Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Van Hollen, my seatmate and friend representing the State of Maryland in the U.S. Senate. His comments reflect the views, I hope, of the overwhelmingly majority of Americans. It is critically important that we speak out as to what the President has said. I have lived my entire life in Baltimore. I love Baltimore. It is a great city. As Senator Van Hollen has said, it has an incredible history. It is a vibrant city. There are so many good things happening there. It has a great future, and it needs our help from the point of view of any major urban center in America. On weekends, my wife and I will frequently walk areas of Baltimore City in order to get some exercise, to clear our heads from the workweek, and to see what is happening in Baltimore. I must tell you that it is so energizing to see the building cranes in downtown Baltimore building new housing for our young people coming into our city because they know the economic future of Baltimore. They are there because they want to live in an exciting place in Baltimore City. We see the optimism on their faces as they are doing their exercise in the morning and walking the streets of Baltimore. We see a great city that is continuing to rebuild in a modern economy. So when the President of the United States insults the city of Baltimore and Congressman Cummings, it is incumbent on all of us to speak out and tell the President: This is unacceptable. We know the Office of the President is frequently referred to as a bully pulpit that he can use, but the President of the United States cannot be a bully. Yet that is exactly what he is doing, trying to bully minorities and others in this country. It will not work. The bully is not Elijah Cummings, as President Trump called him. The bully is President Trump. The person who is dividing our country is President Trump, and he should be the one bringing us together. Why does he do this? I don't think any of us believe that he isn't doing it for political reasons. He wants to distract from what is happening in this country. In the Congress of the United States, Congressman Cummings is leading a committee that has the responsibility of checks and balances of our system to act as a check on the President of the United States. Does anybody in this Chamber believe there shouldn't be a check and balance in our system on this President? Look at how he has used his Executive powers and abused his Executive powers and the emergency declarations that he has used. The Mueller report spells out how the President tried to interfere in the investigation. The way he talks about our judiciary, saying that he is not going to follow the orders of our court, and the way he trashes our free press--all of that cries out for an aggressive check and balance on the independent first branch of government, and that is what Elijah Cummings is doing. So why is the President using these personal attacks against Elijah Cummings and the city he represents, Baltimore? To try to distract from the legitimate role Congress plays as a check and balance on the powers of President Trump. It won't work. I can assure you that Congressman Cummings is going to continue to do his work. His committee is going to continue to do its work. I am going to continue to do my work as a U.S. Senator, and Senator Van Hollen is going to continue to do what is right to make sure we carry out our constitutional responsibilities. He also does this, quite frankly, for a political appeal against minority communities. That is inexcusable for any American, but for the President of the United States, it is totally outrageous. As Senator Van Hollen said, we don't have to defend Elijah Cummings. He can defend himself. I have known Elijah Cummings now for about 40 years. When I was speaker of the house of delegates in Annapolis, there was a young, new legislator who came upon the scene--Elijah Cummings. I recognized from the beginning that he was going to be a great leader, and he showed that in his very early years. He rose to become speaker pro tempore of our house of delegates, and he was a leading voice as a member of the house of delegates. You see, we had something in common. Both Elijah Cummings and I graduated from the same public high school in Baltimore City, Baltimore City College. By the way, so did Dutch Ruppersberger and three members of Congress--from the same public high school in Baltimore City. We both attended the same law school, the University of Maryland School of Law. So I recognized from the beginning that there was a lot in common, and I wanted to help this young legislator. He then, of course, ran for Congress. He was elected to Congress, and he has done an incredible job. He is a gifted orator. He motivates people by his speech. He is a mentor for young people, and he has helped so many young people with their lives. He lives in Baltimore City in a neighborhood where he is an inspiration to people who otherwise would not have much hope. He has used his own life experiences to lift the lives of others, and, yes, I can tell you the record of so many accomplishments that he has. Just this past week, along with Senator Van Hollen, we announced a $125 million grant for the Howard Street tunnel for which Congressman Cummings played a critical role in getting those funds. That is going to mean thousands of jobs for Baltimore and economic opportunity for our region. That is just one example. In the revitalization of Penn Station, Amtrak is going to invest $90 million in revitalizing that part of Baltimore. Elijah Cummings was instrumental in getting that done. In the Ellicott City flood--two floods within a 20-month period--it was part of his congressional district. President Trump doesn't quite understand how Congressman Cummings' district is redistricted, but he represents Ellicott City. He was on the scene immediately and helped bring in all of the Federal partners so that Ellicott City could beat the odds. When you have a major flood like that, most businesses don't return. In Ellicott City, they returned. Why? Because of the Federal partnership in which Elijah Cummings played a critical role, as well as other members of our congressional delegation. Affordable housing--Congressman Cummings has brought affordable housing to Baltimore. Public safety--after Freddie Gray, I will never forget the scene I was watching on the television screen. We saw the riots and the disruption that started in Baltimore. There was Elijah Cummings on the streets, calming things down and saving lives. That is what he was doing to represent his community. That is the type of legislator he is. He has provided support for public safety in Baltimore, for public education in Baltimore, and for STEM education in Baltimore City public schools. So, President Trump, when you say this guy hasn't done his work to represent the people in the Seventh Congressional District, you are absolutely wrong. Come to Baltimore. Let us show you exactly what we have been able to accomplish and how you can help us, but don't defame our city. You are the President of the United States. Act as President. Bring us together. Recognize that you are responsible for this entire country, and help us with the reputation of Baltimore. Again, I don't have to defend my city. My city is well known. It is one of the great cities in America, but I am going to do it anyway because I want my colleagues to understand how proud we are of our city, those of us who represent the State of Maryland and represent Baltimore City. There is the Nation's first Washington Monument, the National Aquarium, Oriole Park, M&T Bank, Fort McHenry. Talk about Enoch Pratt library, one of the great libraries in America that gave free libraries to the people of our city. There is Eubie Blake National Jazz Institute and Cultural Center. I could go through all the museums we have in Baltimore: the American Visionary Art Museum; the Baltimore Museum of Art; the Baltimore Museum of Industry; Walters Art Gallery; the Jewish Museum of Maryland; Babe Ruth's birthplace--born in Baltimore; the Reginald F. Lewis Museum; and the B&O Railroad Museum. How many of us have been there? The great history of the railroads in Baltimore started there. There is the Maryland Science Center. There are great sports icons that have come out of Baltimore--from Johnny Unitas to Frank Robinson, to Brooks Robinson, Cal Ripken, and Ray Lewis. We have great healthcare institutions--Johns Hopkins. I just got an email as I was sitting on the floor. I know the rules of the Senate prohibit me from looking at my electronic device, but U.S. News & World Report today ranked the Johns Hopkins department of neurology No. 1 in the Nation. It is located in Baltimore City, MD. We can go over the other great institutions we have, such as the University of Maryland Medical Center, the Kennedy Krieger Institute, and the Lieber Institute for Brain Development. We have great colleges, from Morgan State University to the University of Maryland School of Law, to Loyola University, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Coppin State, Notre Dame of Maryland University. The list goes on and on: farmers markets and public markets; trend- setting writers from John Waters to David Simon, Tom Clancy, and Barry Levinson; the unique neighborhoods from ``Lil' Itlee'' to Pigtown. Baltimore is well known. The Taste of Baltimore--how many of you know that the only place you can get a really legitimate crab cake is in Baltimore City? We all know that. And there are Old Bay Seasoning, Berger Cookies, and Goetze's Candies. There is the Port of Baltimore, the economic heart of our State; Domino Sugar; and Under Armour, which is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into Baltimore City because they know the future. There are the NGOs that are centered in Baltimore--the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Abell Foundation, Center for Urban Families, Catholic Relief Services, and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. I do this in hopes that the President might be listening so that he can learn a little bit about why we are so proud of Baltimore City. What we do ask is very simple. To the President: Come and learn about our urban centers and how you can help us in meeting the problems that we have in Baltimore and many urban cities around the Nation. We need a Federal partner who will help us with our economic growth and help us meet the challenges of the future. It is exciting to live in Baltimore, and it is exciting to see our city grow. I am proud to be a Baltimorean, and I am proud to represent Baltimore in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, just before the July recess, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Dr. Christopher J. Scolese to serve as Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, NRO. I doubt there is any individual more qualified for the job. I supported the nomination, but it was bittersweet because Chris has left his post as Director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. Chris was the longest serving Director in Goddard's illustrious history. Chris is well-suited to run the NRO. To put the matter simply, he knows how to put stuff into space and make it work. I will provide just one example: the Terra mission. Chris was the project manager. Terra was supposed to be a 5-year Earth science mission that has now lasted 20 years. Terra explores the connections between Earth's atmosphere, land, snow and ice, ocean, and energy balance to further our understanding of our home planet. I know the NRO is headquartered in Virginia, but with Chris at the helm, we Marylanders will consider it part of our State, just as we consider the Wallops Flight Facility to be part of Maryland. I was down at Wallops on April 17 for the successful commercial resupply services, CRS launch to the International Space Station and I visited Goddard on March 4 to discuss the impact of the 35-day government shutdown and the budget picture going forward with Chris and the Goddard workforce. Chris certainly has the academic credentials for the job. He holds a bachelor of science degree in electrica1 and computer engineering from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and he earned a master's degree in electrical and computer engineering and a Ph.D. in systems engineering from George Washington University. After Chris earned his bachelor's degree, ADM Hyman Rickover personally selected him to serve at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA, where he worked on the development of instrument and multi-processor systems for the U.S. Navy and the Department of Energy. I think anyone who could pass muster with Admiral Rickover can handle just about anything, including running the NRO. Chris's stint in the Nuclear Navy from 1978 to 1986 was just the beginning of a long, distinguished career in public service. In 1987, he joined Goddard's Earth Science team and became Earth Science Program Manager and Deputy Director of Flight Projects. Later, he moved to NASA Headquarters as Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science for 3 years before returning to Goddard where he rose to become Deputy Director. Chris then returned to NASA Headquarters, first as Chief Engineer and then as Associate Administrator, which is the top civil servant at the Agency. He served as Acting Administrator from January to July of 2009. He went back to Goddard, where he became Director in 2012. I think. that moving over to the helm of NRO is a natural fit for Chris since Goddard manages many of NASA's space telescope programs, including the Hubble Space Telescope and the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, WFIRST, that have a technology heritage from NRO's satellites. I have enjoyed getting to know and working with Chris over the past several years. He developed great relationships with the Maryland delegation and with local officials. He is a subject matter expert and an excellent manager. He has an upbeat, amiable, and collegial personality that brings out the best in the people who work with him. Goddard employees from custodians and bus drivers to Nobel laureates felt free to engage with Chris. He listens and relates to everyone as a colleague. Former Dodgers' manager Leo Durocher famously said that nice guys finish last. He didn't know Chris. Chris is a genuinely nice guy who has come out on top, and deservedly so. Chris instituted a culture of diversity and inclusion at Goddard, and I am sure he will do the same at NRO. He is committed to inspiring the next generation. He has a great interest in STEM and talking with students. Goddard hosted over 500 interns every year while Chris was Director. He routinely referred students and young adults whom he met to Goddard's education director so they could learn more about working at Goddard. He has been committed to early career professionals and always included their voice in senior staff retreats. Above all, Chris is a dedicated public servant with the accolades and awards to prove it, including the 2018 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics Von Karman Award, the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive, and the NASA Distinguished Leadership Medal, among many others. Whenever we talk about public servants, it is important to mention their spouses and other family members whose own sacrifices enable and support that service. I would be remiss if I failed to mention Chris's wife, Dianne, and their children: daughter Jenni and her husband Mark; son Dan and his wife Maura and their daughter Maddie who is Chris and Dianne's granddaughter; daughter Lauren and her fiance Ian; and daughter Anna. Chris may be from New York, and he may live and now work in Virginia, but we Marylanders will always consider him as one of our own, and we are grateful for his distinguished service to our Nation. I have no doubt that he will be a superb NRO Director.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in bringing up the challenges of climate change and our responsibility to do something about it. Climate change is real. It is putting our communities at risk. Our activities here on Earth are affecting climate change, and we can do something about it. By reducing carbon emissions, we can make a real difference in the trajectory of the catastrophic impact of climate change. I just want to give a couple examples. Last Monday, we had record flash flooding in this region. In less than 1 hour, we had 1 month's worth of rain. That is becoming typical as a result of climate change. In our region, we saw streets that were flooded, sinkholes that developed, water pouring into our Metro stations, and roads that were literally ripped apart. This shows one major road in Potomac, MD--not very far from here-- that is critically important for a community to be connected. The road was destroyed by the record rainfall during that period of time. We had CSX and Amtrak put high-speed restrictions on the rail service. In Baltimore, we had 1.3 million gallons of sewage from the Jones Falls river flow into the Inner Harbor, which produced a sight in the Inner Harbor of Baltimore that is truly regrettable. This photo I think shows beautiful downtown Baltimore. It doesn't look very beautiful. That was just this past Monday and was as a result of the high amount of water flow and the inability of our sewage treatment facilities to treat that amount of runoff. We are just not prepared for it. It is another example of why we need to act. We need to act now. Climate change is here. The catastrophic impacts are here, and we can do something about it. Let me just make a couple of suggestions. We need to upgrade our stormwater systems in this country. We have a 21st-century problem with 20th-century infrastructure. It can't handle it. We need to invest in adaptation and deal with the realities of the new weather systems we are confronting every day. Yes, we have to act on climate change. As I said, it is real. Our activities are impacting it, and we could do something about it. There are many examples I could give that are affecting our lives. I have already shared some about some water. We have wildfires in the West. We have extreme weather conditions throughout. We have unprecedented concentration and frequency of rainfall in the mid-Atlantic, driven by climate change. Studies have shown that tropical storms move more slowly, with much more precipitation. We saw that with Hurricanes Harvey and Irma in 2017 and Florence in 2018. All those were slower moving hurricanes, dropping a lot more water, saturating our inlands, and making it more difficult to deal with the next weather condition. We have warmer ocean temperatures that are making these storms more costly to our communities. We have what is known as compound flooding as a result of climate change--storm surges that hit our shorelines, which are already saturated by inland precipitation. After Tropical Storm Barry, FEMA said: ``Given [the] unprecedented magnitude of natural disasters over the past two years and the current projected path of the storm, a hurricane making landfall is likely to impact communities still working to recover from the previous event.'' That is how frequent we are going through flooding. I will give another example of how much flooding we have had. In my region, in Baltimore, if you use the period from 1957 to 1963, that 6- year period, we had an average of 1.3 floods per year. If you use 2007 through 2013, we have had 13.1 floods per year. In Annapolis, those numbers are 3.8 floods in the 1957 through 1963 period, compared to 39 floods from 2007 to 2013. That is a tenfold increase in the number of flooding events. This is an issue that is with us today. Thanks to climate change, Baltimore may feel more like the Mississippi Delta than Chesapeake Bay country. Professor Matt Fitzpatrick at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science published a study in February in the journal Nature Communications with Robert Dunn, an ecologist at North Carolina State University, to match cities with their climate counterparts in 2080. If we continue this trajectory, they predict that the average city will come to resemble climates more than 500 miles away, often to the south or west. Each one of our communities is going to be impacted by climate change if we do not take action to change the trajectory. Like all States, Maryland has a very important agricultural community. As a farmer, it is difficult to make ends meet today, but with these extreme weather conditions, it becomes even more difficult. It is in our economic interest, our environmental interest, as well as our security interest for us to deal with the climate issues. Unchecked, the sea level in Maryland coasts will rise. If we don't do anything about it in the next century, it is projected to be at least 16 inches and could be as high as 4 feet. We know the catastrophic impact to our coastal communities if we do not take action to prevent that from happening. Our activities of reducing carbon emissions can make a difference, and we should do that now to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Our States have acted. I am very proud of the actions we have seen from local governments and from the private sector. Nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States, including Maryland, announced an intent of a new, regional, low-carbon transportation policy proposal. All are members of the Transportation and Climate Initiative. This is great. Our States are doing what we need to do. But I just want to underscore what many of my colleagues have said. President Trump made the egregious decision to withdraw us from the Paris climate agreement. I was there when U.S. leadership was indispensable in bringing the world community together to take action. Every country in the world joined us in making commitments to reduce our carbon emissions. It was U.S. leadership. The President has withdrawn us from that agreement--or is attempting to do that. We can act. We are an independent branch. I applaud the action of the House in passing H.R. 9, the Climate Action Now Act, but it has been 76 days since the House has taken action on this very important climate issue. Senator Shaheen was on the floor earlier and has introduced S. 1743, the International Climate Accountability Act. The United States should meet its nationally determined contributions. We determine our own contributions. We should meet those contributions and join the international community in doing something about climate change. So, yes, I do ask the majority leader to let the Senate do what we should do. Let us consider climate legislation. Let us debate and act on climate legislation. We shouldn't be the graveyard on these important issues. The Senate must stop denying action on important issues and do the right thing to meet the threat of climate change. It is real here today. I urge my colleagues to bring this issue up so that we can, in fact, do the responsible thing. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, America's strength is in our values. In that vein, I rise to talk about human rights and America's historic role as a defender of universal human rights for all peoples. I have been a member of the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe for many years. It is also known as the Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission is an independent entity that brings together lawmakers and members of the executive branch to represent the United States at the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which was created to explicitly promote human rights, democracy, and economic, environmental, and military cooperation among its 57 member nations, including the United States and Canada, all the countries of Europe, and the former Soviet Union countries. When the Helsinki Final Act was signed in Finland in 1975, it enshrined among its 10 Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States a commitment to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.'' Few people have predicted the sweeping, largely unforeseen consequences of the adoption of this document. From this one provision, among the 10 that focus on human rights and fundamental freedoms, there were movements sprung that embraced the Helsinki process as a sword and as a shield. Independent civil societies coalesced around this basic principle and used the followup processes that were set in motion by the Helsinki Final Act to hold their governments' feet to the fire. In 1976, Congress established the Helsinki Commission with the mandate to monitor and report on compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and, most importantly, to press successive administrations to make human rights and democracy priorities in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. In the subsequent years, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, Solidarity in Poland, and Watch Groups in Moscow, in Kyiv, and in Vilnius sprang up to push for the release of political prisoners and to defend the rights of those who wanted nothing more than to worship and to have the freedom to advocate for refuseniks and others who sought to reunite with their families across borders. Through what became known as the Helsinki process, Congress and previous administrations supported the rights of Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Natan Sharansky, and countless others who emerged as leaders in their supporting of the historic transitions to freedom 30 years ago with the fall of the Iron Curtain, the end of communism, the unification of Germany, and as President Bush proclaimed, a ``Europe whole and free.'' The Helsinki process of monitoring, reporting, advocating, urging, meeting, and witnessing was a catalyst for these historic changes. Most importantly, at a time of historic transition, the countries participating in the Helsinki process all acknowledge that democracy was the only form of government that we could accept and that issues related to human rights and democracy were never matters of internal interference but were matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating states. This means, quite frankly, that we have, under the Helsinki Accords, the legitimate right--I would say the obligation--to challenge the failure of any one of those 57 states in its meeting of its Helsinki commitments. That is why it is right that we in the U.S. Senate speak out against Russia or speak out against Turkey or speak out against any member state in the OSCE when it violates these basic principles. Over the July 4 work period, I was proud to participate in the largest delegation we have ever had to the annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. The Parliamentary Assembly--facilitating lawmaker-to-lawmaker interactions and discussions--was established to complement the intergovernmental work being done. One of the OSCE's strengths is that there is a parliamentary dimension. It is not just government officials; it is also parliamentarians who meet to implement these commitments to human rights and good governance. The OSCE and its Parliamentary Assembly have been used to advance U.S. interests, including their support for human rights, free elections, combating anti-Semitism and human trafficking, and other initiatives that have come from the U.S. Congress that have then served as the foundation for U.S. positions and, ultimately, agreements that have been adopted by all 57 states that have participated in the OSCE. I remember discussions in the Congress that dealt with fighting modern-day slavery and trafficking and fighting anti-Semitism. We initiated them in the Congress. Through the Helsinki Commission, we raised them in the Parliamentary Assembly. They then got raised in Vienna, which is where the Ambassadors who represent all of the states meet, and they were adopted as policy in all 57 states. We have had a very positive impact. During this recent Parliamentary Assembly, I hosted an event called ``Countering Hate: Lessons from the Past, Leadership for the Future.'' As I stated during the event--and I will underscore now--we have observed an uptick in hate-based instances across the OSCE region and beyond--from Pittsburgh and Poway to Christ Church. When we fail to act, we endanger not only the most vulnerable within our societies but the very foundations of our democracies. Given how much has been accomplished by the United States and others through the OSCE over the past 30 years, it is deeply concerning to see our own American President embrace a drawback of universal human rights in our own country and embrace dictators around the world, who rule by promulgating fear and hate. President Trump has called Turkish President Erdogan a ``friend'' and has shared love letters with the very brutal Kim Jong Un after calling him ``very talented.'' Turkey, which has been a member of the OSCE since its inception and a member of NATO, has witnessed a dramatic acceleration in President Erdogan's efforts to consolidate power and hobble his political opposition. His unrelenting pressure on the judiciary and purges of its ranks of judges and prosecutors have left respect for the rule of law and due process in crisis. Tens of thousands have been detained in sweeping dragnets following the failed coup, including independent voices from virtually every sector of society--opposition politicians, civil society activists, journalists, academics, and many more. These vast purges have had a chilling effect on the free press and the freedom of expression. The Committee to Protect Journalists considers Turkey the world's worst jailer of journalists, with 68 documented cases, although a local Turkish press freedom organization lists more than 130 who have been detained. Reporters Without Borders ranks Turkey as the 157th out of 180 countries for press freedom--its lowest ranking ever. Under emergency powers assumed by President Erdogan after the coup attempt, the Turkish Government closed around 200 media outlets. As for North Korea, Kim Jong Un has one of the most deplorable human rights records in the world. According to Human Rights Watch: Kim Jong Un--who serves as chairman of the States Affairs Commission and head of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea-- continues to exercise almost total political control. The government restricts all civil and political liberties, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, and religion. It also prohibits all organized political opposition, independent media, civil society, and trade unions. President Trump has been repeatedly willing to take the word of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence services. On March 3, 2018, in speaking about Chinese President Xi during a private fundraising speech at Mar-a-Lago, he said: Xi is a great gentleman. He's now president for life-- president for life. No, he's great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday. That is not who the President of the United States should be embracing. He has repeatedly praised Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. This is the same leader who independent press, civil society groups, foreign governments, and international organizations have all confirmed is engaged in the extrajudicial killing of his own citizens--work that President Trump praised as doing an ``unbelievable job on the drug problem.'' Mr. Duterte himself, as a former mayor, has admitted to murdering people. That Mr. Trump would laud Mr. Duterte for his barbaric atrocities is outrageous and is another indication that instead of standing up for America's values, President Trump continues to endorse leaders around the world who violate the very principles that America's Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution. I mention our Founding Fathers not in passing, but as we recently celebrated our Independence Day on July 4, I quote from the Declaration of Independence, which set our Nation on a path with the ideal that we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So I was particularly troubled that within days of July 4, the Trump administration, through Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, unveiled what he referred to as a Commission on Unalienable Rights. In his announcement, Secretary Pompeo called this new Commission ``one of the most profound reexaminations of the unalienable rights in the world since the 1948 Universal Declaration.'' I, along with many colleagues in the U.S. Congress, fear that this Commission, whose purpose it is to advise the Secretary of State based on the principles of natural law and natural rights, will undermine or curtail State Department advocacy in critical human rights arenas, including women's health as well as LGBT rights. For 243 years, with all of her imperfections, America has been a beacon for peoples around the world. Those who have embraced natural law have not been welcoming. They peddle in hate and division. The ACLU notes that references to ``natural law and natural rights'' are code words often used to undermine the rights of women and the LGBT community. This is just the latest in a string of attacks on women and the LGBT community by this administration. If the President and the Secretary of State want to build on protecting human rights, they will work within the framework that the United States helped to establish, not question the definition or universality of human rights.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Sunday morning, I did what I think most people in this Nation did if they were not in France. I turned on the television to watch the women's national soccer team perform in an incredible showing of talent and commitment on the soccer field. It was an incredible victory for the women's national team, and we are all very proud of what they were able to accomplish. This has been an incredible streak. Since the Women's World Cup was established in 1991, there have been eight competitions. The United States has won four--and the last two consecutively--beating the Netherlands on Sunday by a score of 2 to 0. We all congratulate the team. We are very proud. They represented our Nation extremely well. Each of us shares that pride. As a Maryland Senator, I want to acknowledge Rose Lavelle and Mallory Pugh, who are from the Washington Spirit, which is based in Germantown, MD.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss Americans' access to healthcare and patient protections that are carelessly being threatened by President Trump and his administration, specifically, his decision to not uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ACA, which is the law of the land. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit began reviewing appeals to a December decision in the case Texas v. U.S., in which the entire ACA was ruled unconstitutional. Republican attorneys general from 18 States argue that the ACA is unconstitutional because our Republican colleagues repealed the individual mandate as part of their 2017 tax bill. Instead of defending the ACA and fighting for Americans with preexisting health conditions, President Trump took the unprecedented step of not defending current law, and the Department of Justice revised its position to support full repeal of the ACA, continuing the administration's sabotage of affordable access to healthcare through all avenues of Executive action. If Republicans successfully overturn the ACA, hundreds of millions of Americans will lose access to affordable healthcare and the monumental consumer protections created through the ACA. This includes the 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, 17 million people who gained insurance through Medicaid expansion, 12 million seniors who pay less for prescription drugs, and over 2 million adult children who will no longer be able to stay on their parent's health insurance. I am particularly worried about the 2.5 million Marylanders with a preexisting condition, 320,000 of whom are children. Before the ACA, insurers denied health coverage to Americans with preexisting health conditions. The most common preexisting conditions are pregnancy, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, behavioral health disorders, high cholesterol, asthma, and heart conditions. Patients with preexisting conditions must know their health insurance coverage is there for them when they are healthy, but particularly when they become sick. The ACA took the important step to ensure this, by protecting all patients against arbitrary, sudden loss of insurance. This security would, of course, be eliminated if the ACA is overturned. In addition to these important consumer protections, the Affordable Care Act increased access to care for millions of people who previously were uninsured or underinsured. Through Medicaid expansion, 13 million low-income Americans now have dependable, comprehensive healthcare, including 300,000 Marylanders. We must protect the Medicaid expansion population and other uninsured or underinsured populations from the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate their access to affordable care. The numerous reckless attempts by the Trump administration to sabotage the ACA disregard how much good healthcare reform has done for all Americans. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, too many people fell through the cracks with inadequate insurance coverage, annual and lifetime coverage caps, or limits to preventive health services. Too many declared bankruptcy because of high healthcare costs or skipped prescribed care or medications because of the costs. The ACA ensured that many of those people now have access to higher- quality coverage. Core elements of the law require companies to cover adults and children with preexisting conditions, prevent insurance companies from setting annual and lifetime limits, and allow young adults can stay on a parent's health plan until the age of 26. If the Affordable Care Act is struck down, insurers could bring back annual and lifetime limits on coverage, adults covered by Medicaid expansion would lose vital health services, young people would be kicked off their parent's insurance, and issuers could sell skimpy plans that don't cover essential health benefits like prescription drugs, emergency room visits, mental health and substance use, and maternity care. The unprecedented actions by the Trump administration to not defend the ACA jeopardizes the healthcare of all Americans. I believe that accessible, affordable healthcare is a human right. Securing this right has always been a challenge. Democrats will continue to fight for consumer protections and increased access to care that have been guaranteed through the Affordable Care Act. As President Trump refuses to defend the Affordable Care Act, he risks the health and well-being of millions of Americans.

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, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service Act of 2019 that I am introducing today with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen. This legislation authorizes the Department of Labor to award Summer Employment for Youth grants to connect youth with jobs that serve their local communities and private businesses over the summer months. Since the mid-1990s, my home city of Baltimore has organized the Youth Works program out of the Mayor's Office of Employment Development. The Youth Works program provides individuals between the ages of 14 to 21 with a summer job with employers ranging from private businesses, local community nonprofit organizations, to city and State government agencies throughout the City. At these summer jobs, participants are provided with meaningful work experiences, are able to learn to develop the attitudes and grit necessary to compete in the workforce, gain exposure to a variety of career fields, and have a safe, stable environment over the summer months during the day. For the 2019 Youth Works session that begins next week, Baltimore youth participating in the program will have a job for five days a week, five hours per day from July 1st through August 2nd and be paid a minimum of $10.10 per hour for their service. This program has grown to be one of the largest youth summer employment programs in the Nation. After the unrest in my home city in April 2015, the Federal Department of Labor provided the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and the Baltimore City's Mayor's Office of Employment with a $5 million grant to develop innovative job training strategies and work opportunities for youth and young adults across Baltimore. This Federal grant increased the number of individuals able to be served by the Youth Works program from an historic average of 5,000 participants to the more than 8,000 served today. Last year, Youth Works provided 8,600 Baltimoreans with jobs at more than 900 different worksites across my home city. I'm proud to say that some of those individuals who participated in the Youth Works program over the course of multiple summers while in high school have recently graduated and were hired by State agencies such as the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore youth and their families clearly see the value of this program, with more than 14,000 individuals applying for Youth Works slots this upcoming summer. Unfortunately, due to the lack of funding between the partnership between the City, State, private business, and philanthropic ventures, more than 5,000 Baltimore City youth who sought summer employment will be denied the opportunity to gain experience in the workplace, foster confidence that they are capable of being successful in a new environment, and lose the security of a safe environment over the summer. We can and must do more to help individuals willing and eager to start their careers. The Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service Act would seek to eliminate the waiting list for Baltimore students seeking to participate in Youth Works or other summer employment programs around the Nation. If enacted, my legislation would allow States to compete for Summer Employment for Youth grants to serve communities like Baltimore that have high concentrations of eligible, low-income youth. The grants would be utilized by local communities to carry out programs like the Youth Works program that provide summer employment opportunities that are directly linked to academic and occupations learning by providing meaningful work experiences. States competing for grants would be required to partner with private businesses to the extent feasible and to prioritize jobs and work opportunities that directly serve their communities, such as through summer employment with local community nonprofit organizations and city and State government agencies. This additional Federal funding can boost existing programs such as Youth Works and allow other communities across Maryland to establish their own programs and develop Maryland's next generation of workforce. I am proud to lead this Senate effort with my colleague from Maryland and appreciate the work of Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana who initially led this effort in the U.S. House of Representatives and will shortly introduce companion legislation this Congress. I urge my Senate colleagues to join with me in this effort to connect youth with summer employment opportunities and start their journey towards fulfilling, successful careers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks. There being no objections, so ordered.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service Act of 2019 that I am introducing today with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen. This legislation authorizes the Department of Labor to award Summer Employment for Youth grants to connect youth with jobs that serve their local communities and private businesses over the summer months. Since the mid-1990s, my home city of Baltimore has organized the Youth Works program out of the Mayor's Office of Employment Development. The Youth Works program provides individuals between the ages of 14 to 21 with a summer job with employers ranging from private businesses, local community nonprofit organizations, to city and State government agencies throughout the City. At these summer jobs, participants are provided with meaningful work experiences, are able to learn to develop the attitudes and grit necessary to compete in the workforce, gain exposure to a variety of career fields, and have a safe, stable environment over the summer months during the day. For the 2019 Youth Works session that begins next week, Baltimore youth participating in the program will have a job for five days a week, five hours per day from July 1st through August 2nd and be paid a minimum of $10.10 per hour for their service. This program has grown to be one of the largest youth summer employment programs in the Nation. After the unrest in my home city in April 2015, the Federal Department of Labor provided the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation and the Baltimore City's Mayor's Office of Employment with a $5 million grant to develop innovative job training strategies and work opportunities for youth and young adults across Baltimore. This Federal grant increased the number of individuals able to be served by the Youth Works program from an historic average of 5,000 participants to the more than 8,000 served today. Last year, Youth Works provided 8,600 Baltimoreans with jobs at more than 900 different worksites across my home city. I'm proud to say that some of those individuals who participated in the Youth Works program over the course of multiple summers while in high school have recently graduated and were hired by State agencies such as the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore youth and their families clearly see the value of this program, with more than 14,000 individuals applying for Youth Works slots this upcoming summer. Unfortunately, due to the lack of funding between the partnership between the City, State, private business, and philanthropic ventures, more than 5,000 Baltimore City youth who sought summer employment will be denied the opportunity to gain experience in the workplace, foster confidence that they are capable of being successful in a new environment, and lose the security of a safe environment over the summer. We can and must do more to help individuals willing and eager to start their careers. The Youth Summer Jobs and Public Service Act would seek to eliminate the waiting list for Baltimore students seeking to participate in Youth Works or other summer employment programs around the Nation. If enacted, my legislation would allow States to compete for Summer Employment for Youth grants to serve communities like Baltimore that have high concentrations of eligible, low-income youth. The grants would be utilized by local communities to carry out programs like the Youth Works program that provide summer employment opportunities that are directly linked to academic and occupations learning by providing meaningful work experiences. States competing for grants would be required to partner with private businesses to the extent feasible and to prioritize jobs and work opportunities that directly serve their communities, such as through summer employment with local community nonprofit organizations and city and State government agencies. This additional Federal funding can boost existing programs such as Youth Works and allow other communities across Maryland to establish their own programs and develop Maryland's next generation of workforce. I am proud to lead this Senate effort with my colleague from Maryland and appreciate the work of Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana who initially led this effort in the U.S. House of Representatives and will shortly introduce companion legislation this Congress. I urge my Senate colleagues to join with me in this effort to connect youth with summer employment opportunities and start their journey towards fulfilling, successful careers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks. There being no objections, so ordered.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to an exemplary young Marylander whose life was tragically cut short four years ago today. Senator Van Hollen and I have just introduced a resolution which pays tribute to Alex's life, calls for justice and accountability in his murder, and procedures to ensure other families do not suffer this same tragedy. Luis Alejandro ``Alex'' Villamayor was born on July 3, 1998, to parents Puning Luk Villamayor and Luis Felipe Villamayor in Rockville, Maryland. Those who knew him remember him as a smart, loving, and compassionate young man with a good sense of humor. Alex was committed to his parents, siblings, and friends. He was a devoted member of his church and always sought to help those less fortunate. Alex Villamayor moved with his family to Paraguay at the age of six. He attended high school there and graduated with honors from the Pan American International School and was accepted to attend Montgomery College in Maryland in the fall of 2015 to study business management. He ultimately planned to pursue a career to help and support the Paraguayan people, but was tragically murdered on June 27, 2015, in the city of Encarnacion. Alex's death was wrongfully ruled a suicide by Paraguayan authorities, who had not properly investigated the death at that point and failed to collect blood and DNA samples from individuals present at the scene of the crime, conduct gunshot residue analysis, or collect cellular phone records and data from individuals present at the crime scene. After Alex's family noted gross inconsistencies in accounts of his death, Alex's body was exhumed for additional forensic examination, which found that he had been raped and physically assaulted prior to his death. Finally, in September 2015, Alex's death was ruled a homicide. Rene Hofstetter and Mathias Wilbs were charged with crimes in relation to Alex Villamayor's murder and Paraguayan authorities opened a formal investigation of Alain Jacks Diaz de Bedoya, who was also present at the time of Alex's death. While the charges against, Mr. Diaz de Bedoya were eventually dropped, in April 2018 Rene Hofstetter was convicted of homicide and sentenced to 12 years in prison and Mathias Wilbs was sentenced to two years and 10 months on obstruction of justice. In spite of these convictions, I remain concerned about the handling of this case. In spite of an offer to assist, the Government of Paraguay never allowed the FBI to provide technical assistance for the investigation. Our Ambassador at the time told media outlets that ``the investigation and the handling of this case has been worrisome.'' Of even greater concern, members of Alex's immediate family continue to face grave physical threats in Paraguay for their pursuit of justice. Senators Van Hollen and I continue to offer our deepest condolences to the Villamayor family and, through this resolution, call on Paraguayan authorities to finally allow the FBI to assist in this case and provide the necessary protections to Alex's family. We similarly ask the Department of State to prioritize justice for Alex Villamayor in its diplomatic engagement with the Government of Paraguay and to review its procedures for providing services to the families of United States citizens slain or assaulted abroad. On this sad anniversary, we remain committed to honoring the life of Alex Villamayor and working to ensure this tragic story does not repeat itself.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this administration is in crisis when it comes to border security. John Sanders, the acting head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, resigned yesterday as a result of the growing scandal and mistreatment of migrants, including children. According to the Associated Press and NBC News reports, almost 300 migrant children have been removed from a Border Patrol facility in Texas after media reports of lawyers describing ``appalling'' and potentially dangerous conditions, DHS officials told NBC News. Lawyers who recently visited two Texas facilities holding migrant children described seeing young children and teenagers not being able to take showers for days or even weeks, inadequate food, flu outbreaks, and prolonged periods of detention. The facility in question has a capacity of about 100 people. Yet 300 migrant children were there. The children who were removed were being held at a border station in Clint, TX. Some were wearing dirty clothes covered with mucous and even urine, said one advocacy organization. Teenage mothers wore clothing stained with breast milk. None of the children had access to soap or toothpaste, according to officials at the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. Some migrants were sleeping on concrete benches or even outside at Border Patrol stations. This happened in the United States of America, not some Third World nation. One lawyer representing the immigrant children said: Almost every child I spoke with had not showered or bathed since they crossed the border--some of them more than three weeks ago. There is a stench that emanates from some of the children because they haven't had the opportunity to put on clean clothes or to take a shower. . . . I have never seen conditions as appalling as what we witnessed last week. The children are hungry, dirty and sick and being detained for long periods of time. . . . Children who are young themselves are being told by guards they must take care of even younger children. . . . They don't know where their loved ones are who they crossed the border with. According to news reports, the children have now been taken to a detention camp also in El Paso, TX, where they will remain under the custody of Border Patrol until they can be placed with the Department of Health and Human Services. This is outrageous and unacceptable in the United States of America or in any other country. We can and we must do better. What is occurring in Texas may very well be a violation of our laws. Federal law generally requires unaccompanied or separated migrant children be transferred to HHS within 72 hours, but according to news reports, some children at the Clint facility had been in Border Patrol custody for weeks. That is in violation of Federal law. Now news reports are saying these conditions have been replicated in other border facilities, such as the Central Processing Center in McAllen, TX. Federal law also requires that children and families be held in ``safe and sanitary'' facilities under the Flores settlement. The public should be shocked that administration lawyers seem to argue that these horrific conditions do not violate the Flores agreement or Federal law. One government attorney recently argued that specific amenities, such as soap, toothbrushes, and even half a night's sleep, should not be required under the terms of the original settlement. The argument drew criticism from the panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. One panel judge replied during the argument: To me it's more like it's within everybody's common understanding: If you don't have a toothbrush, if you don't have soap, if you don't have a blanket, it's not safe and sanitary. Wouldn't everybody agree to that? Would you agree to that? I certainly hope every Senator agrees with that, and I hope every American does as well. We have received conflicting media reports about children being moved back and forth between different facilities that can only be described as filthy and not fit for human habitation, particularly for children. This is not what America should stand for. President Trump's erratic actions on immigration and border security have directly contributed to the crisis. Recall that President Trump had literally shut down the entire U.S. Government in the failed effort to fund an ineffective border wall. He has threatened to close down borders entirely. He has cut off security assistance to the very Central American countries that are trying to address the root causes of migration, which is contributing to the migrant crisis at our southern border. This is an administration that instituted a policy of separating children from their parents at the border. This is an administration that proposed a Muslim travel ban. This is an administration that is deliberately stoking fear by now threatening to tear apart families in the United States with longstanding ties to the community. Instead, President Trump should work with Democrats and Republicans on comprehensive immigration reform. He could start by supporting legislation I cosponsored entitled the Central America Reform and Enforcement Act. This legislation would address many of the root causes of migration and alleviate, not exacerbate, the suffering at our southern border. This legislation would provide conditional security assistance to Central American countries to combat the scourge of drug cartels, violent gangs, and lawlessness that has pushed migrants to journey north. It would enhance monitoring of unaccompanied children after they are processed at the border and would ensure fair, orderly, and efficient processing of those who reach our border seeking protection. I am pleased that at 2 o'clock today we will have the opportunity to act. Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $4.6 billion in emergency relief on an overwhelmingly, bipartisan vote--30 to 1. I am pleased that this legislation will help better protect vulnerable children in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill seeks to improve inhumane conditions for migrants in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation improves due process protection for migrants. The largest portion of this funding measure, $2.88 billion, goes to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is in charge of housing unaccompanied children who are the most vulnerable group of migrants. This office has advised Congress that it will run out of funds in July and has already stopped making payments for education, legal, and refugee support services. The appropriations measure provides additional funds to assure the safety and well-being of these children through social services and case management to place children in appropriate homes, ideally with family members who are already here in the United States. The bill requires ORR facilities that house children to comply with State-based licensure requirements, including minimum standards of humane care, oversight and transparency, with an exception made for influx facilities in emergencies. The bill provides $1.3 billion to address increasingly inhumane conditions for migrants apprehended and detained at DHS facilities. The DHS inspector general found dangerous overcrowding at these facilities, leading to sickness and even death in custody. The measure provides additional funds for migrant food, clothing, medical, and baby supplies, as well as funding to nonprofits and local jurisdictions providing critical social services and shelter to migrants ultimately released from DHS custody. The legislation improves due process for migrants and reduces the court backlog by nearly doubling the Legal Orientation Program, which will significantly expand the number of migrants who have access to their services. The bill provides additional funds to hire more immigration judge teams to reduce backlog of pending immigration cases. Now let me point out what this legislation does not permit in terms of reining in some of the worst excesses of President Trump's disastrous immigration policies. The legislation prohibits funding from going to the President's border wall or new detention beds and prohibits DHS from transferring funds for any other purpose. It prohibits information obtained from potential sponsors of unaccompanied children from being used in immigration enforcement actions. I am pleased that last night the House of Representatives passed their version of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill by a vote of 230 to 195. The Senate will have an opportunity to vote on this legislation at 2 o'clock, and I will support it. The House legislation goes even further than the Senate legislation in enhancing protection for migrant children in government custody. I urge the Senate to pass the emergency supplemental appropriations legislation later today, which provides desperately needed assistance to the most vulnerable migrants, the children. Let us take steps to end this humanitarian crisis on our own soil. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the men and women who serve in our military are incredible patriots, and the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, is a vitally important bill the Senate passes every year to ensure our servicemembers are trained, equipped, and ready for the global threats our Nation faces. To this end, investing in our ready and all-volunteer force to ensure we maintain a military competitive advantage is crucial. I would like to highlight three amendments that I have introduced to enhance the fiscal year 2020 NDAA. My first amendment addresses an increasing concern regarding deaths and injuries related to military training. Our men and women in uniform volunteer to serve in a profession that carries a great deal of inherent risk and can demand great sacrifice. Many have paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives upon the fields of battle. Unfortunately, many have also died while training for battle. To ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the best fighting force in the world, our military necessarily exercises them in demanding and realistic training. Effective military training builds readiness, tactical proficiency. and competence, and increases the confidence of our military force to win wars. I am concerned, however, that, under the guise of ``realistic training,'' the military is assuming unnecessary risk that has resulted in an alarming increase in servicemembers' training-related deaths. In the past 9 weeks alone, six soldiers and marines have been killed in military vehicle rollover accidents during training; an additional 34 service members have been injured. One of those killed on May 9, 2019, was my constituent from Chestertown, MD, 24-year-old Marine 1LT, Hugh Conor McDowell, when his light armored vehicle rolled over during a military training event at Camp Pendleton, CA. Since 2015, noncombat deaths have exceeded the number of military members killed in action every year. A 2018 House Armed Services Committee Report stated, ``In 2017, nearly four times as many members of the military died in training accidents as were killed in combat. In all, 21 Service members died in combat while 80 died as a result of non-combat training-related accidents.'' Training accidents are occurring across the spectrum of military platforms, military aviation incidents rose nearly 40 percent from 2013 to 2017. resulting in 133 military deaths; in 2017, 17 sailors were killed in two separate naval ship collisions. Three of those who died were also Maryland residents. Something needs to change in the military's current culture of training safety, and the most recent losses of life reflect that the current culture is increasing risk, not reducing it. When military training yields nearly four times the casualties compared to combat, training is no longer realistic, it is unsafe. These training accidents are resulting in the unnecessary death and injury of our servicmembers and are severely degrading our military readiness. No justifiable reason exists for training that assumes unnecessary risk and disregards the safety of our men and women in uniform. This worrisome trendline since 2015 demands a serious examination of military training safety and implementation of associated corrective actions across the entire Department of Defense. I have filed an amendment to the NDAA, which I hope the Senate will consider, that would require the Department of Defense to conduct a study that analyzes the recent training deaths of servicemembers; provides an assessment of the associated trends, including vehicle rollovers; and demands recommendations for actions to prevent or minimize such deaths and injuries in the future. This report would be due to Congress no later than 180 days after the enactment of the NDAA. We owe it to the individuals who volunteer to serve, and their families, to improve the military's culture of training safety and prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries from occurring in training environments. Another important aspect of the NDAA is to ensure that our military is investing in modernization and innovation to preserve our strategic competitive advantage against our adversaries. I was pleased that Senators Inhofe and Reed have included two of my amendments in division E, the so-called managers' package of amendments to the substitute amendment to the underlying bill. My two amendments focus on preserving and bolstering modernization and innovation. One of these amendments seeks to maintain the Nation's technological superiority in energetics research and development. Energetics plays a critical role in our national security in enhancing propulsion and ordnance systems' effectiveness in terms ofreach, accuracy, and lethality. Other nations, such as China and Russia, continue to make strides in energetic material development, and the U.S. cannot afford to fall behind. My amendment would require the Department of Defense to develop an energetics research and development plan to ensure a long- term, multidomain research, development, prototyping, and experimentations effort, which will have the additional benefit of maintaining a robust defense industrial base and trained workforce. It also requires the Secretary to work in conjunction with DOD Research Labs, labs such as the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head, MD. Indian Head is one of the premier research and development facilities for energetics. The DOD would be required to brief the relevant congressional Defense committees on this plan within a year of the NDAA's enactment into law. My other amendment seeks to preserve funding and staffing of Army medical research and development efforts. The Department of Defense and the Army's medical research and development efforts are critical to increase warfighter readiness through improving health protection and resilience, improving health delivery in deployed areas, and enhancing the recovery and rehabilitation of our wounded servicemembers. The Army's medical research and development has played a key role for the Department of Defense, executing over 78 percent of DO D's medical research, development, testing, and evaluation funding. I am proud to say that the majority of this work runs through Ft. Detrick, MD, often in partnership with the medical research programs at John's Hopkins, the University of Maryland, and the Kennedy Krieger Institute. The Army's medical research efforts have addressed medical issues unique to the military, which private industry and academia have lacked interest in conducting. Some examples include blast injuries, brain trauma, and endemic diseases across the globe that our military has mobilized to address, such as the Ebola outbreak in Liberia. We need to ensure that in addition to investing in next generation weapons to deter or destroy our adversaries, the Department of Defense is preserving research and development resourcing for next generation medical solutions that protect and save the lives of our servicemen and women. Readiness, modernization, and innovation are key pillars of the; fiscal year 2020 NDAA; my three amendments strengthen those focus areas by ensuring our servicemembers are receiving realistic but safe training, are supported by weapons that are enhanced by energetic materials, and are protected and treated by world-class military medical solutions during their training and deployments. Our servicemembers deserve the best, and our national security requires that we maintain our competitive advantage. Let us ensure the fiscal year 2020 NDAA incorporates the training safety, technological innovation, and continued development of medical solutions required to do so.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I name All Time Toys of Eldersburg, MD, the U.S. Senate Small Business of the Week. All Time's story and that of its owner Jason Barnes is one of perseverance. That is because All Time has recovered from two 1,000- year flood events in less than 18 months. On July 31, 2016, less than 2 months after Jason purchased All Time, 75 percent of his inventory was destroyed by a historic, fatal flash flood that washed through Ellicott City, leaving millions of dollars' worth of damage in its wake. Within hours, countless videos of the destructive torrent rushing down Main Street were being shared on social media and on the news. One of those videos was of Jason leading a human chain to rescue a woman trapped in her car. Jason's selfless act has been seen by millions of people around the globe, and it earned him an award from the Carnegie Hero Fund. When asked about his act of heroism, Jason said that he ``just wanted to help any way'' he could and that he could not ``just stand idly by.'' After the waters receded, Jason had to figure out how he would move forward. Thanks to his persistence, and with support from the Maryland Small Business Development Center,--SBDC--All Time reopened less than 6 months later on January 20, 2017; 2017 was a very successful year for Jason and All Time. The company's sales doubled, it drastically improved its business practices and systems, and Jason was scouting locations for a second store. Then on May 27, 2018, less than 2 years after the 2016 flood and less than 18 months after All Time reopened, Ellicott City was devastated again by another historic flash flood. This time, however, Jason was prepared with a readiness plan and the business continuity strategies he learned from the Maryland SBDC. According to FEMA, 40 percent of small businesses that go through a major disaster never open their doors again, and given that Jason was a brand-new entrepreneur who had lost the vast majority of his stock, to say that All Time beat the odds would be an understatement. Jason's story is why the Small Business Committee invited him to provide testimony during our hearing on the Small Business Administration's Office of Disaster Assistance. In his deeply moving testimony, Jason made clear that his recovery would not have been possible without support from SBA, the Maryland SBDC, and its two secret weapons: Maryland SBDC consultants Craig Panos and Garrett Clover, whose advice and knowledge Jason called miraculous during the hearing. For too many small businesses, a major natural disaster marks the end of a dream, but for Jason and All Time, surviving two historic floods has opened up a new chapter defined by resilience and persistence. He recently reopened All Time in nearby Eldersburg, MD, and he is once again scouting locations for a second store. I am proud of Jason's Free State perseverance, and I am honored to recognize him and his entire team at All Time Toys as the Senate Small Business of the Week. I look forward to watching their continued growth and success.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act of 2019. I am proud to be introducing this bill with my long-time friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman). The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Fallen Journalists Memorial (FJM) Foundation to establish a commemorative work--a memorial--in the District of Columbia or its environs honoring journalists, photographers, and broadcasters killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The bill directs the Federal government to make eligible Federal land available for the memorial. The bill explicitly prohibits the use of Federal funds to design or construct the memorial, and stipulates that the memorial must be designed and built in compliance with existing federal standards for commemorative works. Furthermore, the FJM Foundation must provide the funding necessary for the National Park Service or General Services Administration to maintain the memorial. The bill conforms to the structure of other similar bills. Across the National Capital Region, we have monuments and memorials to honor those who have helped make our Nation and our democracy stronger since its founding days. Currently missing from that honor roll, however, are journalists who have sacrificed everything to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of the free, open, and transparent societies and governments that Americans--and all people--deserve. Why do we need this memorial? Well, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists: Worldwide, at least 1,337 journalists have been killed in the line of duty since 1992; each year, hundreds of journalists are attacked, imprisoned, and tortured; the majority of the journalists killed are murdered in direct relation to their work as journalists; and in 9 out of 10 cases, the killers of journalists go free. When we think of casualties, we tend to think of war correspondents on the front lines. in battle. Intrepid reporters and photographers and cameramen and women put themselves in harm's way, and many have been killed and wounded. But then we have cases like the Saudi Government's savage dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its Consulate in Turkey last October. That was a state-sanctioned killing. And here at home, barely 30 miles from here, we had the horrific shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis that left five people dead and two wounded. The attack at the Gazette offices occurred one year ago this Friday, on June 28th. So it is fitting that we are introducing the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act today to remember and honor the Gazette victims, Jamal Khashoggi, and all other journalists who have been killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The Fallen Journalists Memorial will be a visible symbol and reminder of what is at stake and the price people have paid. We Americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us through the Constitution, which established the rule of law in this country. Freedom of the press is one of those most basic rights and it is central to our way of life. This precious freedom has often been under attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding. Today, attacks on the American media have become more frequent and more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that is creating an ``open season'' on denigrating and harassing the media for doing its job--asking questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power. One year ago this Friday, a 38-year-old man who had a long-standing spurious grudge against the Capital Gazette newspaper, made good on his sworn threats. He entered the newspaper offices, headed to the newsroom, and by the time he was done, he had shot and killed five employees of this community newspaper and wounded two others. The Capital Gazette is the local paper of record in Annapolis. It is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the U.S. It traces its roots back to the Maryland Gazette, which began publishing in 1727 and The Capital, which dates to 1884. This loss of life is personal to so many in Annapolis and around our State. You need to understand that the Capital Gazette is as much a part of the fabric of Annapolis as the State government that it covers better than anyone in the business. On that day one year ago, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the Annapolis Police Department, and the Anne Arundel County Sheriff's Office all responded to the first 9-1-1 call within two minutes, rushing into the offices and into the newsroom to apprehend the gunman and prevent further bloodshed, according to Anne Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare. State and Federal law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (A TF), and many others agencies quickly had personnel there to support local officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously investigate the scene. I want to thank, again, all law enforcement officers and other first responders--from the individuals who rushed into the newsroom not knowing what danger they might encounter to those helping get others to safety; from those gathering evidence to ensure nothing was lost in the bustle or chaos of the moment to those diverting traffic so that people could be evacuated and investigators could do their jobs in safety. The swift law enforcement response undoubtedly saved lives but not before the gunman managed to kill five people. Among them were Gerald Fischman, 61, who was an editor with more than 25 years of service with the Capital Gazette admired at the newspaper and throughout the community for his brilliant mind and writing. Most often, it was his voice and his insightfulness that came through on the editorial pages of the Capital Gazette. Rick Hutzell, the Capital Gazette's editor, described Fischman as ``someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by telling hard truths.'' Rob Hiaasen, 59, was a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller and brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. Rob was a coach and a mentor to many. According to former Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, he was ``so happy working with young journalists . . . He wanted to create a newsroom where everyone was growing.'' John McNamara, 56, was a skilled writer and avid sports fan and combined these passions in his 24-year career as a sports reporter at the Capital Gazette. Former Capital Gazette sports editor Gerry Jackson, said of McNamara, or ``Mac,'' as he went by, ``He could write. He could edit. He could design pages. He was just a jack of all trades and a fantastic person.'' Rebecca Smith, 34, was a newly-hired sales assistant known for her kindness, compassion, and love for her family. A friend of her fiance described ``Becca'' as ``the absolute most beautiful person'' with ``the biggest heart'' and called her death ``a great loss to this world.'' Wendi Winters, 65, was a talented writer who built her career as a public relations professional and journalist. She was well-known for her profound reporting on the lives and achievements of people within the community. She was a ``proud Navy Mom''--and daughter. As we learned the details of the shooting from the survivors, it became clear that Wendi saved lives during the attack. She confronted the gunman and distracted him by throwing things at him--whatever she could find within reach. As the paper noted: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.'' My heartfelt condolences and prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families. The surviving staff members also deserve our prayers and praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as journalists and respect for their fallen colleagues. During and after the attack, staff continued to report by tweet, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and documenting information as they would other crime scenes. Despite their grief, shock, anger and mourning, the surviving staff--with help from their sister publication the Baltimore Sun, Capital Gazette alumni, and other reporters who wanted to lend a hand to fellow journalists--put out a paper the following morning and they have done so every day since. This is grace under pressure. Fittingly, the editorial page the day after the shooting was purposefully left blank, but for the few words: ``Today, we are speechless. This page is intentionally left blank to commemorate the victims of Thursday's shootings at our office.'' The staff promised that on Saturday, the page would ``return to its steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinion about the world around them, that they might be better citizens.'' I want to repeat one quote from the Capital Gazette editorial page that bears repeating: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.'' Wendi Winters and her colleagues died protecting freedom of the press. Here in the United States, the Capital Gazette shooting was not an isolated incident; other journalists have been vulnerable to attack or reprisal for their work: a freelance photojournalist was killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center; in October 2001, a photo editor with the Sun newspaper in Boca Raton, Florida, died from inhaling anthrax, a substance that was mailed to a number of journalists across the United States; in August 2007, a masked gunman shot and killed the editor-in-chief of the Oakland Post, a prominent African-American newspaper; and in August 2015, a reporter and cameraman for television station WDBJ7 were shot dead during a live broadcast in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia. At least 59 journalists have been murdered or killed in the United States while reporting, while covering a military conflict, or simply because of their status as a journalist. While Annapolis and most of the Nation rallied in support of the survivors of the Capital Gazette shooting, the paper reported receiving new death threats and emails celebrating the attack. This is not right in America or anywhere else. Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job--both figuratively and literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less than the right of all of us to know, to understand what is happening around us and to us. Media freedom and media pluralism are essential for the expression of, or ensuring respect for, other fundamental freedoms and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and a system of checks and balances. Every one of us in this body--Democrats and Republicans--has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We bear the solemn responsibility of defending freedom of the press. It is time for us to redouble our efforts both here at home and abroad. We must lead by example. The very foundation and legitimacy of our democratic republic are at stake. One way to start is by memorializing those brave men and women who have died or been killed, as the New York Times' Adolph S. Ochs put it in 1896, ``to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act of 2019. I am proud to be introducing this bill with my long-time friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman). The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Fallen Journalists Memorial (FJM) Foundation to establish a commemorative work--a memorial--in the District of Columbia or its environs honoring journalists, photographers, and broadcasters killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The bill directs the Federal government to make eligible Federal land available for the memorial. The bill explicitly prohibits the use of Federal funds to design or construct the memorial, and stipulates that the memorial must be designed and built in compliance with existing federal standards for commemorative works. Furthermore, the FJM Foundation must provide the funding necessary for the National Park Service or General Services Administration to maintain the memorial. The bill conforms to the structure of other similar bills. Across the National Capital Region, we have monuments and memorials to honor those who have helped make our Nation and our democracy stronger since its founding days. Currently missing from that honor roll, however, are journalists who have sacrificed everything to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of the free, open, and transparent societies and governments that Americans--and all people--deserve. Why do we need this memorial? Well, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists: Worldwide, at least 1,337 journalists have been killed in the line of duty since 1992; each year, hundreds of journalists are attacked, imprisoned, and tortured; the majority of the journalists killed are murdered in direct relation to their work as journalists; and in 9 out of 10 cases, the killers of journalists go free. When we think of casualties, we tend to think of war correspondents on the front lines. in battle. Intrepid reporters and photographers and cameramen and women put themselves in harm's way, and many have been killed and wounded. But then we have cases like the Saudi Government's savage dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its Consulate in Turkey last October. That was a state-sanctioned killing. And here at home, barely 30 miles from here, we had the horrific shooting at the Capital Gazette in Annapolis that left five people dead and two wounded. The attack at the Gazette offices occurred one year ago this Friday, on June 28th. So it is fitting that we are introducing the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act today to remember and honor the Gazette victims, Jamal Khashoggi, and all other journalists who have been killed in the line of duty, defending freedom of the press. The Fallen Journalists Memorial will be a visible symbol and reminder of what is at stake and the price people have paid. We Americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us through the Constitution, which established the rule of law in this country. Freedom of the press is one of those most basic rights and it is central to our way of life. This precious freedom has often been under attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding. Today, attacks on the American media have become more frequent and more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that is creating an ``open season'' on denigrating and harassing the media for doing its job--asking questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power. One year ago this Friday, a 38-year-old man who had a long-standing spurious grudge against the Capital Gazette newspaper, made good on his sworn threats. He entered the newspaper offices, headed to the newsroom, and by the time he was done, he had shot and killed five employees of this community newspaper and wounded two others. The Capital Gazette is the local paper of record in Annapolis. It is one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the U.S. It traces its roots back to the Maryland Gazette, which began publishing in 1727 and The Capital, which dates to 1884. This loss of life is personal to so many in Annapolis and around our State. You need to understand that the Capital Gazette is as much a part of the fabric of Annapolis as the State government that it covers better than anyone in the business. On that day one year ago, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the Annapolis Police Department, and the Anne Arundel County Sheriff's Office all responded to the first 9-1-1 call within two minutes, rushing into the offices and into the newsroom to apprehend the gunman and prevent further bloodshed, according to Anne Arundel Police Chief Timothy Altomare. State and Federal law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (A TF), and many others agencies quickly had personnel there to support local officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously investigate the scene. I want to thank, again, all law enforcement officers and other first responders--from the individuals who rushed into the newsroom not knowing what danger they might encounter to those helping get others to safety; from those gathering evidence to ensure nothing was lost in the bustle or chaos of the moment to those diverting traffic so that people could be evacuated and investigators could do their jobs in safety. The swift law enforcement response undoubtedly saved lives but not before the gunman managed to kill five people. Among them were Gerald Fischman, 61, who was an editor with more than 25 years of service with the Capital Gazette admired at the newspaper and throughout the community for his brilliant mind and writing. Most often, it was his voice and his insightfulness that came through on the editorial pages of the Capital Gazette. Rick Hutzell, the Capital Gazette's editor, described Fischman as ``someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by telling hard truths.'' Rob Hiaasen, 59, was a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller and brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. Rob was a coach and a mentor to many. According to former Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, he was ``so happy working with young journalists . . . He wanted to create a newsroom where everyone was growing.'' John McNamara, 56, was a skilled writer and avid sports fan and combined these passions in his 24-year career as a sports reporter at the Capital Gazette. Former Capital Gazette sports editor Gerry Jackson, said of McNamara, or ``Mac,'' as he went by, ``He could write. He could edit. He could design pages. He was just a jack of all trades and a fantastic person.'' Rebecca Smith, 34, was a newly-hired sales assistant known for her kindness, compassion, and love for her family. A friend of her fiance described ``Becca'' as ``the absolute most beautiful person'' with ``the biggest heart'' and called her death ``a great loss to this world.'' Wendi Winters, 65, was a talented writer who built her career as a public relations professional and journalist. She was well-known for her profound reporting on the lives and achievements of people within the community. She was a ``proud Navy Mom''--and daughter. As we learned the details of the shooting from the survivors, it became clear that Wendi saved lives during the attack. She confronted the gunman and distracted him by throwing things at him--whatever she could find within reach. As the paper noted: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.'' My heartfelt condolences and prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families. The surviving staff members also deserve our prayers and praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as journalists and respect for their fallen colleagues. During and after the attack, staff continued to report by tweet, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and documenting information as they would other crime scenes. Despite their grief, shock, anger and mourning, the surviving staff--with help from their sister publication the Baltimore Sun, Capital Gazette alumni, and other reporters who wanted to lend a hand to fellow journalists--put out a paper the following morning and they have done so every day since. This is grace under pressure. Fittingly, the editorial page the day after the shooting was purposefully left blank, but for the few words: ``Today, we are speechless. This page is intentionally left blank to commemorate the victims of Thursday's shootings at our office.'' The staff promised that on Saturday, the page would ``return to its steady purpose of offering our readers informed opinion about the world around them, that they might be better citizens.'' I want to repeat one quote from the Capital Gazette editorial page that bears repeating: ``Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting freedom of the press.'' Wendi Winters and her colleagues died protecting freedom of the press. Here in the United States, the Capital Gazette shooting was not an isolated incident; other journalists have been vulnerable to attack or reprisal for their work: a freelance photojournalist was killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center; in October 2001, a photo editor with the Sun newspaper in Boca Raton, Florida, died from inhaling anthrax, a substance that was mailed to a number of journalists across the United States; in August 2007, a masked gunman shot and killed the editor-in-chief of the Oakland Post, a prominent African-American newspaper; and in August 2015, a reporter and cameraman for television station WDBJ7 were shot dead during a live broadcast in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia. At least 59 journalists have been murdered or killed in the United States while reporting, while covering a military conflict, or simply because of their status as a journalist. While Annapolis and most of the Nation rallied in support of the survivors of the Capital Gazette shooting, the paper reported receiving new death threats and emails celebrating the attack. This is not right in America or anywhere else. Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job--both figuratively and literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less than the right of all of us to know, to understand what is happening around us and to us. Media freedom and media pluralism are essential for the expression of, or ensuring respect for, other fundamental freedoms and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and a system of checks and balances. Every one of us in this body--Democrats and Republicans--has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We bear the solemn responsibility of defending freedom of the press. It is time for us to redouble our efforts both here at home and abroad. We must lead by example. The very foundation and legitimacy of our democratic republic are at stake. One way to start is by memorializing those brave men and women who have died or been killed, as the New York Times' Adolph S. Ochs put it in 1896, ``to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Trump administration, through the EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, issued what was called the Clean Power Plan rule. That replaces the Obama-era Clean Power Plan rule that dealt with carbon emissions from our powerplants. I am very concerned about this proposed rule, and I want to share some of my concerns with the Members of the Senate and the American people. The Obama Clean Power Plan rule was aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 30 percent by the year 2030 compared to the 2005 level. It was a strong proposal, but it gave maximum discretion to the States on how they could meet those targets. Those States that relied more on coal-burning power generation were given different standards than those States that had already transitioned to cleaner energy sources. It was a fair rule, a tough rule, and a rule that would significantly reduce carbon emissions in this country. Powerplants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, and we know how harmful carbon pollution is to our environment. Nearly 40 percent comes from power generation. We need strong Federal regulation. We were moving in that direction under the previous administration. Now we demote the current emissions standards to a mere suggestion. That is wrong, and I hope that does not become the case. There are many reasons that we should be concerned about this rule. We should be concerned about what we are doing about carbon pollution. Let me cite a few. In the area of public health, we know that if we don't control carbon emission, we will have more premature deaths. The New York Times estimates that there would be 1,400 annual premature deaths as a result of not properly regulating the carbon emissions coming from powerplants. We also know that because of the impact carbon has on public health, the failure to regulate it means more children will miss schooldays because of their respiratory challenges and more parents won't be able to work because they have to take care of their children. So the result is lost schooldays and lost workdays because of the failure to regulate, which affects our economy and our educating workforce. We know that children who are vulnerable to respiratory ailments, such as asthma, are particularly at risk, and there will be more days that they will be confined to some form of air-conditioning rather than being able to go out in the neighborhood. It is also a matter of our economy. We know that clean energy produces more jobs. That is where we are headed, and the faster we get there, the better it will be for our economy. We also know, as a matter of energy security, the faster we move in this direction, the more secure we will be. America has taken steps to wean ourselves off of imported energy, but our allies around the world are still too dependent, as we know from the way Russia uses energy as a weapon. We need to transition to renewable energy sources so there can be energy security for America's allies. Lastly, on the environment, carbon is the major pollutant for nitrogen pollution in our waters. I say that because many of you have heard me talk frequently on the floor about the Chesapeake Bay and the importance of the Chesapeake Bay. It is a national treasure. It is the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It is critically important to the way of life here in the Chesapeake Bay watersheds--six States and the District of Columbia. We recognize its economic value--$1 trillion to our economy. Well, 85 million pounds of nitrogen pollution goes into the Chesapeake Bay from the air. One-third of the Chesapeake Bay's total nitrogen load comes as a result of our failure to regulate carbon going into the air. This causes algae blooms in the Chesapeake Bay. It causes dead zones. It makes it much more difficult for the stakeholders to meet their stated goals. I am proud of the Chesapeake Bay Program. All the local governments have agreed on their responsibility. It is tailored toward the States and enforced through the help of the Federal Government. But because of this rule change, it is now going to be more difficult to meet the goals we have set for the Chesapeake Bay. It is not just affecting the powerplants; it is affecting our quality of life, public health, the environment, and the economy. The States have acted. I am proud of what Maryland has done. We have shown that you can clean up your carbon emissions through power production and you can grow your economy. We have done that in the State of Maryland. We have joined with other States in the RGGI--with Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York--and we have shown a 40-percent reduction in emissions since 2009. That is what the States have done. In the rule that is being proposed, they are saying they are leaving it up to the States. Maryland has done that, but we are downwind. The progress we are making is being negated by the pollution coming in from the Midwest. We need a national standard in order to be able to meet our targets. I would urge my colleagues, let's get engaged. This rule is bad for our economy. It is bad for public health. It is bad for energy security. It is bad for the environment. We can do better. Let's work together so that we have proper regulation at the national level dealing with carbon emissions. I yield the floor.

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, this past week we saw the largest protest in Hong Kong since 2014. Millions turned out in order to protest the erosion of civil rights, human rights, and good governance in Hong Kong, violating the commitment that was made during the July 1, 1997, transfer of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China. We saw China backtracking in 2014 on its electoral changes, when the candidate for the Chief Executive had to be screened by the Chinese Government, contrary to the commitments that were made when Hong Kong's relationship with the United Kingdom ended. The protests in 2014 were called the Umbrella Movement because a large amount of protesters, who were being attacked by the police with tear gas, were using umbrellas to protect themselves from the tear gas itself. The ``one country, two systems'' that was developed after the United Kingdom relinquished its control in 1997 was a commitment that Hong Kong would be a capitalistic system and the way of life that existed before the transfer to the Chinese would be upheld and unchanged. That was the commitment that was given, and that commitment has not been lived up to by China. There is the Chinese interference we saw in 2014, and then this time we saw the government of Hong Kong try to implement an extradition law that provided real concern about people who disagreed with what is happening in China and who wanted to protest about their universal rights of being subjected to extradition to China. This is not hypothetical; this is a real concern. Two million people went to the streets this month in Hong Kong to protest that erosion of rights in Hong Kong, basically at the insistence of the Chinese Government. This is not theoretical. Lam Wing-kee is one example. I can give many examples. In 2015, he mysteriously disappeared. He was selling literature in Hong Kong that was banned by the Chinese Communist Party in China, not Hong Kong, supposedly. He disappeared from the streets and ended up in China, in solitary confinement in one of their prisons. He was ultimately allowed to leave with certain commitments. He decided to flee to Taiwan and stay safe there. There are so many other examples of individuals who are in jeopardy. The extradition law that was being proposed really put the fear into those people who live in Hong Kong and visit Hong Kong that if they did anything that would upset the Chinese Government, they could be charged with a crime in China and extradited to China, never to be seen again. Millions turned out in protest. As a result of the protests and, quite frankly, the international spotlight on what was happening in Hong Kong, the government decided to withdraw the extradition--the proposed law, but they didn't say they would withdraw it permanently and made no commitments about any future. And, of course, the current chief executive remains there, which is very much against the reforms that were supposed to take place. The United States has spoken on this issue. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 allows the United States to treat the territory as separate from the rest of China politically, economically, and otherwise under certain conditions. Those conditions are that Hong Kong remain sufficiently autonomous from China and that the rights of its citizens be protected. That is specific in our law. I question, as I think many of us do, whether Hong Kong and China are complying with the conditions under which the United States passed the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that allows for preferential treatment in Hong Kong that is not enjoyed by China. Last week, Senator Rubio and I, with the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. It reaffirms the act that we passed in 1992 to make it clear that Hong Kong's recognition by the United States and its trading relationship with the United States and its special relationship with the United States--much different from China--only exist if the conditions on autonomy are maintained. Under this legislation, we require the administration to periodically certify to us that Hong Kong is, in fact, in compliance with the conditions of the 1992 law. If not, special exceptions would no longer be valid. We also put into this statute sanctions against those who are responsible for abridging the human rights of people in Hong Kong. This is similar to what we did in regard to the Magnitsky statutes. I am very proud of the work this Chamber did, particularly the work I was able to do with our late colleague Senator McCain on passing the Magnitsky laws. We first applied it to Russia. We then applied it globally. Now we have seen other countries also apply these sanctions where if a person violates basic, internationally recognized human rights, that individual is denied the opportunity to visit America by not allowing any visa or the use of our banking system. We extend those types of sanctions in regard to those who are violating the rights of the people of Hong Kong. Let me point out that our foreign policy--our strength is American values. It is the values we stand for as a nation--democracy, support for human rights, the basic freedom of people, religious freedom. Those are the values America brings to our engagement globally. It is important that we be on the right side of history in regard to Hong Kong and that the Congress and the American people stand in solidarity with the people of Hong Kong; that we stand with them and the commitment that was given in 1997 that Hong Kong would be different and autonomous from China and the rights of their people would be protected, as they were under British control. It is important today that the Senate, the Congress, the American people, and our government stand by those commitments and stand with the people of Hong Kong. We saw millions show up this week to show their support for these principles. We must stand with those people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Casey for his passion on this issue, and I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Murphy for bringing us here together. The logic here is inescapable. I can't explain to my constituents, nor can Senator Casey explain to his, why the universal background check has not been on the floor of the Senate for a vote. Let us do our will. This is an issue that we have talked about for years. The majority leader has refused to bring this up for a vote so that the will of the majority can prevail. That is what we are simply asking for. It was in February of this year that the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to deal with universal background checks. It passed by a large majority, and we now understand the urgency of our considering legislation. Inaction is not an option. We have to do what we can to deal with the crisis at hand. What is the crisis? One hundred people are killed every day in this country by gun violence; 310 are shot, by the way; 210 are injured; and 100 are killed every day of the week, 7 days a week. Since the House has acted on this bill, about 11,000 Americans have been killed. This is urgent. Every day makes a difference. In my State of Maryland, over 180 people have been killed by gun violence since the House passed the bipartisan universal background check legislation in February of this year. It is the second leading cause of death among children and first among African-American children. Rarely does a month go by without our having another mass shooting take place here in the United States. It was 1 year ago, on June 28, in Annapolis, MD, at the Capital Gazette, that we saw the shooting that took the lives of reporters. At that time, I took the floor with others saying: What more does it take for us to debate gun safety in this country? Why can't we take up legislation and have a debate? Isn't that what our job is here in the Senate? The Gun Control Act of 1968 established a framework for legally prohibiting certain categories of people from possessing firearms. The list of prohibited persons has grown over the years, but it includes felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and those found by the court or other tribunal to be seriously mentally ill. I would hope that all of us agree that these individuals shouldn't have guns. How do you know that they are going to get a gun without a background check? Since the Brady Law took effect, it has blocked more than 3 million prohibited gun sales and processed over 278 million purchase requests. The technology is there. We know how it works. We have the FBI run a background check. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is there to see whether you have been a convicted felon or are a fugitive, a domestic abuser, or other prohibited purchasers. We have the technology. We know that background checks work at the State level as well. According to the Brady Campaign, States that have expanded the scope of their background checks have seen impressive results, including that 53 percent fewer law enforcement officers are shot and killed in the line of duty, 47 percent fewer women are shot by intimate partners, and cities in States with expanded background checks have seen a 48-percent reduction in gun trafficking. Does it solve the problem? No. Does it take a bite out of gun violence? Yes. It is a significant improvement in dealing with gun violence. It is part of the solution. Yet when the Brady Law was enacted, it was before the internet. America has changed, and our Nation's gun laws need to change with it. Today about one out of every five gun sales is either made online, made privately, or made at a gun show and they are not subject to the background check which is the law. It is our responsibility to make sure that the laws are kept up-to-date and are effective. These sales are largely unregulated and unchecked. That is simply wrong. These sales can avoid the background check. Passing legislation to expand background checks to nearly every gun sale, including those conducted online, at gun shows, and through private transfers should be a top priority in Congress for commonsense gun safety legislation to save lives. I am not going to repeat the numbers that Senator Murphy and Senator Casey mentioned about the popular support. It is over 90 percent--97 percent, the last poll showed--and by all categories, because it is common sense. In fact, I think the public has a hard time understanding why we haven't passed this long before now. I agree that gun laws alone can't solve the problem, but it will make a difference. There is no single answer, but we should take steps that can help us deal with this crisis. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option when our children are being killed, sometimes by other children. Surrendering to the false logic that the problem is too big to address falls well short of what the American people deserve and expect us to do. They sent us here to the Senate to make tough decisions. This isn't even a tough decision, but we have to make decisions. From my hometown of Baltimore to many towns across America, there have been names in the headlines because of gun-related tragedies or mass shootings. People are calling on us to act. My message is simple: Let's bring the bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Let's follow the example of the House of Representatives. Let's not be the graveyard. Let's be the greatest deliberative body in the world. Let's take up the issue. Let's debate it. Let's vote on it, and let's do right for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to underscore the points that Senator Menendez made in regard to the vote we will have tomorrow here on the floor of the Senate. I really want Members to know that we are really talking about the fundamental protection of the checks and balances in our system. I don't think most Members know about the process we use for arms sales and review, but I can tell you that it has been to protect the interest of this country and the legislative branch of government. The requirement is for consultation and notice to Congress before arms sales are consummated. Yes, we have a Republican President, and we have Members of Congress who object to sales and want to get further information, and those holds can be lifted after additional information is provided. But I want to remind the Members of this body that it was in the last Congress, with a Republican President, that the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee put holds on sales in this region for good reason--because of the inconsistent policies we had among Gulf States that needed to be clarified before we divided the support for America even more in that region. Senator Corker was right in what he did, and our country is stronger today because of what he did. If we allow President Trump to go forward with these arms sales under emergency circumstances, we forever could lose the ability of the legislative branch to weigh in on arms sales. Senator Menendez is absolutely right. Today it is a Republican President. This should not make any difference in our respect for the powers of the legislative branch of government and the checks and balances that are necessary. Senator Menendez is right about this. It has been the legislative branch of government that has said protection of human rights is an important ingredient. Over and over, we find that in the State Department or in the White House they are very transactional, and but for the legislative branch of government, those issues would never be addressed. Now we are going to let the President of the United States use emergency powers--which I think almost everybody in this body would say really does not exist--to circumvent the proper review and power of the legislative branch of government. And yes, in these arms sales, human rights are a major issue. Senator Menendez points out correctly that American arms have been used to facilitate the aerial attacks against Yemen led by the Saudis and the coalition--and these guided missiles would be a part of that--and they are the leading cause of civilian death in Yemen. Over 1,000 have been killed as a result of the Saudi-led coalition attacks. We have been given assurances over and over--which has not happened--that they will be better at it. We also know that there is not a military solution to the Yemen crisis. America's military involvement only makes the circumstances worse. It is one of the worst humanitarian disasters that we have seen in recent times. We need to disengage on the military side. By allowing the President to use these emergency powers, we make the circumstances worse. Lastly, I remember the outrage of every Member of this House on Jamal Khashoggi's tragic death. Everyone was saying that we have to hold accountable those responsible for those actions. But listen to what Senator Menendez said. Today, Agnes Callamard, the Special Rapporteur for extrajudicial executions, released the findings of her investigation into the October 18 killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a person who lived in the United States and was brutally murdered. The Special Rapporteur noted that there was evidence that the responsibility of Khashoggi's murder extends beyond the 11 individuals currently on trial for the murder in Saudi Arabia, points in the direction of the Royal Family, and points out that further investigation is warranted of high- level Saudi officials, including the Crown Prince. And we are going to go ahead and allow the President to conduct arms sales? We have strategic relations with other countries. That is fine, but it has to be embedded in our principles--the strength of America, our values. If we allow business to be as usual--that you can take a person who was under protection of our country as a resident and allow that person, a journalist, to be murdered, and we know who is responsible and we don't take action--what message are we sending to the global community? Where is America's leadership? Senator Menendez is giving us an opportunity to say: Yes, we believe in the legislative branch of government as a check and balance on whoever is in the White House, whether it be a Democrat or a Republican, or a Democratic- or Republican-controlled Senate. We believe in the checks and balances in our system. It serves a purpose, and we are not going to let the President use emergency powers when that does not exist. On these particular sales, there are human rights issues that demand that we do not approve these sales. That is what is at stake in this vote. I take this time to plea to my colleagues: Recognize that what we are voting on is not whether we support the President of the United States. It is whether we support our responsibilities as Members of the Senate and we take the necessary action to protect the powers of checks and balances and to make the right decisions about American values and human rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I speak today about my votes on the motions to discharge Senate Joint Resolutions 20 and 26, which sought to block the sales of certain weapons to Bahrain and Qatar respectively. As many of you know, I have long been a champion of a U.S. foreign policy driven by our values and respect for human rights. This applies to our foreign military support and arms sales. We must ensure that our military might and weapons only go to support partners and allies who uphold our values. We have both a moral and a national security obligation to ensure that U.S. weapons, equipment, and training are never used to harm civilians, abuse human rights, or end up in the hands of enemies who seek to do us harm. With that in mind, I was pleased to lead the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act of 2019 with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. This bipartisan legislation would put into place strict vetting criteria and end use monitoring for certain weapons sales to prevent U.S.-provided weapons from going to governments who commit human rights abuses and war crimes. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important and necessary legislation. Until my bill is enacted into law and its critical safeguards are in place, it is incumbent upon Congress to evaluate each arms sale with important considerations for civilian security and human rights. I have carefully examined both of the sales before us today, and applied the same criteria outlined in the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act. Through this lens, I was compelled to vote in favor of discharging S.J. Res. 20, so the Senate could debate the pending sale of various bombs and precision-guided munitions to Bahrain. Domestically, Bahrain's Ministry of Interior police forces were responsible for the repression of the 2011 uprising, and well over 100 Bahrainis have been killed in the course of repressing the Shia-led unrest. In the Yemen conflict, the Bahrain Air Force is participating in Saudi-led coalition airstrikes that have led to civilian casualties. This pending sale would in fact provide munitions for Bahrain's F-16 aircraft, which would almost certainly be used in Yemen. We know this because Air Vice Marshall Hamad bin Abdullah al Khalifah, head of the Royal Bahraini Air Force--RBAF--stated in February 2019 that Royal Bahraini Air Force F- 16s had conducted over 3,500 sorties, or combat aircraft flights, since the beginning of the campaign in March 2015. With 3,500 sorties in Yemen, we have to assume that Bahrain is responsible for some of the civilian deaths caused by the coalition airstrikes in Yemen. I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to U.S. support for the war in Yemen, and we cannot risk our weapons leading to further repression in Bahrain itself. I cannot support the sale of U.S. weapons to Bahrain at this time. The case of the pending sales to Qatar is quite different. There is no doubt that Qatar has significant human rights challenges, particularly with respect to its labor practices. That said, I have not seen any evidence of the Qatari Government using arms against its people. Moreover, Qatar's involvement in the Yemeni war was limited to primarily defending the Saudi border from the Houthis, not conducting airstrikes in Yemen. The Qataris left the Saudi-led coalition entirely 2 years ago. Qatar has proven itself an important and responsible partner for the United States. The Qatar Air Force flew strikes, alongside the U.S. and other partners, against the Islamic State in Syria in 2014 and 2015. It also flew strikes against Qadhafi in Libya in 2011, but again, this was in concert with international partners including the United States. In light of these factors, I voted against discharging S.J. Res. 26. While both discharge motions failed, this issue will not go away because one thing that we all can agree on is that no U.S. arms should ever be linked to the deaths of innocent civilians. No U.S. arms should ever be used to intimidate and destroy the defenseless. No U.S. arms should ever end up in the hands a child soldier or a terrorist. We may disagree on policy, but our values will always bridge the partisan divide. That is why Congress and the administration must take a more holistic look at this issue. My bipartisan bill, the Enhancing Human Rights in Arms Sales Act of 2019, offers a comprehensive approach, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden for his extraordinary leadership on the Senate Finance Committee as our ranking Democratic member, who recognizes the importance of healthcare. To Senator Casey, who has been our companion in regard to Medicaid, in regard to children, and in regard to the basic importance of healthcare as a matter of right, to Senator Stabenow, who has really led our efforts on behavioral health, incredible efforts that have been made to provide community services, particularly to those who are most vulnerable, we recognize the importance of moving forward and advancing healthcare for all Americans. That is why we are taking this time to express our real concern about President Trump's proposal, his budget proposals, which would cut Medicaid by $1.5 trillion, the effort to repeal the Medicaid expansion that we saw under the Affordable Care Act, the thought of turning Medicaid at the Federal level into a block grant, capping our participation and putting the burdens on our States. It is a direct attack on vulnerable Americans, jeopardizing their access to healthcare. There are 70 million Americans that depend on Medicaid. There are 1.2 million Americans who are veterans and who are women, children, and seniors. In Maryland, almost half of our Medicaid population are children. For seniors, one out of every five Medicare-eligible beneficiaries also needs Medicaid. They are dual eligible. And 60 percent of the adult Medicaid enrollees are workers, and 70 percent are from communities of color. Medicaid expansion has made a big difference in access to healthcare. It has reduced health inequalities. The uninsured rate in the State of Maryland has dropped from 10.2 percent to 6.6 percent. That is important not just for the individuals who now have health coverage. It stops the cost shifting and the distortions in our healthcare system with people who do not have health insurance. If we were to eliminate Medicaid expansion, 289,000 Marylanders would lose their coverage--the essential health coverage that it provides for our children in the early periodic screening and diagnostic treatment so that we can help children live healthier lives through correction of healthcare problems and prevention of more serious healthcare issues. As Senator Wyden pointed out, in long-term care, three out of five of our residents in nursing-type, long-term care facilities are Medicaid payments. It would be devastating with that type of cut on their long- term care needs. We made major advancements in Medicaid on covering behavioral health and addiction. One out of every three individuals who are part of Medicaid expansion have a behavioral health issue. The opioid crisis is well known to all of us. We know that part of the solution is getting people help and treatment through Medicaid expansion and the Medicaid Program providing that safety net to millions of Americans. The expansion of dental services is something I have been engaged in ever since the tragedy in 2007 in my State, when a youngster died from lack of access to dental care, Deamonte Driver. Medicaid is a lifeline for dental services. So in the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the world, healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. We made progress in the Affordable Care Act. Let us build on that success but not move in the wrong direction. Rather than cutting Medicaid, we should be looking at ways to work together to improve coverage and affordability. Rather than eliminating the Medicaid expansion, we should be looking at additional ways to cover those who have no health coverage or inadequate health coverage. Rather than limiting the Federal program as part of Medicaid for our States, we should be looking at ways to strengthen the Federal-State partnership so that we work together so that every American has access to affordable, quality care. I urge my colleagues that that should be our goal. Let's work together. Again, I thank Senator Casey for bringing us here today under this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, later today, I will be leaving with many other Senators on an official trip to Normandy, France, to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the D-day invasion, also known as Operation Overlord. I consider it a high honor to be part of a congressional delegation commemorating one of the most important days in the history of human civilization. It is especially important to make this trip at a time when relations with our traditional trans-Atlantic allies are under undue and unnecessary stress. On June 6, 1944, the largest single amphibious assault in history crossed the English Channel and stormed the beaches of Normandy, code- named ``Utah,'' ``Omaha,'' ``Gold,'' ``Juno,'' and ``Sword,'' names that will be forever associated with acts of uncommon valor and self- sacrifice in defense of human freedom and dignity. The Allied armada involved over 156,000 U.S., British, and Canadian troops traveling aboard almost 7,000 naval ships and landing vessels. Even before the amphibious assault, in the darkened skies of that early morning, 13,100 American paratroopers of the 82nd and 10lst Airborne Divisions made parachute drops near Carentan from over 2,000 Allied aircraft, followed by 3,937 troops flown in by day on 867 gliders as the opening maneuver of Operation Neptune, the assault operation for Overlord. Three of the six Allied divisions involved in D-day were American, including the 29th Infantry Division. The 29th Infantry Division was activated on February 3, 1941, and based at Fort Meade, MD. It consisted of soldiers from Maryland and Virginia. In September 1942, the 29th deployed to England, where it made final preparations for the D-day invasion. Operation Overlord called for Allied troops to storm ashore five landing areas along the 50-mile stretch of Normandy's shore. U.S. forces were responsible for taking Utah and Omaha. Securing Omaha was critical to the Allies' success and would be the site of the heaviest German resistance. The 29th and the 1st Infantry Division were responsible for taking Omaha. Nearly 10,000 men of the 29th formed the first assault wave on Omaha. At approximately 6:30 in the morning on June 6th, Allied forces encountered stormy seas, a low tide, reinforced obstacles, and a force of 50,000 German troops awaiting them on Normandy's 50-mile shoreline. George ``Billy'' Forbes, Jr., of Bryantown, MD, was a radio operator in the 29th Infantry Division. Mr. Forbes described his feelings before the D-day invasion as ``very anxious and very scared.'' He said that even though he did not know what to expect, he had a job to do, and he was going to do it to the best of his ability. Lester Lease of Cumberland, MD, was only 16 years old when he lied about his age to join the Army. He was a sergeant in the 29th when he landed at Omaha Beach. Mr. Lease stressed the difficulty of the amphibious assault. The ``Higgins boats'' could not get close enough to shore for the soldiers to get off on the land, so they had to swim through deep water before they could wade or crawl ashore. Many of them perished in the onslaught of withering German machine gun and artillery fire before they even made it to shore. Those who did make it to the beaches encountered thick shell smoke that obstructed their visibility, and they heard the cries for help from their fellow soldiers lying wounded nearby as German machine gun fire relentlessly rained down on them. Charles ``Harry'' Heinlein, a 22-year-old Army private from Baltimore, MD, described the scene as total confusion, recalling, ``It seemed like hours to get off the beach. At this point, the only orders being yelled to those still able to fight was, `Get off the beach! Get off the beach!' '' William Bladen of College Park, MD, was a 19-year-old paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. In the dark, early hours of that morning, Private First Class Bladen parachuted into Normandy with two 20-pound satchels of TNT attached to him and unable to see where he would land. Mr. Bladen said, ``War is hell--in fact, it's worse than hell.'' But he had a mission and he did it. Joe Heinlein of Parkville, MD, provided context to the American casualties suffered. He pointed out that before D-day, Bravo Company, 175th Regiment, of the 29th Infantry Division, had about 200 men; by June 19 about a dozen men remained. Mr. Bladen added, ``I hope people remember that a lot of men gave their lives for others.'' Freedom is not free. The Normandy American Cemetery serves as the final resting place for 9,380 American military dead, most of whom lost their lives in the D-day landings. On the Walls of the Missing are inscribed another 1,557 names of soldiers whose remains were never recovered or identified. We must never forget those who, in Abraham Lincoln's immortal words, ``have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.'' The Americans who died on the beaches and in the fields of Normandy made the ultimate sacrifice, but they did not die in vain. They helped to defeat fascism, totalitarianism, and the Nazi regime. They helped to liberate Europe and the concentration camps. In GEN Dwight Eisenhower's D-day address, he declared to Allied troops, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty- loving people everywhere march with you . . . The free men of the world are marching together to victory. We remember and we honor the intrepid heroes of the 29th Infantry Division and all the other members of the ``Greatest generation'' who marched together into battle and demonstrated remarkable acts of valor and sacrifice 75 years ago tomorrow. As the poet Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American Dream.'' But it is a dream that we Americans share with all people who cherish freedom and human dignity now, just as we did on June 6th, 1944.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for arranging for us to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the passage of women's suffrage here in the Senate. I thank my colleague Senator Feinstein for working together so that we all have a chance to reflect on the progress we made and the commitment to make sure we continue to move forward. It was June 4, 1919--100 years ago today--that the Senate passed the women's suffrage constitutional amendment, but the campaign started with the birth of our Nation. On March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams wrote a letter to her husband, who was serving in the Continental Congress. She wrote: I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such an unlimited power in the hands of the husbands. . . . If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. I am sorry that our Founding Fathers did not listen to Abigail Adams. Over 144 years later, the 19th Amendment was adopted to our Constitution, providing for women's suffrage. It passed first in the House of Representatives on May 21, 1919, and then in the Senate on June 4, 1919. The right to vote was the first step. Over the last 100 years, we have seen tremendous progress. Legally, financially, and socially, more women have entered the workforce than ever before. Women are filling key leadership posts in increasing numbers, but we still have an unfinished agenda for equality for women. I think most people in this country would be surprised to learn that there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that guarantees equal rights for women. As the late Justice Scalia said, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires discrimination against women, but there is nothing that protects women against discrimination. Senator Murkowski and I introduced S. Res. 6, which extends the date for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. In 1972, we passed the Equal Rights Amendment here for ratification for the States and extended it one time, and 10 years later, 35 States had ratified the Equal Rights Amendment--3 short of the required 38. Nevada and Illinois have since ratified the amendment, so it is one State short. However, we need to pass the resolution to extend the time limit. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said--and this is interesting-- every constitution written since the end of World War II includes a provision that men and women are citizens of equal stature. Ours does not. It is well past time that we passed the Equal Rights Amendment. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took over 200 years to ratify. It deals with congressional pay increases. We can pass and should pass in this Congress a fitting tribute to the celebration of women's suffrage--the Equal Rights Amendment for women. We need to do more for equal pay for equal work. I acknowledge the extraordinary leadership that we had in Maryland and this Nation in Senator Barbara Mikulski. She was a true champion in so many ways--as a social worker, as a city councilperson, as a Member of the House of Representatives, and as a U.S. Senator--in advancing rights for women, particularly in the workplace. I remember, with pride, seeing her stand next to President Obama as he signed his very first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which enforced rights for women in the workplace. As Senator Mikulski would point out, we still have work to do. We still have not passed equal pay for equal work in this country, and this Congress should deal with that. We have a wealth gap. There is no question that women do not have the same wealth as men. In working with Senator Rubio on the committee on which I serve as ranking member, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, we must look at whether the tools of the Small Business Administration's are providing help to women to develop their own businesses. Wealth is usually accumulated through business growth, and we need to do more to help women. In the State of Maryland, I am proud that 39 percent of our small businesses are owned by women, but women do not have equal access to the tools with which to access capital. We can do better with the 7(a) Program and with the Community Advantage Pilot Program, particularly in making it permanent. So there are still steps we can take to help advance equal rights and equal opportunity for women. There is women's healthcare. The constitutional right of women to make their own choices about their own health and well-being is again being challenged by some of our States and here on Capitol Hill. Whether it is abortion, preventive screening, or contraception, access to reproductive healthcare provides women with greater economic opportunity. Treating women as less than equal was wrong at the start of our Nation, and it is wrong today. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage, let us do several things. First, I urge all of our colleagues to support the resolution that is pending, S. Res. 212, in regard to celebrating the women's suffrage and, second, that we work for full equality for women in our Constitution, in the workplace, in entrepreneurship, and in healthcare. I yield the floor.