removal of the President from office as well as the disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question on behalf of Senator Baldwin and myself, and I send it to the desk.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question on behalf of Senator Markey and myself, and I send it to the desk.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on January 20, we celebrate the 91st anniversary of the birth of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the short 39 years that he spent on Earth, Dr. King inspired more change, touched more lives, and lifted up more voices than most of us could hope to in many lifetimes. With his message of compassion, he shepherded a civil rights movement defined by love and peacefulness, despite the violence and hatred raging all around. He bravely preached the equal value of every human soul, and he was killed for it. That day, we lost a champion for justice who can never be replaced. Nearly 52 years after Dr. King's murder, it is important to pause and reflect on the profound impact that his dream of peace and equality has had on our Nation's character. Dr. King's legacy includes expanded voting rights, more inclusive housing policies, and the legal prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race. Not only that, but his advocacy for economic justice illuminated the ways that race and class intersect in America, inspiring future generations to demand freedom from all vectors of oppression. But today is also an opportunity to reflect on what is still needed to make Dr. King's dream a reality. Our criminal justice system still operates as a tool with which to surveil and subjugate minority communities. People of color, especially African Americans, are still disenfranchised at substantially higher rates and have to navigate sophisticated voter deception and intimidation practices in order to exercise their right to vote. And White supremacists are still marching in the streets while the occupant of our country's highest office proclaims that there are ``good people on both sides.'' It turns out that the forces of injustice that Dr. King fought to eradicate are strong and adaptable. Often, when we think we have defeated them, they have in fact taken a new, unfamiliar form, or simply hidden below the surface, waiting for an opportunity to emerge. Sadly, there are too many in power right now who offer platforms and shelter to these forces. They threaten to drag our country back to a darker time. We can't let that happen. I appreciate how daunting that imperative is--goodness knows that I ask myself all the time how I, just one man, can possibly effect the change that I hope to see in the world. But it helps to remember that Martin Luther King was also just one man, one ordinary man called to an extraordinary mission. So all we need to do is model ourselves in Dr. King's image. Easy, right? Maybe not. But a good way to start is to recall his lesson that ``life's most persistent question is: what are you doing for others?'' Dr. King taught us that justice doesn't have to be sweeping and grand-- it can be quiet; it can take root in small moments. The world that he envisioned can be planted with good deeds between neighbors, helping hands offered to friends, and displays of empathy for complete strangers. When we do these things, we recognize each other's humanity, we bond ourselves to one another, and then we come to see that none of us is striving alone for a better world. That togetherness, that solidarity, will always win out over hatred and fear. Another thing we can do is support the systems and institutions that have the power to uphold equality. This is where I make my plug for the census. The upcoming decennial census will be used to determine congressional representation and the fair distribution of Federal resources for things like schools, hospitals, and housing. It has the potential to ensure that all Americans get the services and political representation to which they are entitled, or it could further skew the playing field in favor of the already privileged. It all depends on whether minority communities are fully counted. Historically, they have not been. That is why I am asking each and every American to please, please participate in the census this year. Dr. King taught us that every human being is equal, that all of us deserve to live with dignity and respect. He shined a light on the forgotten and the oppressed and demanded better for them. Help to honor his memory by making sure that no one goes uncounted. Carry on his legacy by demanding a government that serves and protects each of its citizens equally. In this way, we can continue building the world that Dr. King envisioned. (At the request of Mr. Rounds, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am proud to name Oxford-Bellevue Ferry, believed to be our Nation's oldest privately owned ferry, as the U.S. Senate Small Business of the Week. Currently owned and operated by Judy and Tom Bixler, the ferry has transported residents and tourists between the towns of Oxford and Bellevue across the Tred Avon River since 1683--more than 90 years before the Colonies came together to form the United States, making it one of the oldest companies in the country. Over the past three centuries, the ferry has become a part of the fabric of the community, with some residents calling it ``the pulse of the river.'' Residents have also come to associate the sound of the ferry's engine with the turning of the seasons: the first sounds mark the beginning of spring, while the ferry's final rumble of the year lets them know that fall has arrived. Tom and Judy purchased the ferry route and moved to Maryland in 2001. Since then, they have not only been good stewards of the ferry's history, but they have become pillars in the Oxford community and leaders in Maryland's tourism industry. Last year, Judy was appointed chair of the Maryland Tourism Development Board, where she advocates for Maryland's tourism industry and helps market Maryland as a tourist destination. In 2018, Tom and Judy were awarded the Community Impact Award by the Talbot County Department of Economic Development and Tourism for their commitment to serving Talbot County, its visitors, and its residents. I was proud to stand with Tom and Judy for the Oxford-Bellevue Ferry's 325th anniversary celebration in 2008 and am proud to recognize their continued success today. I hope the ferry will still be transporting Marylanders and tourists across the Tred Avon River for many years to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, last week we were very close to an act of war between the United States and Iran. I must tell you, we have been talking about this potential threat for a long time. I am a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We have held numerous meetings in our discussion about the fact that there is no authorization for the use of military force by the United States against Iran that has been approved by Congress. I remember, during hearings, listening to administrative witnesses who said: Well, there is no intent to use force against Iran. Well, Congress did not act. Even though, I must tell you, several of our colleagues, including this Senator, had urged us to take up an authorization for the use of military force in regards to the problems in the Middle East, there was no action taken. I want to applaud Senator Kaine, who has been working on this for several years, and our former colleague Senator Flake, who did everything they could to bring a bipartisan discussion and action in regards to exercising congressional responsibility on the use of force by our military. Well, we now know that this is a real threat, that we may be going to war without Congress's involvement, which is contrary not only to our Constitution but to the laws passed by the U.S. Congress. So I want to thank Senator Kaine and Senator Lee for filing S.J. Res. 68, a bipartisan resolution. I hope it will receive the expedited process that is envisioned in the War Powers Resolution, and I hope that we will have a chance to act on this in the next few days. It is our responsibility--Congress's responsibility--to commit our troops to combat, and it rests squarely with the legislative branch of government. Let me first cite the Constitution of the United States. You hear a lot of discussion about the Constitution here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. Now, that was challenged in the 1970s, after Congress had passed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in regards to our presence in Vietnam. It was passed in an innocent way to protect American troops and ships that were in that region, but as we know, that resolution was used as justification by President Johnson and others to expand our involvement in Vietnam and, ultimately, led to a very active and costly war for the United States--and lengthy war, I might add. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act. It wasn't easy. President Nixon vetoed it. We overrode the veto in a bipartisan vote in the U.S. Congress. We did that because of the abuse of power during the Vietnam war. Let me read what the War Powers Act provides because it is very telling in regard to what we saw last week in regard to Iran, a little over a week ago now. It requires consultation with Congress by the President ``in every possible instance before committing troops to war.'' No. 1, it requires the President to consult with us before he commits any of our troops to an engagement. No. 2, the President is required to report within 48 hours ``into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' So it provides for the imminent involvement or threat to the United States. No. 3, the President is ``required to end foreign military action after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue.'' We now know that to be an AUMF, an authorization for the use of military force. Let's fast forward from the passage of that bill in 1973 to rein in the abuse of power by the Executive during the Vietnam war. Let's fast forward to what happened in early January, on January 2, when President Trump ordered the action against Soleimani in Baghdad and took out his life. Let me start off by saying, none of us has any sorrow over the loss of General Soleimani. He was a bad guy. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people. He was very much a person who should have been held accountable for his activities, but there is a reason for our constitutional protections of checks and balances as it relates to the use of military force by the United States. The Commander in Chief has certain powers. Congress has certain powers. The Framers of our Constitution intentionally provided for there to be a robust discussion and debate between the legislature and the Executive on war and peace; that we should have that open discussion; and that, in many cases, diplomacy needs to be pursued much more aggressively before we use our military might; that our national security interest in keeping America safe rests with these checks and balances. Again, to bring it to current times in regard to the circumstances with Iran, every witness I have listened to, every expert I have talked to with regard to the Middle East, says it is in the U.S. national security interest to find a diplomatic way to handle our issues in regard to Iran; that a military option would be very costly, a long time, and, most likely, counterproductive with the United States having to keep its troops in that region for a very long time. Diplomacy is clearly the preferred path. These constitutional provisions provide us with an opportunity to be able to make sure we do what is in the best interest of American national security. Trump ordered this attack, and the Senate now needs to act, as we saw in the 1970s when Congress did act. Let me start with the War Powers Act and how President Trump had violated the War Powers Act in all three of the provisions I mentioned earlier. First, was there an imminent involvement or threat? We have all now heard the explanations given by this administration. It was short on detail. It was basically the general concerns. What is most disturbing, we now read press accounts that the President had been planning for months--or the generals had been planning and going over with the President for months whether they should take out General Soleimani. If they had been planning for months, why didn't they consult with Congress, as required under the War Powers Act? Violation No. 1 to the War Powers Act: Congress was not consulted by President Trump. No. 2, there are two violations so far; the fact that there wasn't an imminent threat and the fact that there was no consultation with Congress--two violations of the War Powers Act. Then, if he continues to use force beyond the 60 days, he has to come to Congress and get authorization or he has to remove the troops. Does anyone here believe the President will not hesitate again to use force against Iran? Yet there are no intentions to submit a resolution. We find the President has violated the War Powers Act in three ways: first, by having no evidence of imminent threat; second, by not consulting with Congress before the attack; and third, by not submitting to us an authorization for the use of military force. There are some who say the President already has that authority under the authorizations for the use of military force that were passed by Congress after the attack on our country on September 11, 2001. We are getting to 18 years beyond when that attack took place and those authorizations passed, but let me go through them. The one that is cited the most by the President is the 2002, which is to ``defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' First, let me say, I voted against that resolution, and I believe that was the correct vote, but I think almost everybody in this body would say that authorization is no longer relevant. Since that resolution was passed, the United States has worked with Iraq and has worked with the Government of Iraq. This is a country we try to do business with, so they no longer present the threat that was supposedly present when this resolution was passed. Even to get beyond that, what does Iran have to do with Iraq? I understand they may start with the first letter ``I,'' but there is no relationship here. Under any stretch of the imagination, there is no way you can use the 2002 resolution. Let's go to the 2001 resolution that was passed on the authorization for use of military force. That was immediately after the attack on September 11: `` . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.'' There is absolutely zero connection between that language and General Soleimani or Iran as it relates to 9/11, and I think no one could make that connection. I understand that 2001 has been misused by many administrations. There is no question, I would concur in that conclusion, but in all of those cases, they tried to connect dots. There is no connection of dots here whatsoever. As we saw in the late 1960s and 1970s in Vietnam, when we had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that was passed to defend our assets in the Vietnam area--in the Gulf of Tonkin--how it was used by administrations to commit us to a long, engaged military operations. Here, one cannot argue that there is even a semblance of authorization that has been passed by Congress as it relates to Iran. We also know the President is violating the War Powers Act, and he is likely to use force again in violation of our Constitution and the War Powers Act. It was my generation that paid a very heavy price because of the Vietnam war. I lost a lot of my high school classmates in the Vietnam war. Let us not exceed our responsibility under the Constitution or allow the President to exceed his. We need to act. The Senate needs to act. We don't need another endless war. The resolution before us allows us to do what is responsible. I am going to quote from the resolution that Senator Kaine has filed, S.J. Res. 68: `` . . . the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against . . . Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran.'' By the way, the resolution also provides that we always have the right to defend ourselves from an imminent threat, provided that it is an imminent threat, and that we comply with the War Powers Act--I am adding this--that was passed by Congress. The President has a long track record of exceeding his constitutional authority on matters of foreign policy. We cannot afford to become accustomed or complacent in the face of those excesses. It is our responsibility to carry out our constitutional responsibility. I urge my colleagues to strongly support S.J. Res. 68 when we have a chance to vote on that, I hope, within the next few days. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a dedicated husband, father, son, public servant, and Marylander, Chris Allen. Sadly, Chris passed away last week. He was 58 years old. He leaves behind a wife Lynda-Marie, and two daughters, Sophie and Lucie. Chris spent years in the office of my friend Senator Roberts, relentlessly advocating on behalf of his constituents. More recently, he worked for Senator Grassley on the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee, where he pushed for pragmatic policy solutions to improve the life of retirees and the pension system. Those of us who were lucky enough to know Chris know he lifted the spirits of those around him through his wry sense of humor and infectious positivity. At work, he was experienced, passionate, and knowledgeable about his work, always searching for good policy with bipartisan support. For those lucky enough to work with Chris, he made lifelong friends and allies. He will not soon be forgotten. The world is a little less upbeat without Chris here. I hope you will join me in praying for his family and friends.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I want to extend the thanks of all Members of the U.S. Senate and the American people to the men and women who are serving our Nation at the National Security Agency based at Fort Meade, MD, the Defense Special Missile and Astronautics Center. It has been in existence since 1964. It is a 24/7 operation. I mention that because it was the work done here in the State of Maryland--and I am proud to represent that State--that gave the early warning information that allowed us to get information to our American forces in Iraq and to the Iraqis that, literally, saved lives. I want to thank them for their dedicated service. We have the best intelligence information and the best trained people protecting our Nation, and I just wanted to pause for one moment to thank those who are serving at the National Security Agency who are keeping us safe.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of U.S. Treasurer Jovita Carranza to lead the Small Business Administration. Treasurer Carranza's nomination comes at a time of great change for American small businesses. With the growing diversity in America, the face of business ownership in America is naturally also becoming more diverse. I have witnessed these changes firsthand in my home State of Maryland, which currently boasts the highest concentration of women- owned businesses in the country, as well as the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses. Maryland's success has been no accident; it is as a result of our leaders' decades-long commitment to creating opportunities for underserved entrepreneurs, which began when the late Baltimore Congressman Parren J. Mitchell created the first Federal set- aside for minority contractors in 1977. It was with this understanding that I requested a seat on the Small Business Committee when I joined this body in 2006, and it is with this understanding that I am hopeful that Treasurer Carranza will provide much needed leadership at the SBA and serve as an advocate for entrepreneurs--especially those from underserved communities--within the administration. If confirmed to lead the SBA, Treasurer Carranza will enter an agency that has not had a Deputy Administrator since April 2018 and that has been led by its General Counsel since former Administrator Linda McMahon resigned in April 2019. She will join an administration that has pushed for drastic cuts at the SBA in every budget it has sent to Congress. I am grateful that our Appropriations Committee has consistently rejected the administration's devastating budget proposals, and I hope that Treasurer Carranza will work to ensure that the administration's fiscal year 2021 budget is not more of the same. Minorities, women, veterans, and entrepreneurs from other underserved communities face specific, historical barriers to business ownership, and they need an SBA that has the leadership, vision, and tools required to meet their needs. I would like to use this opportunity to highlight what I believe are the two most critical areas where the SBA is falling short in its support of underserved communities. First, SBA must do a better job of providing affordable capital to entrepreneurs from underserved communities. SBA's various loan programs provide entrepreneurs with affordable capital to fund their businesses. These loans are especially important for underserved entrepreneurs, who typically have less wealth with which to fund a small business and have lower rates of business loan approvals. Instead of filling in the gaps in the credit markets, SBA's highest volume loan program, the 7(a) Program, has mirrored the inequities in the market. That is something we need to address. Addressing this issue is important not only in Maryland, which, as I mentioned, has one of the most diverse small business communities in the country, it is vital for the future health of America's economy, considering that women and minorities are driving growth in new business formation. According to a recent American Express study, the overall business ownership rate increased only 9 percent between 2014 and 2019. Over the same 5-year period, the number of women-owned businesses increased 21 percent--more than twice as fast as the overall rate--and the number of minority women-owned businesses grew by 43 percent. It is clear that the underserved communities are driving the growth and business formation in America, and SBA's loan programs must catch up to this new reality. Second, SBA must do all it can to increase opportunity for small business contractors. Recent trends paint an onerous picture of the future of small business contracting. A 2019 Bloomberg Government report found that despite a steady increase in government spending in the past several years, the Federal contracting marketplace is becoming less competitive, with the number of contractors working on unclassified contracts at a 10-year low. Small businesses are facing the brunt of this decrease, which is particularly troubling in Maryland, where Federal contracting accounted for 8 percent--roughly $33 billion--of our State's GDP in 2018. The jobs created by these companies have helped thousands of families in Maryland enter the middle class. The Senate has taken steps to help small contractors. I am proud to share that today SBA will begin implementing the Runway Extension Act-- legislation I introduced that will allow small businesses to make critical investments to grow their businesses without fearing they will lose access to resources and Federal contracting opportunities. But Congress alone cannot reverse the increasing insularity of the Federal contracting process; SBA must work with large agencies that are driving these trends in Federal contracting to ensure that small businesses are given opportunities to become prime contractors and supply the Federal Government. Treasurer Carranza's prior experience should serve her well at the SBA. In nearly 30 years at UPS, where she began as a part-time package handler, Treasurer Carranza became the highest ranking Latina in the history of the company. She also served in government as Deputy Administrator of SBA under President George W. Bush, during which she chaired the SBA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Council. At a time when America's small businesses are experiencing rapid demographic changes and new challenges, SBA needs bold and innovative leadership. I am optimistic that Treasurer Carranza can be the leader and advocate that SBA and American small businesses need right now. I support her nomination. I urge my colleagues to approve her nomination as the SBA Administrator. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we need to pass the Combating Global Corruption Act. Today, I join with my colleague Senator Young to reaffirm bipartisan support for this important legislation. Corruption threatens international stability and security and poses a serious threat to democracy and democratic values. Ten days ago, December 9, was International AntiCorruption Day. This day provides an annual reminder of the dire need to prioritize combatting corruption here in the United States and around the world. Corruption undermines democratic institutions, it compromises the rule of law, and it erodes human rights protections. It damages America's global competitiveness and hampers economic growth in global markets. It fosters the conditions for violent extremism and weakens institutions associated with governance and accountability. These are direct threats to our national and international security. Earlier this year, Transparency International published its Corruption Perceptions Index for 2018. It underscored that the failure to curb corruption is contributing to a worldwide crisis of democracy. Not surprisingly then, Freedom House similarly reported that 2018 was marked by global declines in political rights and civil liberties for the 13th consecutive year. Sixty-eight countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties during 2018, with only 50 nations registering gains. We have all seen the headlines in recent years--from scandals in Liberia, Hungary, and Guatemala, to the doping by Russian athletes and their subsequent ban from the 2016 Summer Olympics and using aid to influence other nations' behavior. It is clear that where there are high levels of corruption, we find fragile states, authoritarian states, or states suffering from internal or external conflict--in places such as Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, and Sudan. Different domestic issues may have sparked the wave of massive protests we are observing today--whether they be increases in gas prices or metro fares--but many of these uprisings have been sustained by public desire to weed out leaders' corruption. Corruption is no longer being tolerated or excused. Corruption operates via extensive and entrenched networks in both the public and private sectors. It is ubiquitous and pervasive, but we must address it. The costs of not addressing it or rooting it out are just too great. Mr. President, we must be clear-eyed--any fight against corruption will be long-term and difficult. It is a fight against powerful people, powerful companies, and powerful interests. It is about changing a mindset and a culture as much as it is about establishing and enforcing laws. While previous anti-corruption legislation has been crucial, the Combatting Global Corruption Act takes our commitment to this value further by bringing a whole-of-government approach to the issue and bringing more transparency to the instances of corruption going on unnoticed in every country around the world. The Combatting Global Corruption Act requires the State Department to produce an annual assessment, either by a briefing or by a report, similar to the Trafficking in Persons Report, which takes a close look at each country's efforts to combat corruption. The assessment will measure indicators such as transparency, accountability, enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and the extent to which public power is used for private gain. That model, which has effectively advanced the effort to combat modern-day slavery, will similarly embed the issue of corruption in our collective work and make other nations more conscious of their corruption levels. The bill includes clear definitions of corruption and corrupt activities and underscores the importance of prioritizing corruption into strategic planning--across our agencies, bureaus, and our missions overseas. It specifically increases coordination on anti-corruption efforts between the Department of State and USAID and formally engages our embassies in the fight against corruption by establishing anti- corruption points of contact at our Embassies in critical countries. We work across multiple agencies and in multiple offices to combat corruption. The roles of these points of contact, comprised of either the chief of mission or personnel designated for the role by the chief of mission, will foster greater coordination on anticorruption efforts within the U.S. government. It is time for the U.S. Congress to send a strong message to our Nation and to the world that corruption cannot be accepted as the status quo. It is time that we back up our words--our commitment to supporting democratization, human rights, and fairness globally--with action to protect those critically important values. Let's pass the Combating Global Corruption Act.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in recognition of its centennial anniversary, I rise to offer my congratulations and appreciation to the American Geophysical Union, also known as the AGU. Since December 1919, the AGU has played an instrumental role in supporting international cooperation while also fostering American leadership in the fields of Earth and space science. Senator Murkowski and I introduced a resolution in honor of this critical milestone, and I am pleased to see the Senate pass it today. The National Research Council created the AGU as the representative for the United States of America in the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics in 1919. Only 1 year after the end of World War I, this was an occasion for international cooperation that illustrated the importance of bridging divides in the name of science. The AGU is a prime example of our Nation's commitment to a vision of shared peace and prosperity, and by serving as a key forum for gifted geophysicists from across the world, it is an example of our positive role in the international community for advancing knowledge. In the century since its founding, the AGU has connected countless geophysicists to facilitate information-sharing, peer review. and innovation. The AGU today counts more than 60,000 scientists and students among its membership, across 137 countries. Their work has not only expanded our understanding of our home planet and the celestial bodies beyond, but it has also led to critical health, environmental, commercial, and technological breakthroughs. If we are to confront climate change and other systemic challenges and, indeed, if we are truly to live as stewards in harmony with our surroundings, humanity needs the international cooperation and scientific integrity the AGU demonstrates so aptly. It is my hope that this resolution and the occasion of the AGU's centennial anniversary can inspire us all to appreciate the significance of scientific integrity and independence. Research from the geophysical community has deeply informed our society on the need for responding to pressing challenges, chief among them climate change. But unfortunately, it is not always so easy. Under President Trump, scientists have had to censor their work, voluntarily or involuntarily, due to political interference. Under the Trump administration, for instance, the United States Geological Survey has opted to limit the scope of the projected consequences of climate change through 2040, despite the agency's historic use of models stretching through 2100. Perhaps more worrisome, the White House released an Executive Order on June 14, 2019, that instructs each agency to slash at least one-third of its advisory committees, which consist of experts and scientists ready to advise on a wide range of issues, especially for the Environmental Protection Agency. Through reason and empiricism, science brings us closer to the truth. When administration officials or other individuals purposefully interfere with science to paint an incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading image, science ceases to be science and becomes just another battleground for politics. Policymakers should not be in the business of manipulating or silencing the work of the men and women who make up the scientific community. We should let scientists do their jobs. The AGU has done an excellent job representing many of those scientists over the last 100 years, and I congratulate it on the occasion of its centennial.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, several times on the floor of the Senate I have talked about the issue of retirement security. It has been a priority for me during my entire career in the U.S. Congress. When the United States has led the world in just about every economic indicator, there is always one in which the United States is not doing well; that is international savings, particularly retirement savings. When we take a look at recent figures, we find that 48 percent of those who are near retirement--over 55 years of age--have zero amounts in retirement funds. Almost half of our near elderly have no retirement funds and pensions at all. Twenty-nine percent have zero savings. So we need to do a lot better. The issue is very much compromised because we have seen a major trend in the employment world from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. In the defined benefit world, the employer guarantees certain benefits to their employees who take the risks of the market. In a defined contribution plan, it requires the employee to put his or her own money aside and be disciplined in order to do that. As a result, we find less retirement security for many wage earners today. This puts pressure on our Social Security system. Social Security is a very, very important program, but it is only supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool of retirement security, including private retirement and private savings. We have responded in the past, and we have taken action. I am very proud of the work I first started doing in the House of Representatives with then-Congressman Rob Portman. The two of us worked on pension legislation. We were able to get it enacted, and it made a big difference. I hope we will be voting on these Omnibus appropriations bills tomorrow. We are going to have a chance to take a major step forward on retirement security with the passage the SECURE Act. The SECURE Act, Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, is a bill that was first acted upon by the Senate Finance Committee back in 2016, so this has been a long time in coming. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 417 to 3, so you see that there is very strong bipartisan support for this next chapter in retirement security. It expands opportunities for Americans to increase their retirement savings and improve the portability of lifetime income options. Many provisions are included in the SECURE Act. I want to talk about just a few, several of which I was very proud to be part of working to include within the SECURE Act. First, for the first time in many years, we do something about the required minimum distribution. Under current law, once you reach 70\1/ 2\ years of age, you are required to take out a certain amount of your retirement income. The problem with that is, people are living longer and longer and longer, and their retirement income becomes inadequate the longer they live. They may have planned to live to be 80, 85, or 90 but find they still have an active lifestyle well beyond that. The required minimum distribution works against them being able to maintain an adequate amount of retirement funds for later in life. This bill takes a step forward in increasing the date in which you are required to take out a minimum distribution to 72 years of age. We are now also providing retirement opportunities for part-time workers. This is a major improvement on our retirement programs. I might tell my colleagues that part-time work affects women much more than men. This is something that was long overdue, and I am very pleased that this is also included in this legislation. Part of the legislation that Senator Portman and I have worked on deals with the fact that we have defined benefit plans that are available today, but in some cases employers have found it impossible to continue these plans for new employees. These are called ``closed plans.'' Well, these defined benefit plans are still there to protect those who were enrolled in the plan before they became closed. Here is the problem. As more and more people are employed by the company who are not in this plan and more of the people who were in the defined benefit plans are no longer around, the nondiscrimination rule test is much harder to be met, and, as a result, these plans may have to be frozen or canceled, and that would be to the detriment of those who are currently protected under these closed plans. I have been told that as many as 400,000 workers would risk losing benefits by the end of this year if we do not take action to change the nondiscrimination rules in regards to these closed plans. The SECURE Act includes the provision to do this. I was very happy to work with Senator Portman in getting that done. That is included in this legislation, and it is very important that we enact it before the end of December. There is a provision in here that I worked on with Senator Roberts, a bipartisan proposal to deal with church pension plans. We have had a church pension plan on the books for many years, but we have gotten inconsistent IRS regulations as it relates to the management of these pension plans, particularly when you are dealing with church-affiliated institutions, such as daycare centers or nursing homes. This legislation will clarify that so that these church plans can continue. It affects thousands of workers, and it makes a positive difference on retirement security. The SECURE Act also includes a provision that will exempt State and local firefighters and emergency responders from income tax liability that was never intended on some pension plans. All of that is included in the SECURE Act, and it will help a great deal in dealing with the issue I raised at the beginning of my remarks, retirement security for individuals. Now, we will get that done, I hope, this week. We expect to vote on the bill, hopefully, within the next day. That will be a major step forward for retirement security, but it is not the end. We have to do a lot more, and that is why Senator Portman and I have filed the Retirement Security and Savings Act. That is a bill that contains almost 50 different provisions. Some are included in the SECURE Act, and we are grateful for that, but most are not. What is included in the Retirement Security and Savings Act builds on the SECURE Act to provide greater opportunities for retirement security. Let me just give you a couple of examples. It improves the requirement for distribution, allowing individuals to be able to reserve more for the later years of their life. It also provides tremendous incentives for lifetime income. Here is the problem. People may have retirement savings, and they say: Look, I guess I will live another 15 years. So they take their money out over 15 years, and, guess what, after 15 years, they are still healthy, but they have no money. Lifetime income guarantees that you will have income throughout your entire life. We provide incentives in our legislation on lifetime income options for retirement options when you retire. We also make it easier for those who have student loans to be able to participate in retirement security. A lot of times, people would like to contribute to a pension plan but they have to pay off student loans. Well, we allow the paying off of student loans to act as a match for an employer's contribution--again, offering additional opportunities for people to participate in retirement savings. We have provisions in here that particularly help low-wage workers. The bottom line is that low-wage workers are the most challenged in order to participate in retirement security plans early in life. If you start a savings for retirement when you are young, it will produce the type of savings you need when you retire. Younger people have lots of obligations, including starting a family, paying off student loans, and all the things that we know about. So they need incentive. We have found that just the tax incentives alone will not be enough to get younger workers to participate in retirement. We have the Thrift Savings Plan here for Federal workers, which is wonderful, because the Federal Government matches some of those contributions. What we are suggesting in the bill that we filed is expanding the tax credit program for savings, making it refundable directly into retirement accounts so that younger, lower wage workers will participate in retirement savings. We provide provisions in this bill that help small businesses so small businesses can start retirement savings plans. All of that is included in the next step. So, yes, let's approve the SECURE Act in the budget agreement, an important step forward, but let's recognize that we need to do a lot more. Let's work in a bipartisan manner in 2020 to build on the success of the SECURE Act to help Americans save for their retirement. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor today to point out that 2 years ago, we had an opportunity in the Congress to reform the Tax Code. The Tax Code, basically, was the one enacted in 1986. In 2017, we had an opportunity to reform that Tax Code, and that opportunity was missed. What the Republicans did, instead of engaging in a truly bipartisan process that would have used the expertise of all Members of Congress, they went on a partisan mission in order to help big corporations and wealthy taxpayers at the expense of middle-income taxpayers and fiscal responsibility. As a result, our children and grandchildren will pick up the tab for this bill, and those who are going to benefit will not be middle-income families. They are the losers. The ones who are going to benefit will be big corporations and wealthy taxpayers. Let me just talk about some things that should be the basic ingredients for tax reform. First, it should be fair to the taxpayers of this country. The tax bill that was enacted 2 years ago was certainly not fair. It failed in that test. As I pointed out, who benefited? Large corporations benefited dramatically by this bill, but they said: Look, we will pass it on to the workers. Yet did they pass it on to the workers? In 2018, $1.1 trillion was used to repurchase stock to make the wealthiest even wealthier, and it did not go to the benefit of the workers. The benefit was the greatest on the personal income tax side as it went to the highest income taxpayers. They are the ones who benefited the most, and it was not fair to middle-income taxpayers. Secondly, a tax reform bill should be fiscally responsible. After all, we have taxes in order to raise revenue, in order to pay for services so we don't borrow from the future--from our children and grandchildren--to pay for what we are doing today. The administration said this would be a fiscally responsible bill. The verdict is back, and $2 trillion has been added to the national deficit--$2 trillion. It has certainly failed on fiscal responsibility. Corporate taxes have gone down 40 percent. So we have given a break to corporations at the expense of our deficit. Who is picking up the bill? Middle-income taxpayers are picking up the bill. Thirdly, the Tax Code should be efficient, and we should try to make it as simple as possible. No one can argue that the 2017 tax bill has simplified the Tax Code or has made it more efficient. To the contrary, we are now told we are going to need technical corrections because of the mistakes that were included in it. I can say, in my talking to many individuals who had the plan based upon the Tax Code, that there is so much more uncertainty in the Tax Code now than there was prior to the passage of the 2017 tax bill. Who is going to pick up the tab? Middle-income taxpayers are going to pick up the tab, and let me just give you some examples. The 2017 bill included a limitation on State and local tax deductions, and let me just talk a little bit about the taxpayers of Maryland. Almost 50 percent of Maryland's taxpayers used the itemized deduction and took the advantage of taking off of their Federal taxes what they paid in State and local taxes so they didn't have a tax on a tax. As a result of the limitations that were imposed in 2017, these taxpayers are now no longer able to take the full amount of the State and local tax deductions. In fact, because of the full changes, Maryland's number is down to about 25 percent when we did have almost 50 percent taking advantage of itemized deductions. We have lost about half of those filers who today can't take any of those tax deductions. This is an affront to federalism, and it also hurts middle-income taxpayers. It is philosophically wrong to have a tax on a tax. So the verdict is in with Maryland taxpayers, and the average refunds are down 6 percent. The refunds are what middle-income taxpayers depend on, and they are down in our State. It has also affected the ability of State and local governments to provide essential services that are important for all citizens. Yet whether it is their support for public education, public safety, et cetera, these essential services are very much dependent on middle- income families. All of those are now being stressed because of the restrictions on State and local tax deductions. Let me also talk about middle-income taxpayers. They don't benefit from the corporate tax cuts, which I already pointed out, but these tax cuts were made permanent. The individual tax changes were temporary in nature. Again, this hurts middle-income families. Lastly, let me point out that it was advertised by this administration that it would strengthen our economy. When you take a look at the first six quarters since the passage of the 2017 tax giveaway to the wealthy families and corporations, the gross domestic product has grown about 2.5 percent, which is far less than what the administration predicted. If you take the six quarters before the passage of the bill, it had gone up by 2.6 percent. So there has actually been a slight decline, and we haven't seen a boost to the economy. There is a better way to do this as this bill ignores small business. I have the opportunity of being the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and we have had many discussions with small business leaders who tell us this tax bill actually hurts them--it doesn't help them--because they don't pay the C rate but, rather, the individual rate, and the pass-throughs that were put in here don't benefit small companies. So, when we are talking about helping the driver of our economy--small business--the tax giveaway 2 years ago has made it even more difficult. The better way is to work in a true bipartisan fashion and engage all Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Let us truly change our Tax Code so that middle-income families benefit and so that we don't burden future taxpayers by our making irresponsible changes that are not fully funded. Let's do it in a way in which it will help the growth of our economy. That is what we should be doing. There was a missed opportunity 2 years ago, and it is moving the Nation in the wrong direction. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 25th Conference of the Parties, or COP25, which is taking place in Madrid until December 12 this year. I do so despite the cloud cast by President Trump's announcement of his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a landmark effort to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels while pursuing means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. The COP meetings now routinely represent the largest multilateral diplomatic events in the world. This year's conference is designed to take the next critical steps in the U.N. climate change process. Following agreements on the implementation guidelines of the Paris Agreement COP24 in Poland last year, a key objective is to complete several matters with respect to the full operationalization of the Paris climate change agreement. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement specifies that after joining, no country can withdraw for 3 years, after which a 1-year waiting period must occur before withdrawal takes effect. The Trump administration recklessly filed withdrawal documents on November 4, 2019, making November 4, 2020, the earliest possible date the United States can be out of the agreement. Withdrawal could not come at a costlier time. In an analysis I requested to review the Federal approach to prioritizing and funding climate resilience projects that address the Nation's most significant climate risks, the Government Accountability Office notes that there were at least 14 disasters whose costs exceeded $1 billion each in 2018 alone. GAO, an independent, nonpartisan agency that examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and is known as the congressional watchdog, reported that the total estimated costs reached at least $91 billion in damage to public and private property. ``The cost of recent weather disasters has illustrated the need to plan for climate change risks and invest in climate resilience,'' the report says. ``Investing in climate resilience can reduce the need for far more costly steps in the decades to come.'' The Paris Agreement establishes a global goal on adaptation that consists of, one, enhancing adaptation capacity; two, strengthening resilience; and three, reducing vulnerability to climate change in the context of the temperature goal of the agreement. It aims at strengthening the national adaptation efforts, including through support and international cooperation. It recognizes that adaptation is a global challenge faced by all, including the United States. Because U.S. withdrawal will not formally take effect until November 4, 2020, the U.S. team's posture at COP25 remains largely unchanged. A group of dedicated career civil servants will be on the ground. Moreover, 2 years ago, numerous U.S. States, cities, Tribal nations, businesses, faith groups, universities, and others enhanced their presence at major international events, including COP meetings, to maintain and encourage American progress toward its national climate goals. I am proud that nearly 100 Maryland pledgers ``Are Still In.'' They comprise dozens of businesses--many small. We have over 10 cities, 6 counties, cultural institutions, faith and healthcare organizations, 20 universities, including my alma mater, the University of Maryland School of Law in Baltimore, and investors, such as the State treasurer of Maryland. They are all still in. Members of the Senate ``Are Still In.'' I am proud to be leading 38 of my colleagues in S. Res. 404. This bipartisan resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should be working in cooperation with the international community in continuing to exercise global leadership to address the causes and effects of climate change. Prior to that, I led a congressional delegation of 10 Senators to COP21 that produced the Paris Agreement in 2015. Then the United States committed to lowering its contribution of greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Business and labor ``are still in.'' In a recent letter, 75 major CEOs and organized labor that are represented by the AFL-CIO stressed the importance of the Paris Agreement and the need for the United States to remain in it. This represents one of the most powerful recognitions ever from the private sector of the economic risks and opportunities that climate change presents to the United States and the world. The December 2, 2019, Joint Labor Union and CEO Statement on the Paris Agreement comprises a group of CEOs who employ more than 2 million people in the United States and union leaders who represent more than 12.5 million workers. In 2009, at the Copenhagen COP 15, the U.S. helped to drive the creation of goals for developed nations to mobilize $100 billion in public and private climate finance in 2020. The result was the Green Climate Fund, which helps to fund climate finance investment in low emissions, climate-resilient development. The Paris Agreement affirmed and extended that $100 billion goal. Although President Trump has stymied its funding, the fiscal year 2020 State Department and Foreign Operations bill the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported is the most favorable, forward-leaning on multilateral climate assistance in years, funding renewable energy programs at $179 million and resiliency programs at $177 million. In addition, the bill commits $140 million to the Global Environmental Facility and $10 million to the U.N. climate convention. We must not forget the cooperation President Trump would have us forget. On a bipartisan basis, the U.S. Congress has uniformly rejected the President's repeated calls to zero out climate assistance funding. This rebuke represents the true, cooperative spirit of our country, once a global leader on climate issues. I urge President Trump to reassert our Nation's strong leadership in implementing the Paris Agreement before the next Conference of the Parties. In the meantime, I applaud the courage of the general public, universities, faith-based groups, nonprofits, labor organizations, private sector companies, and State and local governments that have helped to step into the void President Trump created by his withdrawal from this agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I join my colleagues in expressing our genuine affection for Johnny Isakson. This is surely a sad day as Senator Isakson is leaving us as a member of the U.S. Senate. But frankly, his retirement from the Senate has given us an opportunity to recognize how fortunate each one of us is to be a Member of the U.S. Senate and that we can get things done if we follow Senator Isakson's recommendations and model to work together to find common ground. One other thing that I will always remember about Senator Isakson is that he has taught us that the Senate family really is family and you can form genuine friendships in the U.S. Senate and it makes no difference your party affiliation in forming those friendships. I first got to know Senator Isakson when he was Congressman Isakson. We were both serving in the House of Representatives. The House is a much larger body, and we did not have the opportunity during those years we served together in the House to get to know each another in a personal manner. But when I was elected to the U.S. Senate in January of 2007, it was Senator Isakson and Dianne that reached out to Myrna and me to welcome us to the Senate family. It was not a one-time, let's get to know each other and try to understand each other. We come from different backgrounds and different States. We have different religions. But he and Dianne, Myrna and I, really wanted to try to understand each other. You heard Senator Isakson talk about finding common ground. Well, you cannot find common ground if you do not know the other person you are talking with. And Senator Isakson has lived by example to develop that type of genuine friendship with his colleagues, so that we can really understand what our priorities are and how we can find that common ground to get things done. So we have enjoyed a professional relationship, but it has been a true friendship. And as Senator Isakson has said, the way to get things done is through understanding what bipartisanship is about. Bipartisanship works, as Senator Isakson has said many times, to find common ground. And Senator Isakson has lived by that example throughout his whole life. You have heard he is the only Georgian to have served in the State House, the State Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia, and the U.S. Senate from Georgia, so he has been the whole legislative route in the State of Georgia. But by using that approach of getting to know each of us and spending the time to become friends and finding out what our priorities are all about and be able to find common ground, he has been able to accomplish an incredible record of success for the people of Georgia and our Nation. Let me give some examples. You have heard many of them, but I am going to talk a little bit from a personal point of view. Yes, I had the distinction of serving on the Ethics Committee for a short period of time on one case, and I got to see Senator Isakson at work and how he defended the integrity of this institution. As I was listening to his leadership during that deliberation, I had no idea what party he belonged to in the way that he conducted that investigation. It was done with one thing in mind: to protect the integrity of the institution and to find common ground in order to serve the institution right. He has a deep respect for the U.S. Senate, he has a deep respect for the legislative branch of government, and he has demonstrated that, over and over again, by his leadership. You have heard about his experiences as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Well, I had the opportunity to travel with Senator Isakson to Normandy to celebrate the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and I must tell you the emotion of that moment as I saw Senator Isakson interact with our veterans and saw that genuine way that he connected to those who have served our Nation. You see, his presence was important, his words were important, but he has also shown his appreciation through the deeds of what he has been able to get accomplished. It has been pointed out that the Veterans' Affairs Committee under Senator Isakson's leadership has produced numerous bipartisan bills to help our servicepeople. We can mention maybe the one that I am most proud that we were able to get done is dealing with the healthcare issues because the healthcare issues were not fair to our veterans. Senator Isakson was able to find common ground in a very difficult environment so that we could pass the appropriate legislation, so that the members of the armed services could get the healthcare and our veterans could get the healthcare that they so richly deserve. I have had the chance to work with Senator Isakson on the Senate Finance Committee. We have worked together to protect pensions for workers, an area that is very important to all of us. And we helped first-time home buyers. I must tell you, Senator Isakson's experience as a realtor helped us get through that issue as to how we could help a recovery at the time that the economy was not doing well. You see, Senator Isakson had taken his experiences as a successful independent real estate leader, president of the largest company in the southeast, to his responsibilities here in the U.S. Senate, taking that business common sense of what works in the community to what can work here in the U.S. Senate. We have worked together on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You have heard the examples of what we have been able to do in boosting trade and development in Africa--the Global Food Security Act, which helps starving people around the world. Very few, if any, will ever know Senator Isakson's name. Millions have been helped, thanks to the leadership of this incredible U.S. Senator. And you heard the personal example of the Peace Corps, how he went not only the extra mile, but the extra tens of thousands of miles to bring safety to those who volunteer in the Peace Corps. You have heard Senator Alexander and Senator Murray talk about the Health Committee and work he has done on education and health. I particularly appreciate the work on the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, a critically important bill that, again, has Senator Isakson's motto throughout. He has been a champion for the people of Georgia and the United States. I particularly appreciated Senator Isakson's reference to Congressman John Lewis who was on the floor during Senator Isakson's speech. Congressman Lewis and I came to the U.S. Congress the same year; we were both elected to Congress in 1987. We have been friends ever since. Senator Isakson is correct that Congressman Lewis is an icon of civil rights. He says what he believes, and he calls it the way it is. He is not going to change. That is who Senator Isakson is as a person. And as John Lewis said about Senator Isakson, ``He did not just talk the talk, he literally walked the walk.'' Over and over again, Senator Isakson has been in the forefront in the civil rights for all Americans. So to my friend--and I mean a true friend--we will miss you in the U.S. Senate. It is a sad day because we know we will not have the benefit of your wisdom as a Member of the U.S. Senate, but all of us are better off because of being given the opportunity to serve with you in the U.S. Senate. You said in your comments that you want to come back to ring the bell when we work together to promote the values that made the U.S. Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world. Well, I am going to tell you, I believe we will reach that day sooner because of what Senator Isakson has done and the example he has set for all of us. I look forward to ringing that bell with my friend. With that, I yield floor.