Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Water Resources Development Act, the cloture motion of which we will be voting on very shortly. I strongly support moving forward with this legislation, and I encourage this body's support of that important work. I begin by thanking Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Senator Inhofe for their great work on this bill. On the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have the leadership of Senator Barrasso and Senator Carper, and on the subcommittee that deals with infrastructure, I work with Senator Inhofe. The four of us have worked very closely in, I think, the best traditions of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the U.S. Senate in order to bring forward legislation that really does represent the priorities of all 100 Members of the U.S. Senate. From the beginning, I acknowledge the amount of work that was done in order to accomplish this. It was done in great measure by incredibly gifted staff people who have been working for a long period of time in order to bring this bill to completion. Obviously, there are rough edges, and there are problems that require a lot of negotiations. Yet I know that Senator Barrasso, Senator Carper, and Senator Inhofe will agree with me about the importance of our staffs' work. I acknowledge Mae Stevens of my staff for the work she has done on this legislation to advance the priorities that are important for the people of Maryland and to make sure we have a well-balanced bill for our country. As I think my colleagues know, the focal point of my environmental work has been to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay, which is considered to be one of America's greatest natural resources and is a national treasure. The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's largest estuary. It generates $1 trillion in economic benefit to the watershed region. The Chesapeake Bay is critically important with regard to who we are as a region, our quality of life, our economy, and because of its rich environmental treasures. The shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries stretch over 2,000 miles. More than 100,000 streams and rivers and thousands of acres of wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the Chesapeake Bay. If we do not protect the health of this incredible network of waters, we cannot hope to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its former glory. Additionally, the effort to clean up and restore the bay creates new jobs and economic growth opportunities around the bay States. For example, work to repair and upgrade our urban and suburban wastewater and stormwater systems puts people to work as engineers and operators, and there are so many more jobs that are created. Although we are making great strides in improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay--I am very pleased of the progress we have made, and I think you see that when you visit the Inner Harbor of Baltimore or our shorelines--we still have a long way to go. America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 supports the health of the Chesapeake Bay. In doing so, it helps our Nation's economic competitiveness, our environment, and the health and welfare of our citizens. In particular, I am pleased that America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 will help both Poplar Island and the Mid-Bay project to continue what is a win-win for both the Baltimore Harbor and the Chesapeake Bay. Both of these projects are located in the State of Maryland. Both are critically important for us to maintain the environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay. I have seen firsthand the results of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' efforts around the State. The Corps' ingenuity and expertise have spearheaded the replenishing and expansion of Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay. This massive sustainability project is quite literally bringing life to our region in its restoration of a habitat which for years suffered from erosion and environmental degradation. We are taking Poplar Island, which used to exist in the Chesapeake Bay but had been down to just a few acres, and restoring it in an environmental restoration project. We are bringing back wildlife and species diversification into the Chesapeake Bay. At the same time, it is a location for dredged materials. I can tell you, in my having been in Congress, it is not always easy to find locations to put dredged materials. Poplar Island is also popular with the community, so it has been a win-win-win situation. The expansion of the island now to 1,715 acres has the long-term benefit of creating a place for our native plants and animals to thrive and the short-term benefit of efficiently utilizing dredged materials from the maintenance of the Port of Baltimore to rebuild the island beyond its original footprint. We are now back up to over 1,700 acres from just the few acres that existed not too many years ago. This creates a system that helps to improve the vitality of both our treasured ecosystem and our commercial waterways, and it sets a precedent for beneficial practices in the future. The Army Corps has collaborated with Federal and State agencies, local communities, and businesses for input on this project, ensuring that its benefits will extend to all within the region. The Mid-Bay Project is a continuation of the very successful Poplar Island project, and I am pleased that both projects are supported in this bill. Poplar Island will reach its capacity in the next few years, which is what we planned on. Yet, in order to make sure we have another site that is available, we have to move that project now so that the planning process can be completed in time and engineering work can be completed in time so that there is no loss of activity in keeping the harbors at the needed dredge levels for shipping and have a site where the dredged material can be located. That is why it is so critically important to move forward with Mid-Bay now. We need policies that will keep up with the demand of our infrastructure backlog while we address the needs of our communities and our environment. We can and we must do both. I am pleased that America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 would help projects in the Anacostia River watershed in Prince George's County get off the ground. This is the third WRDA bill in a row. Congress is including updates to our Nation's drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, including much needed funding. The American Society of Civil Engineers has yet again given our drinking water and wastewater a grade of D for 2016. States will need $32.75 billion a year every year for the next 20 years just to get our infrastructure in working order, which is more than $1 trillion. Yet we are currently only spending about $2 billion per year on both the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds combined. Every community--urban, rural, and suburban neighborhoods--has a right to expect that water that comes from its tap is safe to drink and that Congress will do everything within its power to ensure that it happens. Clean water means good jobs and better health throughout Maryland and our Nation. Clean water is not a partisan issue, and I have been proud to work with my colleagues to develop legislation that will benefit our aging water resources and infrastructure. Congress has the responsibility to be a strong partner with States and localities to repair our Nation's hidden water infrastructure and open waterways and to always remain unwavering in our commitment to improve the Chesapeake Bay watershed. One of the problems is that a lot of our water infrastructure is hidden. You don't see it, but you sure do notice it if you don't get clean water to drink, and you sure notice it when it affects the water quality of the bay or of other critical waters in this country. We really need to pay attention to this. We need to increase our capacity to be a partner in modernizing our water infrastructure, and this legislation absolutely takes a major step forward in carrying out that commitment. Let me talk about some of the specific provisions that are included in this act. First, the bill includes S. 1137, the Clean Safe Reliable Water Infrastructure Act, which was introduced by me and Senators Boozman, Inhofe, and Duckworth. It addresses the need to invest in our Nation's drinking water, sewer, and stormwater systems, and it provides for increased water efficiency. The Clean Safe Reliable Water Infrastructure Act specifically includes $450 million to protect the sources of our drinking water and the funding to repair and eliminate combined sewer overflows, which dump water sewage into our Nation's waterways every time it rains. This is especially timely as the Mid-Atlantic region has seen historic precipitation events increasingly in the last decade. These 100- or 1,000-year events cause wastewater treatment plants to take on more water than they can handle. Millions of gallons of untreated water are diverted into our local waterways--the same water that supplies our drinking water and the fish, crabs, and oysters that Marylanders love to eat. In fact, there was a storm so massive in Frederick, MD, just a few months ago that city officials asked residents to stop using the water in order to prevent equipment failure at the wastewater treatment plant. This is a crisis situation. This $450 million will go far toward helping to divert stormwater away from the wastewater treatment plant in Frederick as well as those like it all over the State of Maryland and our Nation. The Clean Safe Reliable Water Infrastructure Act also formally authorizes the voluntary WaterSense Program, which identifies and promotes water-efficient products through voluntary labeling. The WaterSense label makes it simple to find water-efficient products, new homes, and programs that meet the EPA's criteria for efficiency and performance. WaterSense-labeled products and services are certified to use at least 20-percent less water, save energy, and perform as well as or better than regular models. The program should help individuals reduce their water demand while protecting water quality. This benefits all of us, as we save water, we save energy, and we save costs. The EPA's WaterSense Program partners with manufacturers, retailers, distributors, home builders, irrigation professionals, and utilities to bring efficient products and services to our communities, and their partnerships encourage innovation in manufacturing and support sustainable jobs for American workers. Secondly, the WRDA bill creates a multi-agency Federal task force to study the problem of funding and financing stormwater infrastructure. The task force will, with the feedback from State and local governments and other program stakeholders, provide in a report to Congress suggestions for improving the funding and financing of stormwater systems--especially important as Maryland sees more frequent and severe storms, like the deadly floods in Ellicott City that were 22 months apart. I have already spoken on the Senate floor about what happened in Ellicott City, MD. Within 20 months, we had two 1,000-year floods. These floods were unprecedented. What do I mean by that? We have had flooding in Ellicott City before because the water rises in the river that goes through Ellicott City. These are the first floods we have had as a result of the stormwater runoff that literally ran down the main streets of Ellicott City. It destroyed homes and cost people their lives. We need to deal with this. Stormwater pollution is not only an urgent and deadly threat but a long-term one as well. Stormwater pollution is the fastest growing source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, we talk about our farmers, and we have to do better for our farmers. We talk about the other problems we have, including the airborne pollutants that go into the Bay. But the fastest growing source in the Chesapeake Bay is storm runoff, which is a result of more people living in the community, a result of more concrete, and a result of more severe weather events. Third, the bill addresses the need for information about onsite wastewater recycling as one alternative for communities that cannot afford the upfront costs or ongoing maintenance costs of traditional wastewater infrastructure. This is especially important in the rural parts of my State, like Maryland's Eastern Shore. Fourth, the bill includes S. 451, the Water Resources Research Amendments Act, introduced by me and Senator Boozman, which addresses the need for additional research into increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of new and existing water treatment works. Funding from this program helps to support the Maryland Water Resources Research Center and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. We want to add the latest technology. We want to be the best in the world, as far as technology, when dealing with our water. This particular provision in the bill will help us achieve those objectives. Fifth, the bill reauthorizes WIFIA, a low-cost financing mechanism for water infrastructure projects. We first started with WIFIA in our transportation bill, coming out of our Environment and Public Works Committee, where we found creative ways in order to leverage the Federal participation so we can have larger infrastructure projects for roads, transit, and bridges. Now we are doing the same with water infrastructure. This bill reauthorizes the WIFIA program. Baltimore is on the list to receive one of the very first low- interest WIFIA loans. Baltimore's $200 million loan will complete a set of projects to repair, rehabilitate, replace, and upgrade its wastewater collection and treatment, water treatment and distribution, and storm water management systems. These projects will help to improve the city's sanitary sewer collection system, ensure the reliability and performance of the drinking water and wastewater systems, and improve storm water management to meet Clean Water Act permit requirements. This will help the 1.8 million people served by the Baltimore Department of Public Works to continue to have some of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable drinking water in the country. There is no more fundamental responsibility of government than to make sure they provide safe drinking water to its population. Sixth, this bill creates the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program, from a bill that I have long championed to help drinking water plants combat the effects of climate change. This program will award grants to increase the resiliency and adaptability of water systems to increasingly severe storms and droughts, as well as sea level rise--all caused by climate change. Water utilities can use the grants to assist in the planning, design, construction, implementation, operation, or maintenance of the plant-- really, anything they need to increase their climate preparedness. I applaud the great work that has been accomplished through this legislation, and I look forward to continuing the work to advance water infrastructure investment, including integrated planning and affordability. From the very beginning, I said that this was a bill that was done in the right process in the Senate. Input was solicited from every Member of the Senate. The committee reached out to all of the Members. All the members of our committee have had input into this legislation. It is bipartisan. It is fiscally responsible, which was a key requirement of the bill. It will benefit of our communities. It will help us to meet our fundamental commitment to provide the citizens of this Nation with clean and safe drinking water. It will deal with the challenges we have in storm runoff, as it deals with environmental challenges we have. It is a well-balanced bill. Once again, I applaud the leadership of Senators Barrasso and Carper and my colleague on the subcommittee, Senator Inhofe, for their tremendous work. I look forward to voting for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have read the FBI report. I listened to the Judiciary Committee hearings, including the second hearing with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's opinions as a judge and his public record during his tenure in the White House. Based on his record, I cannot support his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. I reached this conclusion before Dr. Ford's allegations were made based on his court opinions and White House record. That conclusion was reenforced by Judge Kavanaugh's testimony in response to Dr. Ford's powerful and compelling testimony, raising very serious issues concerning Judge Kavanaugh's conduct. Judge Kavanaugh's response demonstrated his lack of impartiality and temperament, which is a critical qualification to serve as a judge. That view was reenforced by a letter written by over 1,000 law professors and legal scholars reaching the same conclusion I had drawn. I was very disappointed by the process on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination that was dictated by the Republican leadership. For Senator McConnell, 10 months was inadequate time for the Senate to consider President Obama's choice of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States. Yet Senator McConnell had no difficulty in rushing the consideration of Judge Kavanaugh through the Senate in a fraction of that time. The Republican leadership refused to demand a complete discovery of relevant documents concerning Judge Kavanaugh. I served on the Judiciary Committee during the consideration of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan when the Republicans' request for complete discovery was honored and welcomed by the Democrats. Such was not the case in regard to the Republicans honoring reasonable requests for information concerning Judge Kavanaugh. To make matters worse, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee inappropriately and unilaterally classified certain documents as confidential, preventing their public use during the confirmation process. After Dr. Ford's allegations became public, the Republican leadership refused to allow the FBI to conduct a proper investigation before scheduling a rushed, inadequate, and incomplete hearing without any additional witnesses beyond Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. The Republican leadership refused to call before the committee eye witnesses to the allegation. Prior to the first hearing and before I reached a conclusion on the nomination, I had requested an opportunity to meet one-on-one with Judge Kavanaugh, which is the Senate tradition on Supreme Court nominees. That request was denied by the White House. I cannot support Judge Kavanaugh because of his judicial record, his partisan leanings, and lack of impartiality and judicial temperament. I am concerned Judge Kavanaugh is inclined to turn back the clock on civil rights and civil liberties, voting rights, reproductive choice, equality, the Affordable Care Act, workers' rights, clean air and clean water, and protection of abuses from corporate and political power, including the President of the United States. Our Constitution created the Supreme Court as an independent check and balance against both the executive and legislative branches of government. It should not be a rubberstamp for Presidential efforts to undermine the rule of law or independence of the Judiciary, self- pardon, or derail Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in our 2016 elections. The next Justice of the Supreme Court should not be predisposed to rich corporations at the expense of consumers or hollow out protections for Americans against abuse of power as Judge Kavanaugh's record as appellate judge reveals. Judge Kavanaugh has advanced legal theories as part of an activist agenda to overturn longstanding precedent to diminish the power of Federal agencies to help people, and he has demonstrated an expansive view of Presidential power that includes his belief that Presidents should not be subject to civil suits or criminal actions. Let me turn to some specific policies in Judge Kavanaugh's record that concerns me should he become Justice Kavanaugh. To point out what I just said, I look at the opinions and writings he has done. There are concerns Judge Kavanaugh's nomination could present a conflict of interest on the ongoing investigations of the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential elections as the Supreme Court could be asked to rule on whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller has the right to subpoena the President to testify. In his confirmation hearing, Judge Kavanaugh refused to say whether he would recuse himself from this case should it reach the Court. I hope the Supreme Court would indeed compel President Trump to comply with any reasonable subpoena from the special counsel, citing the precedent of requiring President Richard Nixon to surrender tapes and other evidence during the Watergate investigations. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the President was not above the law. Some comments of Judge Kavanaugh suggest he believes the Nixon case was wrongly decided. There are also concerns that a Justice Kavanaugh would defer criminal investigations and prosecutions of a President's misconduct until after President Trump leaves office. Ironically, his views on Presidential power have changed since he worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr on the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that a sitting President should have ``absolute discretion'' to determine whether and when to appoint or remove a special counsel. It is clear Judge Kavanaugh holds a troubling record when it comes to Presidential power. In the case of Seven-Sky v. Holder, pertaining to our country's healthcare system, Judge Kavanaugh's opinion implied that he believes the President does not have to enforce laws if the President deems a statute to be unconstitutional, regardless of whether a court has already held it constitutional. Judge Kavanaugh was asked in 2016 if he could overturn precedent in any one case, and he said he would ``put the final nail'' in Morrison v. Olson, which upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute. It appears Judge Kavanaugh believes the President is above the law and the only remedy for Presidential misconduct in office is impeachment by Congress, as suggested in some of his writings in 2009. He wrote we ``should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions'' and that the ``country loses when the President's focus is distracted by burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.'' No one is above the law, including the President of the United States. We know President Trump has deep disregard for the rule of law. He constantly criticizes his own Justice Department, including urging the Justice Department to prosecute or not prosecute certain individuals. He has criticized the special counsel investigation into Russia interference in our election as a ``witch hunt,'' notwithstanding the growing number of convictions and guilty pleas obtained by Mr. Mueller. He has explored whether he has the power to pardon himself, family members, and associates. The future status of Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who supervises the special counsel investigation, is in jeopardy as President Trump has made it known he would like Mr. Rosenstein to go. We need a Supreme Court Justice who can stand up to the President, stand up for the rule of law, and stand up for the independence of the Judiciary. Based on his track record, I am not convinced a Justice Kavanaugh would do that. While serving on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh considered the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act of 2011. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act by a 3-to-0 vote, and Judge Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. His concurring opinion has been described as the roadmap challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh argued it was premature to hear the case before the individual mandate had taken effect. Judge Kavanaugh laid out the legal justifications for President Trump not enforcing the individual mandate and for a judicial challenge to the constitutionality for the Affordable Care Act. A Justice Kavanaugh would raise significant concerns as to how he would rule on the protections of the Affordable Care Act against insurance companies discriminating on preexisting conditions, which could affect millions of Americans. In June of this year, President Trump's Department of Justice broke with longstanding Department precedent and cited it would no longer defend the Affordable Care Act. In a brief filed by the Trump administration in Texas v. United States, the administration joined with 20 Republican-led States to argue that the Affordable Care Act protections for people with preexisting conditions should be invalidated. In their court filing, the administration argued that when the Republican tax bill eliminated the individual mandate, the taxless individual mandate became unconstitutional and therefore the law's protections for those with preexisting conditions, including guaranteed issue and community rating, should be unenforceable. In 2017, Health and Human Services released a report stating that as many as 133 million nonelderly Americans have a preexisting condition. Every one of them would be at risk if this protection is held to be invalid by the Supreme Court. The Maryland Health Benefit Exchange estimates that in Maryland, there are approximately 2.5 million nonelderly Marylanders with preexisting conditions, including 320,000 children all at risk. In addition to Texas v. United States, there are dozens of healthcare cases pending in the lower courts which are likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court in the upcoming terms. The outcomes of these cases of the Supreme Court will directly impact access to healthcare for millions of American families, including the most vulnerable in our society. In each of these cases, there is a question about whether the Affordable Care Act creates rights that individuals can enforce in courts. These cases deal with critical issues, such as the scope of healthcare coverage for nursing mothers, false advertising by health insurance companies, and whether employers are required to provide healthcare coverage to their employees. Given Judge Kavanaugh's stated hostility to the Affordable Care Act, I fear that a Justice Kavanaugh would further restrict access to healthcare for many Americans, particularly in regard to women's healthcare, including birth control. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court firmly established that the constitutional right to privacy protects women ``from unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.'' This standard, known as the ``undue burden'' standard, prohibits government action that ``has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion on a nonviable fetus.'' Judge Kavanaugh wrote in the dissent in Garza v. Hargan in 2017, supporting the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to prohibit a pregnant immigrant teenager in government custody from exercising her constitutional right to make her own healthcare decisions. Judge Kavanaugh pays lip service to the undue burden standard articulated in Casey. He shuns longstanding precedent and chooses instead to impose his own moral standards on Jane Doe. In a heated dissent in Priests for Life v. HHS, Judge Kavanaugh argued that the Affordable Care Act's existing accommodations for religious employers that wanted an exception from the contraception coverage policy still placed a substantial burden on the employers' beliefs. Multiple cases referring women's access to birth control are working their way through the courts. A Justice Kavanaugh could become a decisive vote on the Supreme Court limiting access to reproductive care. Maryland is home to many rivers which are part of the vast Chesapeake Bay watershed. The land and waterways that supply our drinking water, support our native ecosystems, and contribute to our tourism and local economies are all at stake. Whether allowing more toxins in our air or more nuclear waste in our backyards, Judge Kavanaugh has prioritized corporate America over the health of American citizens and our environment. Justice Kennedy understood the values of Americans when weighing the costs and benefits of environmental protection. Judge Kavanaugh has not shown such concern for balancing values and interests. The Clean Air Act, which dramatically reduced these toxins after its passage in 1970, has prevented over 400,000 premature deaths, 1 million bronchitis cases, 2 million asthma attacks, and over 40 million children's respiratory illnesses. Judge Kavanaugh heard several major cases about the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. In each of these cases, he opposed the Agency's position. These protections should be strengthened, not eroded. As a lifelong Marylander and as a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have prioritized the protection of the Chesapeake Bay; thus, I have worked to defend the EPA's clean water rule, which has come under attack by Republican legislators and opponents in this administration. There are 67 percent of Marylanders who get their drinking water from sources that rely on small streams that are protected under the Clean Water Act. Partisan and shortsighted threats put our environment, economy, and public health in danger. If these attacks prove successful, protecting our citizens from the danger of water pollution will become far more difficult. So we are left with even more uncertainty with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Would he support the clean water rule, which would protect the drinking water sources of 100 million Americans by making sure they are regulated under the Clean Water Act? We can all agree that few responsibilities of our government are more fundamental than clean, safe water, but I am not certain that Judge Kavanaugh would defend this duty on the Supreme Court. As a member of the DC Circuit Court, Judge Kavanaugh has ruled in a number of high-profile cases to limit the EPA's protection on issues like climate change and air pollution and against Maryland's interests as a coastal, downwind State. He has consistently voted against environmental regulations and often in favor of corporate interests. Judge Kavanaugh's environmental jurisprudence is rife with double standards, as he has frequently attempted to insert cost considerations into environmental regulations where none exist in statute. Furthermore, he places a very low burden of proof on businesses claiming injury from regulation, while at the same time asserting a much higher standard of proof for citizens arguing that pollution is sufficiently harmful to warrant regulation. The following cases involving Judge Kavanaugh document his support of powerful interests over public interests in the areas of public health and the environment. In EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh wrote an opinion overturning an EPA rule designed to lower smog-forming sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 54 percent. The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of the EPA and overruled Judge Kavanaugh's opinion. Nitrogen oxides account for two- thirds of the airborne nitrogen that ends up in the Chesapeake Bay. In the case of the Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision not to rehear a case which had found that the EPA had the ability to regulate emissions in order to slow climate change. In the case of White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA, in a dissent, Judge Kavanaugh insisted that the EPA must take costs to business into account when judging regulation, attempting to argue that instead of determining what is best for public health, the EPA should determine what is the least costly to business. In Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, Judge Kavanaugh dissented to a DC Circuit determination that the EPA was unreasonably delaying the implementation of a 2016 rule that curbed fossil fuel emissions of methane, smog-forming volatile organic compounds, and toxic air pollutants. In Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh sided with producers of hydrofluorocarbons, saying the EPA had no authority to regulate them. In Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh dissented again and argued that the EPA must weigh the cost to business of revoking Clean Water Act permits. In each of these cases, Judge Kavanaugh sided with corporate interests over public health. There is a clear record here. My concerns about Judge Kavanaugh also include his lack of sensitivity to the protections of civil rights. In the case of South Carolina v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that South Carolina's voter ID law was not discriminatory and did not violate the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina residents are required to use driver's licenses, passports, military IDs, or voter registration cards to vote. Judge Kavanaugh disregards section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and impedes on the voting rights of minorities who are impacted by South Carolina's voting laws. We all know how difficult it is in minority communities when you have these ID laws. We know how difficult it is for older people to get to places to get their identification. This sends a dangerous signal about Judge Kavanaugh's views on voting rights and racial justice in America. Judge Kavanaugh's ideological bias can also be seen in his rulings in employment discrimination cases, in which he has dissented and voted to dismiss claims that a majority of his DC Circuit colleagues have found to be meritorious. In Howard v. Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a majority decision which held that under the Congressional Accountability Act, an African-American woman fired from her position as House of Representatives deputy budget director could pursue her claim of racial discrimination and retaliation in Federal court, giving her a right of action. Judge Kavanaugh dissented from that. He argued that the speech and debate clause of the Constitution prohibited the employee from moving forward with her claims, and he would have dismissed the case. His interpretation of this constitutional provision would bar workers in congressional offices and throughout the legislative branch from pursuing most of their discrimination claims in Federal court, including many sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims, only leaving available an inadequate and secret remedy. In Miller v. Clinton, the majority held that the State Department violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when it imposed a mandatory retirement age and fired an employee when he turned 65. The State Department argued that it was exempt from the statute in light of a separate Federal law that permits U.S. citizens who are employed abroad to be excepted from U.S. anti-discrimination laws. The majority disagreed and held that there was nothing in the Basic Authorities Act that abrogates the broad proscription against personnel actions that discriminate on the basis of age and that the necessary consequences of the Department's position is that it is also free from any statutory bar against terminating an employee like Miller solely on account of his disability or race or religion or sex. Judge Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the Basic Authorities Act overrides existing anti-discrimination laws. His willingness to embrace such a broad exemption from anti-discrimination laws is troubling. Once again, we see a pattern in Judge Kavanaugh's rulings, favoring the powerful over individual rights. In Rattigan v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a majority decision which ruled that an African-American FBI agent could pursue a case of improper retaliation for filing a discrimination claim, where the agency started a security investigation against him, as long as he did so without questioning unreviewable decisions by the FBI's Security Division. He stated that the entire claim must be dismissed despite the majority's warning that this was not required by precedent and that the courts should preserve ``to the maximum extent possible Title VII's important protections against workplace discrimination and retaliation.'' Judge Kavanaugh was in the minority on that opinion. Judge Kavanaugh's dissents in these cases embrace positions that carve out Federal employees from the protections of Federal employment discrimination laws or limit their ability to enforce such rights. Judge Kavanaugh has a pattern of ruling against workers and employees in other types of workplace cases as well, such as workplace safety, worker privacy, and union disputes. Let me cite a few examples. In SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez, Judge Kavanaugh once again dissented from a majority opinion upholding a safety citation against SeaWorld following the death of a trainer who was working with a killer whale that had killed three trainers previously. While the majority deferred to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's finding that SeaWorld had insufficiently limited the trainers' physical contact with the whales, Judge Kavanaugh strongly disagreed and questioned the role of government in determining the appropriate levels of risk for workers. In National Labor Relations Board v. CNN America, Inc., Judge Kavanaugh dissented in part from Chief Judge Garland's majority opinion upholding a National Labor Relations Board's order that CNN recognize and bargain with a worker's union and finding that CNN violated the National Labor Relations Act by discriminating against union members in hiring. Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the finding that CNN was a successor employer, and his position would have completely absolved CNN of any liability for failing to abide by the collective bargaining agreement. In National Federation of Federal Employees v. Vilsack, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the DC Circuit majority's ruling that invalidated a random drug testing program for U.S. Forest Service employees at Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers. The majority, which included another Republican-appointed judge, observed that there was no evidence of any difficulty maintaining a zero-tolerance drug policy during the 14 years before the random drug testing policy was adopted and that the primary administrator of the Job Corps, the Department of Labor, had no such policy. That didn't affect Judge Kavanaugh--he dissented and would have restricted employees' privacy rights. In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Gates, Judge Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion that reversed the lower court's partial blocking of Department of Defense regulations, which had found that many of the Pentagon's regulations would ``entirely eviscerate collective bargaining.'' Judge Kavanaugh disagreed. Judge Tatel dissented in part, noting that Judge Kavanaugh's majority opinion would allow the Secretary of Defense to ``abolish collective bargaining altogether--a position with which even the Secretary disagrees.'' In Heller v. District of Columbia, after the Supreme Court decided 5 to 4 in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, Washington, DC, passed laws that prohibited assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and that required certain firearms to be registered. We know the Heller decision, and we know the importance of the Heller decision's extending individual rights under the Second Amendment. Yet, after the District passed a law involving assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the same plaintiff, Richard Heller, argued that the new gun laws violated the Second Amendment. In the 2011 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, a panel of three Republican-appointed judges ruled 2 to 1 that DC's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was constitutional. It happened to be three Republican-appointed judges. The ruling was 2 to 1. You guessed it--Judge Kavanaugh was the dissenter and would have held that the ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional. He wrote in that opinion that there was no difference between handguns and assault weapons in that regard. I find that very troubling if he does not see the difference between a handgun and an assault weapon. A Justice Kavanaugh would worsen the problems caused by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which gave corporate speech First Amendment protection, increasing the flow of money into our elections. His record indicates he would continue opening the floodgates of dark and secret money into our political system. We have enough money already in the system, and we don't need more. A Justice Kavanaugh, to me, would mean an open season on more special interest money getting into our election system. In the case of EMILY's List v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a conservative three-judge panel that struck down FEC rules that were developed to address the influx of spending by outside groups and paved the way for the creation of super PACs. Judge Kavanaugh has been critical of the Chevron deference. Under Chevron, which is named for a 1984 Supreme Court opinion, courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations when Congress has been silent or ambiguous on an issue. In a 2017 speech at Notre Dame that honored Justice Scalia, Judge Kavanaugh said: ``The Chevron doctrine encourages agency aggressiveness on a large scale. Under the guise of ambiguity, agencies can stretch the meaning of statutes enacted by Congress to accommodate their preferred policy outcomes. I saw this firsthand when I worked in the White House, and I see it now as a judge.'' Judge Kavanaugh's proposed solutions to Chevron is to simply determine the best reading of the statutes, and courts would no longer defer to agencies' interpretations of statutes. Such an interpretation would put environmental, public health, and consumer protection interests at great risk. Judge Kavanaugh would have struck down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as unconstitutional when he wrote the majority opinion in a panel decision. An en banc panel of the DC Circuit ultimately vacated that and remanded Judge Kavanaugh's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank reforms, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That is what is at risk with a Justice Kavanaugh--that type of decision-making that hinders consumer protection, public health, and environmental issues. The purpose of the Chevron doctrine is to allow government agencies to carry out congressional intent, as our agencies are carrying out and interpreting increasingly complex statutes. Judicial review of such interpretations is governed by a two-step framework that was included in the Chevron case. The Chevron framework of review usually applies if Congress has given an agency the general authority to make rules with the force of law. If Chevron applies, a court asks at step one whether Congress directly addressed the precise issue before the court, using traditional tools of statutory construction. If the statute is clear on its face, the court must effectuate congressional intent. However, if the court concludes instead that the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the court proceeds to Chevron's step two. At step two, courts defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This is just common sense. Even the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia defended the Chevron doctrine as an important rule-of-law principle. As the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has stated, Federal agencies issue regulations addressing a wide array of civil and human rights issues, including environmental protection, immigration policy, healthcare protection, education laws, workplace safety, and consumer protections. A Justice Kavanaugh will put all of these protections at risk. Judge Kavanaugh's performance at his hearing and his answers to questions for the record did not provide me any additional comfort about his nomination. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, judicial record, and legal career reveal a disturbing pattern. I believe he would be a Justice with an activist, conservative agenda who could disregard precedent to reach a desired outcome. A Justice Kavanaugh could serve as a rubberstamp for the worst successes of the Trump administration. Judge Kavanaugh had several opportunities to stand up for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. He has refused to condemn President Trump's attack on Justice Ginsburg or Judge Curiel due to his Mexican heritage. I recall by contrast, when we had Judge Gorsuch before us with his confirmation hearings, he said that ``when anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity, the motives of a Federal judge, well, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralizing, because I know the truth.'' Judge Kavanaugh wouldn't even go that far. Judge Kavanaugh refused to comment on President Trump's repeated attempts to politicize criminal prosecutions at the Department of Justice. His testimony following Dr. Ford's testimony is particularly troubling. His tirade against members of the Judiciary Committee, his partisan attacks, and his conspiracy theories reveal real concerns to me about his impartiality and judicial temperament and whether he would be a partisan on the Court. The American people want an independent voice on the Supreme Court to protect their individual rights against those in power, be it the President or powerful corporate interests. Under our Constitution, the courts must act as an independent branch of government and as a check and balance against the abuse of power. The Supreme Court is the guardian of America's constitutional rights against the powerful. After reviewing Judge Kavanaugh's record, I believe he is not the right choice to safeguard these fundamental principles. I will vote no on his confirmation to the Supreme Court. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 302, the Aviation, Transportation Safety, and Disaster Recovery Reforms and Reauthorization Act, a long-term, bipartisan reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. I am pleased that this bill includes multiple provisions designed to mitigate and alleviate community exposure to noise. Aircraft noise threatens the quality of life of Marylanders who live around Baltimore/ Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, BWI, and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA, robbing them of sleep, cardiovascular health, and their children's learning. After anguished pleas from impacted constituents and concerned State and local elected officials, Senator Van Hollen and I drafted multiple noise impact mitigation provisions which are included in H.R. 302. After this bill is enacted, airports will have to submit updated noise exposure maps to the FAA, the FAA will have to consider noise concerns from affected communities when proposing new departure procedures, the FAA will be required to examine the community engagement process, the FAA will study how aircraft approach and takeoff speeds impact communities surrounding airports, airport land use compatibility guidelines will have to be revised, the FAA will create a pilot program to mitigate the impacts of aircraft noise, and the FAA and NASA will study the impact of technologies on fuel efficiency, noise, and aircraft weight. I am disappointed that my provision to require the FAA Administrator to implement new departure and arrival procedures to protect communities surrounding airports was not included in this bill, and I am determined to continue my efforts to improve the departure and arrival procedures. Outside of the noise context, H.R. 302 will make the skies safer and more dignified for airline passengers and professionals alike. Airports will be required to provide lactation rooms to be eligible for airport development project grants. Airline staff who have regular interaction with passengers will be required to have human trafficking identification training. The FAA must examine and improve response to onboard sexual assault allegations. The Attorney General of the United States will establish a process for individuals to report sexual misconduct on aircraft. The FAA will issue regulations creating minimum dimensions for passenger seats--width, leg room, and pitch--and prohibiting airlines from involuntarily removing passengers from flights after they have cleared the boarding gate. The bill makes aviation safer for first responders by directing the FAA to consider an airport's role in medical emergencies, medical evacuations, and community-related emergency or disaster preparedness when evaluating airport master plans. The bill restores power to passengers by directing the U.S. Department of Transportation to examine whether carriers are being upfront with consumers about flight times and requires Secretary of Transportation to develop the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights, listing rights and protections granted to airline passengers. The aviation industry is critical to the State of Maryland. According to the Alliance for Aviation Across America, Maryland is home to 25 repair stations, 15 FAA-approved pilot schools, 1,389 flight instructors, 2,566 student pilots, 514 active Air Line Pilots Association pilots, 110 National Air Traffic Controller Association air traffic controllers, an aviation maintenance training school, and nine general aviation airports. More than 17 million passengers flew through BWI Marshall Airport in 2017. In 2017, the FAA's Airport Improvement Program, AIP, provided $26,307,253 in grants to airport improvement projects in Maryland. H.R. 302 balances the needs of Maryland residents, communities, airports and the aviation industry while ensuring continuity for the FAA programs which are vital to the safe operation and economic viability of Maryland's airports and aviation community. I support the bipartisan H.R. 302 which will modernize airport infrastructure, improve service for the flying public, enhance transportation safety and security, and boost aviation industry innovation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, later today we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act. I want to take some time to compliment all involved in bringing this legislation forward. First, let me start by acknowledging the problem in Maryland. The problem we have in Maryland is throughout our entire country. Recently, I was at the MedMark Treatment Center in Baltimore City, and I had a chance to see firsthand the efforts being made by the local community, by the private sector, and by the government to deal with those who have addiction issues as a result of the opioid crisis. I must tell you, they are making progress, but the problem continues. The problem continues in every community in Maryland. I have had similar roundtable discussions in western Maryland, on the Eastern Shore, in the Baltimore and Washington metro areas, and in all parts of Maryland. In every community, they tell me that the crisis of overdose is still increasing, despite efforts made by local communities to try to deal with the addiction issue on many fronts--on the front of law enforcement, looking at different ways of dealing with pain medicines, and looking at ways to deal with people with addiction issues. As we know, with the widespread use of addictive opioids, they hit the market, and people became addicted to the prescription opioid medicines that were not used for their proper purposes. Later, they used heroin, which was cheaper than the opioid medicines, and people became addicted to that. More recently, heroin has been mixed with fentanyl, which can be very deadly and is much more powerful than heroin or prescription opioids, and people end up in the emergency room. In many cases, they end up dead. Congress has responded. We passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which was a bipartisan bill that set up a framework and alternative ways of dealing with pain rather than using addictive opioids and dealt with providing significant resources to local governments to deal with the issues in law enforcement, in prevention, and in treating people with addictions. Of course, the passage of the Affordable Care Act provided healthcare coverage for people with behavioral health issues and addiction, which helped not only those in the exchanges on private insurance but also those in the Medicaid system. So we have done a good job in trying to respond to it. Now we have the legislation before us: the Opioid Crisis Response Act. I am very pleased about the provisions. Many committees have provided input. It is a truly bipartisan product reflecting the will of the House and the Senate and the different committees of jurisdiction. I am particularly pleased that we have provided additional resources and flexibility for local communities. The one thing I learned in visiting different parts of Maryland is that programs in some communities will work, and in other communities, these programs will not work. So we need to look at what works for each community involved. The legislation before us reauthorizes and improves the State Opioid Targeted Response Grants in the 21st Century Cures Act. In my State of Maryland, we received $20 million under that act in fiscal year 2017. I have been encouraged by the Governor, the mayor of Baltimore, and other local officials who support that reauthorization improvement. They know it will help them deal with the problems. Let me tell you what the additional flexibility means for people in Maryland. In both Baltimore City and the Upper Shore, local governments are looking at establishing what is known as a stabilization center. A stabilization center will serve as a safe place for those under the influence of drugs or alcohol to sober up and be connected to an appropriate setting, where they can get the help they need and the treatment they need for recovery. The problem with our emergency rooms is that many times people who have OD'd, once they are brought back, can become very disruptive, and they can adversely affect the healthcare in the emergency room settings for other people who are there for other purposes. In addition, they can't always get the services they need, particularly in the middle of the night, to deal with their addiction problems. The stabilization center is set up to deal with those issues and connect people to proper medical care and behavioral health and social services. The problem is there is no funding for stabilization centers. Fortunately, under this legislation, flexibility is given in regard to the grant program for Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers, under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--SAMHSA-- where local governments and community organizations can apply for funds to deal with these innovative approaches dealing with the addiction issue. I was pleased that it was a recommendation I had made and it was incorporated into the final legislation. Another popular type of program in my communities is peer support. We find that people who have gone through addiction recovery are much more effective in reaching out to those who have an addiction need today and can provide the type of support they need to stay with treatment. The problem is that not all State Medicaid programs cover peer support services, certainly not in Maryland. So I was pleased that this legislation includes an amendment I offered that will get GAO to study State Medicaid programs that currently reimburse for peer support services and how those programs save money and improve outcomes for beneficiaries. I am also pleased that we remove restrictions on Medicaid reimbursement for inpatient treatment of substance use disorders. We give flexibility to IMDs by removing the cap on the number of beds, which can help us, again, deal with the needs in different communities around our Nation. I worked with other Members of the Senate to get that included in the final bill that we will be voting on later today. We also provided enhanced reimbursement for medication assistance treatment in the Medicare system. That is an issue I came forward with in this legislation, and I am pleased it was included. The legislation also provides reimbursement for Medicaid health homes that focus on individuals with substance use disorder. Further, this legislation provides flexibility to deal with addiction issues through telehealth. Many of us have worked on telehealth issues, and this legislation expands the use of telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries with substance use disorders. The bottom line is I was pleased to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to provide the flexibility for local governments and local communities to do what they need to do in order to deal with this crisis and, at the same time, provide Federal Government partnership and resources that can really make a difference. We do more than just deal with the treatment issues. We deal with law enforcement, and I am pleased that is in the bill. Our Governor had asked that we deal with the challenges of fentanyl shipments coming through international mail into this country; that issue is dealt with in this legislation, and I was pleased to be part of that. I am also pleased that we are providing first responders with protective equipment and training to deal with fentanyl. Many of our first responders are being accidentally exposed to fentanyl as they respond to an OD episode, and I am pleased there is help in this legislation to deal with that. I am particularly proud about that because Smiths Detection, which is located in my State, is providing the technology to help our first responders. Maryland is a high-intensity drug-trafficking area designation. This bill reauthorizes many important programs to deal with the current opioid crisis, and there are moneys in this to support drug courts and task forces. All of this will help people in Maryland and across our Nation. The legislation also deals with workforce and student loan forgiveness for those who go into this field. That is something that is welcome and needed. Lastly, the bill deals with housing. Housing is a significant challenge for those who have addiction needs. This legislation will allow us to support innovative programs under Medicaid to deal with housing in conjunction with the opioid crisis. I am proud we were able to work together in committees on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly we are going to have an opportunity to vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018, which I strongly support. But I want to share with my colleagues a roundtable discussion I held in Baltimore just a few hours ago. In an area of Cherry Hill, I met with leading experts in regard to the opioid crisis. We had leadership from Baltimore city, Baltimore County, Anne Arundel County, representatives from the State, and a lot of different other organizations. It started with Dr. Jason Kletter, who is the president of BayMark, giving us a tour of the new facility that he opened up in Cherry Hill. This is a wonderful new facility for opioid addiction. It uses medicines in order to control a person's addiction, and it is a state- of-the-art facility. It was just opened last month--or 2 months ago--so it is a brandnew facility. I asked Dr. Kletter exactly how he was able to do this. The first thing he mentioned to me was the importance of the Affordable Care Act. Because of the expansion of Medicaid and the coverage for addiction and the coverage of essential health benefits within the Affordable Care Act, the clinic can get a lot more reimbursement for the people who use the facilities, giving them the wherewithal to be able to construct a new facility in the community, giving access to care for those who have addiction. We then heard from Jose Rodriguez, who is the Baltimore City Health Department's director of opioid overdose prevention, and he told us about a lot of the innovative programs we are looking at in Baltimore in order to provide treatment to opioid-addicted individuals. One of the innovations that Mayor Pugh of Baltimore wants is known as a stabilization center. A stabilization center would be 24/7, which is critically important. People who are stressed normally are not during normal business hours, and it is important to have availability in the inconvenient hours of the early morning. An emergency room provides that access, but the problem is that emergency rooms--many--are not capable of handling people who have OD'd, and that individual could become very disruptive within the emergency room setting, making it difficult for the hospital to provide adequate care for the other patients. So the mayor of Baltimore wants to establish a stabilization center, which would be 24/7 and available to handle people who have drug problems when they need it and provide the necessary services not only to save their life, but to put them on a track to deal with their addiction needs. We are very proud of the leadership in Baltimore city to move forward on this, and I wanted to share with my colleagues some of the innovative programs that are being suggested. Linda Bryan is the Baltimore County program manager for recovery- oriented systems of care. She was telling us about a program in Baltimore County where they use peer coaches or a peer support system, people who have gone through the addiction recovery process. They train them under this program, help them to go out and coach those who are suffering from addiction, so they not only get treatment, but they stay in treatment, and they have a road to recovery. It is an innovative program that is working well in Baltimore County. We then heard from Jen Corbin, who is the program director for the Anne Arundel County crisis response team. Here we have an innovative program known as safe stations, and let me explain this. This is 24/7 also. I have already told you the need for 24/7 programs. What the leadership at Anne Arundel County--and this is a county that borders Baltimore and borders Annapolis; Annapolis is part of Anne Arundel County, so it is an urban area, but it has some rural aspects to it. They allow every one of their fire stations--every single one in their county--to be accessible 24/7 for any individual who is stressed and needs help with regard to their drug problems. When they set this program up, which was less than a year ago, they were expecting to get about five visits a week. They are getting 5 to 10 visits a day--a day. People are coming in to get rid of their drug paraphernalia. No questions asked--they will take it there. They are getting in there to access the system as to how they can deal with their drug addiction problems. They are seeking care. They are going in there when they are stressed, and they are getting care. First responders will provide immediate help, and they have the availability of county services to get people into treatment 24/7. It is working. It is working so well that we have people from other counties who are referring their people to go to Anne Arundel County to go to the fire station. Just this past week, one of the private insurers asked one of their insured: Why don't you go to the Anne Arundel fire station in order to get help? We need to expand these types of programs. The fire chief told me one other thing, which was very interesting: Since they started this program, theft crime in Anne Arundel County is down 13 percent. Theft crime, of course, as we all know--a lot of it-- feeds habits, and this program is paying off in the community with reduced crime. I mentioned today's roundtable. I have had about a dozen in Maryland throughout the entire State, from the Eastern Shore to Western Maryland, to the Washington suburbs, the Baltimore suburbs, Southern Maryland, the northern counties, and there is a common theme. The common theme is that there is no simple answer to the opioid crisis. It involves not only a health issue--and we need to have services for our health--but we also need to recognize that it deals with transportation, it is a social problem, and it deals with how the courts handle these issues. There are multiple disciplines involved in dealing with the opioid epidemic, and that is why I am so pleased that we are going to have a chance to vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018. We all know that despite our great efforts here--and we have provided billions of dollars of additional Federal support for these programs-- the opioid crisis is still on the rise. The number of OD deaths are still increasing in many parts of the country. Every community is experiencing challenges with the opioid crisis, so it is appropriate that we are taking comprehensive action to deal with this problem. The Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018 reauthorizes and improves the 21st Century Cures Act. Governor Hogan, the Governor of Maryland, has strongly urged us to pass this section. In fiscal year 2017, Maryland received $20 million under the Cures Act, and these modifications will help States like Maryland do even more. It is a true Federal partnership with our State and local governments to deal with this crisis by providing greater base support for opioid problems. Secondly, this bill provides comprehensive opioid recovery centers under SAMHSA. Why is this important? This allows for locals to apply for Federal grants for innovative new programs. I mentioned the stabilization program in Baltimore city. There is also one in the Upper Shore. There is no direct funding for stabilization centers because they are not hospitals, and they don't fit into the normal reimbursements. This program that is included in the Opioid Crisis Response Act will allow grants to move forward on these innovative programs, such as the one in Baltimore city. The legislation provides for us to deal with peer support, an area I have championed on the Finance Committee, and I have talked frequently on this floor about the importance of peer support programs. This legislation will help provide technical assistance in order to provide peer support but also asks the GAO to take a look at Medicaid reimbursements to see whether we can't have a more comprehensive way to deal with peer support reimbursement. It expands telehealth, an area that I have been directly involved with. I am happy to hear that. That is an important part of dealing with the opioid crisis. It deals with a new area that we haven't really dealt with before, and that is housing. As I said, the problem of opioid addiction is not just health, it is also housing, and this legislation will provide a way in which we can help the homeless and deal with housing issues in order to make people less vulnerable to being left out of opioid recovery. It does deal with the underlying causes, with research and development in nonaddictive pain killers to get CDC grants and to look at mechanisms to control prescription drugs. It also deals with the killer effect that we have in fentanyl. Fentanyl, as you all know, is a synthetic drug that is primarily produced in China, but there are other sources that come into this country and are mixed with heroin causing, in many cases, instant death. This legislation will provide a way in which Customs will have greater enforcement to keep fentanyl out of the United States and will provide detection for first responders so they can protect themselves, because they go on a scene, there may be fentanyl there, and if they don't know it, they can become afflicted by this synthetic drug. All of this is good news. I have only scratched the surface of a lot of the provisions in this bill. It is a comprehensive bill. It is bipartisan. It represents the work of several of our committees, including the Senate Finance Committee on which I proudly serve. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation, and let's increase the government's role and deal with this crisis in all parts of America. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this Sunday, I will have the honor and pleasure of attending services at Ebenezer African Methodist Episcopal, AME, Church in Fort Washington, MD to celebrate the 35th anniversary of service to this wonderful church by my dear friends, the Reverend Dr. Grainger Browning, Jr., and his wife, the Reverend Dr. Jo Ann Browning. Ebenezer AME Church's beginning is similar to the origin of many other AME churches. In 1856, 13 Black members left Mt. Zion Methodist Episcopal Church in Georgetown because of discrimination and segregation. They erected a new church at 2727 O Street, NW, not far from Mt. Zion. They named it ``Ebenezer'', meaning ``stone of help,'' a reference to I Samuel 7:12. The congregation worshiped in the historic Georgetown location for well over one century. By 1983, however, many Black families had left Georgetown. Church membership fell to fewer than 30 people, with a Sunday offering of only $200 per week. With the vision, leadership, and support of Bishop John Hurst Adams-- the presiding prelate, Second Episcopal District at that time--the Reverend Howard C. Wright as pastor, Dr. Joseph C. McKinney as the African Methodist Church treasurer, and the Washington Conference Board of Trustees, 17 faithful members moved to Fort Washington, MD, and the church in Georgetown was sold. One month following the move to a 500-seat sanctuary with a $3,500 monthly mortgage note and a $300 weekly offering, the Reverend Dr. Grainger and Reverend Dr. Jo Ann Browning were called to serve the Ebenezer family. The congregation soon outgrew the building and began holding worship services at the Friendly High School auditorium in 1986. In 1994, having outgrown the 1,500-seat auditorium at ``Friendly Ebenezer,'' members carried their faith pilgrimage to ``Ebenezer the Beautiful,'' a 2,600-seat sanctuary on 33 acres of land. Many people call the current church ``The Miracle on Allentown Road.'' The Reverend Dr. Grainger Browning, Jr., is the senior pastor of Ebenezer AME Church. He is a 1974 graduate of Hampton University in Hampton, VA, where he earned a bachelor of science degree in history and education and was a member of the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity. He was awarded a master of divinity degree in 1982 from Howard University Divinity School, where he was awarded the Benjamin E. Mays Theological Fellowship. He received doctor of divinity degrees from Payne Theological Seminary in Wilberforce, OH and from the AME University in Monrovia, Liberia. Before Pastor Browning was called into ministry, he was a high school educator with the Newton Massachusetts Public School System, serving as department chairperson in social science. While he was living in the Boston area, Pastor Browning was also vice president of the Boston NAACP from 1982 to 1983. In addition to his pastoral duties, Pastor Browning has ministered extensively throughout the African continent, including Senegal, Gambia, Lesotho, Zambia, South Africa, Liberia, and Egypt. He currently serves as a member of the board of trustees for both Wilberforce University--after serving as vice chairman from 2002 to 2006--and Payne Theological Seminary. Pastor Browning is also a member of the board of directors of the Rainbow/People United to Save Humanity, PUSH, Coalition. In that capacity, he has traveled on several delegations with the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr., to Israel, Palestine, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and Ghana, meeting with the heads of state in each one of these countries. Pastor Browning is married to the Reverend Dr. Jo Ann Browning, copastor of Ebenezer AME Church. She graduated from Boston University in 1976 with a bachelor of science degree in Communications. She received a master of divinity degree in 1986 and a doctorate of ministry from Howard University School of Divinity in 1991. While at Howard, she was a recipient of the Benjamin E. Mays and the Pew Fellowships. Pastor Browning immediately began assisting her husband and was hired as assistant minister in 1985. She originally served as assistant pastor. In 1998, Bishop Vinton R. Anderson, then presiding prelate of the Second Episcopal District, made the unprecedented appointment assigning the Reverend Dr. Jo Ann Browning as copastor of Ebenezer. Since 2005, Bishop Adam J. Richardson has continued this groundbreaking appointment. In addition to her pastoral responsibilities, Pastor Browning has preached, taught, and facilitated workshops throughout the United States, Haiti, Bermuda, Barbados, Germany, Israel, and South Africa. She is a widely recognized community leader and has received numerous awards and accolades. In July 2002, for instance, Pastor Browning was inducted as an honorary member into Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. In 2006, she received an honorary doctor of divinity degree from AME University in Monrovia, Liberia. In 2007, she was honored to preach Spelman College's Baccalaureate Ceremony, where she served on the Spelman College Sisters Chapel Wisdom Center Executive Board. In 2016, she became a member of the board of trustees at Wesley Theological Seminary, and in 2017, she accepted the request to serve on the Board of RISE TOGETHER: The National Mentorship Network for Women of Color in Ministry, WOCIM. Pastor Browning has also organized and convened over 30 annual women's spiritual retreats, attracting thousands of participants from throughout the United States and around the world. She self-published her first book, ``Our Savior, Our Sisters, Ourselves. Biblical Teachings & Reflections on Women's Relationships,'' in 2006. The book provides teachings that explore the realities of being a Black woman, wife, mother, and minister. It is designed to empower and bless women as they continue on their own journeys of faith. Her second book, ``Faithful, Focused and Fearless: Lessons to Fortify Your Future,'' was released June 2009. The Brownings are the proud parents of Grainger Browning III, a 2008 graduate of Morehouse College, and Candace Davis, a 2008 graduate of Hampton University and current graduate student at Howard University. They are the proud grandparents of Grainger Browning IV and Kaylah Browning and Imani Davis. The story of Ebenezer AME Church is much like the Parable of the Mustard Seed. When Grainger and Jo Ann Browning arrived at Ebenezer AME in 1983, the church had a membership of 17 people and an annual budget of $12,000. Under the Brownings' inspired leadership, the membership now exceeds 8,000 people, and the church has an annual budget of $10 million. Ebenezer AME Church has over 100 different ministries dedicated to serving the spiritual, educational, political, social, economic, health, and recreational needs of the community. For nearly 30 years, the Ebenezer AME Church family has donated nearly $2 million in scholarships to high school graduates and returning college students. Ever mindful of the multitude of spiritual and physical needs, Ebenezer AME Church's future plans include the development of a school, family life center, and senior citizen complex. The Brownings and Ebenezer AME Church continue to strive to be a source of help and inspiration within the walls of the church and throughout the community. I am proud to celebrate the Brownings' 35th anniversary at Ebenezer AME Church this Sunday. I call upon all of my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating the Reverend Dr. Grainger Browning, Jr., and his wife, the Reverend Dr. Jo Ann Browning, for their extraordinary leadership and dedicated service to their parishioners, the surrounding community, and all of humankind.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Collins, King, Brown, Markey, Murphy, Menendez, Warren, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Hassan, Jones, Van Hollen, Casey, Baldwin, and Donnelly to recognize the week beginning September 9th, 2018 as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week. Direct Support Professionals are an invaluable part of our Nation's health care system, caring for the most vulnerable Americans, including the chronically ill, seniors, and those living with a disability. With the help of Direct Support Professionals, these individuals can perform daily activities that many people take for granted, such as eating, bathing, dressing, and leaving the house. The work of Direct Support Professionals ensures that these individuals can be active participants in their communities. Let me share with you the experience of Euricka Stevens, a direct support professional who was recognized this year for her incredible work and dedication when she was given Maryland's Direct Support Professional, DSP, of the Year Award by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR. It was said of Euricka that she, ``doesn't see limitations or disabilities. She sees a person for their distinctive collection of traits and strengths and frailties and meets them there. She listens to the person and has an uncanny knack for unearthing what makes them remarkable.'' For example, there was an instance where a non-verbal individual was experiencing distress. Euricka was able to patiently determine that he was bothered by noise and calmed by sitting in a recliner. Because of her efforts, this individual is now able to participate in the life of the center, and have his needs taken care of if he is showing signs of discomfort. As Euricka's story demonstrates, the job of a direct support professional is not easy. The hours are often long, and the wages are low. The job can be physically laborious, as well as emotionally draining. The reward for direct support professionals, however, is that they are able to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and help fulfill the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act by making it possible for these Americans to participate in their communities to the fullest extent possible. In our Nation, we are incredibly fortunate to have millions of service-oriented individuals who are willing to rise to the task of becoming a Direct Support Professional. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment of DSPs is projected to grow by an average of 26 percent from 2014 to 2024, compared to a 7 percent average growth rate for all occupations during that period. Unfortunately, direct support professionals are often forced to leave the jobs they love due to low wages and excessive, difficult, work hours. Many Direct Support Professionals rely on public benefits, and some must work multiple jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we work to ensure that these hard-working individuals have the income and emotional support they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Collins, King, Brown, Markey, Murphy, Menendez, Warren, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Hassan, Jones, Van Hollen, Casey, Baldwin, and Donnelly in expressing our appreciation for the critically important work of our country's Direct Support Professionals, in thanking them for their commitment and dedication, and in supporting the resolution designating the week beginning September 9, 2018, as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the life of Sally J. Michel, a lifelong activist, a staunch advocate for underprivileged children and Baltimore's parks, and a Baltimore icon and friend. Sally passed away last week, and while I join with all of Baltimore in mourning her passing, I also celebrate the lasting impact her legacy will have on generations of Marylanders to come. Sally grew up in Roanoke, VA, before attending Goucher College and settling down with her husband, Robert ``Butch'' Michel, in Baltimore, where she immediately began devoting her life to our city. She began by joining the renowned volunteer organization, the Junior League. By 1973, Sally was the Baltimore chapter's president. She used her position to sponsor a national conference she called For Children's Sake, which brought together leaders in education, healthcare, and more to discuss the most pressing needs of America's children and how best local communities can address them. She brought those ideas home to Baltimore, often serving as an ambassador for children's welfare issues across the city. Her seemingly boundless energy for community service earned the attention and trust of then-Mayor William Donald Schaefer, who entrusted Sally with hosting a monthly dinner wherein Baltimore citizens of all professions and backgrounds were invited to come, eat, and exchange their ideas for how to improve the city. Sally hosted these dinners for more than a decade, cultivating hundreds of new, innovative ideas for bettering Baltimore's schools and neighborhoods and ensuring that those ideas were executed. Attendees often said that Sally's dinners made them feel more connected with their city and as though their experiences and insights truly mattered to the city's leadership. That is what Sally did best, bring people together and make sure they knew they were important. Her unparalleled talent for making Baltimore's residents feel heard, loved, and supported was a gift to us all. Later, in the 1980s, Sally turned her focus to improving Baltimore's public parks. She believed our outdoor spaces were the key to bringing and keeping communities together and provided critical safe spaces for children to play and develop active lifestyles. Toward that end, she founded two Baltimore mainstays: the local Outward Bound School and the now-legendary Parks and People Foundation. The Parks and People Foundation was Sally's labor of love. The foundation invests in Baltimore's parks, gardens, and afterschool activities and has been so wildly successful that it has become a model for urban park advocacy nationwide. I was proud to have worked with the Parks and People Foundation to establish bike trails through our city. One of the foundation's flagship achievements was the creation of the SuperKids Camp, a children's literacy program designed specifically to help elementary school children falling behind their reading level. Sally always saw the children that were being overlooked and underserved, and she used the SuperKids program to make sure that they felt seen. She inspired and supported kids who would have otherwise lacked the resources to catch up with their peers, and for that, a grateful city will always remember her. My granddaughter Julia volunteered at one such camp over the summer, and she spoke with pride of how many lives she saw positively impacted by their good work. In the 80 years Sally was with us, she served on the board of trustees for 57 different State and local organizations. Of those 57, she chaired 19, including the Baltimore City Planning Commission. In addition to the programs mentioned, she was a key figure in establishing the Baltimore School for the Arts, and to date, her SuperKids Camp program has served more than 30,000 children. The Outward Bound School has served more than 62,000. Perhaps most impressive of all, everything that Sally accomplished, she accomplished free of charge. Sally was never a paid advocate, but a volunteer, and when asked about her decades of service, she commented that she received ``psychic income'' and was more than satisfied with that. Sally's extreme generosity of spirit and selfless devotion to our community is one of many reasons Baltimore so acutely feels the weight of her passing. She was a hero to the tens of thousands of children who benefited from her altruism and creative problem-solving. She was Baltimore's guardian angel, always there to watch over, protect, and support the city's families whenever they needed her most. Sally was fueled by raw empathy and compassion. She took genuine joy in other people's successes. Beyond her impressive list of achievements, she was, above all, a kind and generous soul. It is a tragedy for our city that such a soul was taken from us too soon. Sally battled Alzheimer's for nearly 10 years, one of the cruelest, most difficult diseases there is. Sally met it head-on, as she did with every other challenge she ever faced. I am committed to honoring her life by fighting for more Federal funds toward curing Alzheimer's and devising better therapies for managing its symptoms. Sally's story reminds us that resources for medical research and institutions like the National Institutes of Health are absolutely critical and that, when we fail to invest in them, we fail good people like Sally. That kind of failure is inexcusable because Sally never failed us. She rose above and beyond in all that she did. Her commitment to activism and community service was unmatched and led directly to some of Baltimore's most successful and lasting programs. For that reason and so many others, Sally's absence will be sorely felt; yet her presence, through the families she touched and through the fingerprints she left all across our city, is felt all the more and will be for decades to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in great sadness to address the passing of Senator John McCain, which marks a deep loss for this country, for his State of Arizona, and, above all, for his family and friends. John McCain was an honorable public servant who sacrificed greatly to serve his country in uniform, and as a lawmaker, he proudly represented the people of Arizona. I will always remember the bipartisan luncheon that we had when Senator McCain recounted his experiences as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. There wasn't a dry eye in our caucus. In my visit to Vietnam, I had a chance to visit the Hanoi Hilton, and I saw firsthand the place where John McCain acted so bravely. He was truly an American hero. I would like to express my deepest sympathies and condolences at this difficult time to Cindy, their children, and their family. In his final letter to Americans, Senator McCain reminded us: We are citizens of the world's greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil. We are blessed and are a blessing to humanity when we uphold and advance those ideals at home and in the world. For nearly a dozen years in the Senate, I have watched my friend Senator McCain live and act by those ideals on behalf of the American people and on behalf of our global community. John was my enduring partner in standing up for universal rights and advancing core American values. John always expressed his views with passion but respected civility. He represented the best of the Senate, working across party lines to get issues resolved. The Senate has lost a great patriot and a role model for Senators. The Nation has lost a strong, effective leader for American values. Arizona has lost a Senator who loved the State and the people he represented. I, along with many Members--all the Members of this Chamber--have lost a friend. Today John's faith in American ideals endures with the Sergei and Global Magnitsky acts. With these two laws, the United States stands in solidarity with Sergei Magnitsky from Russia, David Kato from Uganda, Berta Caceres from Honduras, and the many unsung and unnamed people around the world who have suffered human rights abuses for uncovering corruption and fighting for freedom, equal justice, and dignity. It was John who insisted we ensure that corrupt leaders were held accountable for their crimes. He truly believed that public officials have a responsibility to serve and protect their citizenry from harm, and he had a particular disdain for officials who instead chose to exploit their citizens for personal enrichment. Anyone who knew John knows of his disdain for one of the most corrupt leaders of our time, Vladimir Putin. It was the Putin regime's ruthless torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, after Sergei exposed their corruption, as well as the regime's repeated attacks on the Russian people, that inspired Senator McCain and me to work together on the Magnitsky law. I thank Senator McCain for giving me that opportunity, for giving me the strength to develop a strategy where we could, in fact, enact not only the original Magnitsky statute but the Global Magnitsky statute, which truly provided the U.S. leadership globally. Many other countries have followed our leadership. After Vladimir Putin attacked our 2016 elections, Senator McCain worked with me and others to ensure a new, tough sanctions regime against Mr. Putin and his oligarchs for their insidious attacks on our democracy. Senator McCain fought to ensure that our efforts to hold Russia accountable for these actions made it into law. Just last month, he joined a bipartisan group of Senators again toward the same goal, given Mr. Putin's persistent attacks on our democratic system. Senator McCain and I worked alongside one another to address the genocide against the Rohingya community in Rakhine, Burma, orchestrated by the Burmese military. Last Saturday, August 25, marked 1 year since the outbreak of violence in western Rakhine State, which has resulted in the mass exodus of over 700,000 Rohingya to neighboring Bangladesh. In response to this violence and crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Rohingya community, Senator McCain and I introduced the Burma Human Rights and Freedom Act. Senator McCain would stand up for people anywhere in the world who were victimized by human rights violations. Russian dissident Vladimir Kara-Murza wrote yesterday that John was ``an idealist. . . . He believed in his principles and was prepared to stand on them--regardless of party, convenience, or political advantage.'' Mr. Kara-Murza has been poisoned twice in Russia as a result of his standing up against Mr. Putin. I remember John doing just that during our Foreign Relations Committee 2013 debate on whether we should arm the rebels in Syria. He passionately argued that we should do more to support them against Bashar Assad's ``butchery.'' In 2016, as the Assad regime mercilessly pummeled rebels in Aleppo, McCain said: ``The name of Aleppo will echo through history . . . as a testament to our moral failure and everlasting shame.'' Senator McCain called it the way he saw it. He called out what was happening. John also stood for his ideals as a leader on comprehensive immigration reform. I remember first coming to the Senate in 2007 and working on comprehensive immigration reform with Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and President Bush. That legislation ultimately did not pass, but it showed me that Senator McCain was a serious legislator who was willing to work across the aisle to get things done. Senator Kennedy died in 2009 of the same form of brain cancer that Senator McCain succumbed to this past weekend. They both died on August 25. In 2013, Senator McCain was part of the Gang of 8, along with Senator Schumer--the bipartisan group of Senators who wrote a 2013 measure to overhaul the country's immigration system and border security. I supported that bill, which passed in the Senate but sadly was never taken up in the House, although we all know there was enough support in the House to pass that legislation. Senator McCain believed in working together to get things done. He listened and fought passionately for what he believed in, but he wanted to make sure we got things done in the best tradition of the Senate as the greatest deliberative body in the world. Senator McCain lived by that tradition. In his memoir, Senator McCain said that his failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform was ``a harder disappointment than other defeats.'' He continued: We failed twice, and then once more after Ted had passed away, despite big majorities in both houses of Congress in favor of it. . . . I'd like to say I'll try again. But that is not up to me anymore. . . . That's a harder disappointment than other defeats have been because first, it's something that most Americans want, and most members of Congress know is the right thing to do. He always called it the way he saw it. He showed his passion, but respected civility. The Senate and the American people have lost in John McCain a man who was the very definition of service to his country. I will miss John terribly, and I hope all Americans will pause today to remember his legacy and admire his courage. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, before Senator Blunt leaves the floor, let me thank him for his leadership in regard to the provisions in the bill before us that relate to Alzheimer's and the research. As has been pointed out, this is bipartisan. We strongly support the efforts in this bill. I would just like to put one face on it, if I might. Remembering Sally Michel Mr. President, this past week, Sally Michel, a distinguished leader in our community, died after 10 years suffering from Alzheimer's. We lost her way too early to this disease. She was an extraordinary person--a professional civilian activist, advisor to Governors, mayors, and legislators, and she left a great legacy. She established the Parks and People Foundation in Baltimore and the SuperKids Camp Program. She helped start the Baltimore School for the Arts. She developed private sector partnerships, working with government to get things done. She was a very effective youth in our community, and underserved areas benefit today from the programs she started. I was very proud of my granddaughter, Julia, when she volunteered at one of these SuperKids Camps this summer in Baltimore City. My point is, she was taken way too early as a result of Alzheimer's. There are many reasons we have to make an extraordinary commitment to finding answers to this very challenging and cruel disease. I can assure my colleague from Missouri, all of us in this Chamber support the efforts that are being made to make sure we are full partners in the Senate to move forward on conquering this disease.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague Senator Wyden for his extraordinary leadership on Medicare and Medicaid and so many other issues. I remember Senator Wyden in the House of Representatives as one of the champions when the Medicare and Medicaid Programs were a lot younger. We worked to improve and expand both Medicaid and Medicare, and now Senator Wyden, in a key role on the Senate Finance Committee-- the ranking Democrat--has been one of the real champions to protect the progress we have made in Medicare and Medicaid, recognizing that what we need to talk about is how to improve these programs and make them better. As we celebrate the 53rd anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, let me address the point that Mr. Wyden made; that is, these are two of the most successful programs we ever have enacted in the Congress of the United States that guarantee, as Mr. Wyden has said, affordable, quality healthcare to our seniors, to individuals with disabilities, to low-income families. In Medicare alone, almost 45 million Americans are protected under Medicare--seniors and those with disabilities. In Maryland, more than 990 thousand Marylanders are protected under the Medicare Program. What Mr. Wyden alluded to--I want to underscore this point: Before there was Medicare, over half of our seniors did not have health insurance, and without health insurance, their access to healthcare was greatly at risk, and many were unable to get access to quality care. Medicare has provided affordability so that our seniors can now get quality healthcare, and we have improved it over its 53-year history. We have done things from adding benefits for end-stage renal disease to adding preventive healthcare. I remember working with Mr. Wyden when I was in the House of Representatives, when we expanded the preventive care package to include cancer screenings and diabetes and osteoporosis screenings and diabetes self-management. All of that has been done as we have, together, expanded Medicare over its 53 years in order to provide stronger coverage and better protection to our seniors and those with disabilities. In my State, we have 1.2 million Marylanders covered under the Medicaid Program. We are talking about veterans, seniors, women, and children. We are in partnership with our State; this is a program in which the Federal Government works in partnership with our State to allow our State flexibility to figure out better and more efficient ways to provide healthcare to vulnerable people. In my State of Maryland, they have taken advantage of that to work out ways to coordinate care, provide more integrated care, so we can take care of people who desperately need help. The coverage under Medicaid includes such important services as dental care, behavioral healthcare, and, of course, for many of our seniors, a lifeline for long-term care. So these programs are critically important. Let me underscore the point that Mr. Wyden made. It is at risk today. We say that because Mr. Wyden mentioned chapter and verse of President Trump's budget that would jeopardize both Medicare and Medicaid. But we don't have to go to the President; we can look at the Republican budget that was submitted here in Congress and passed in Congress, which provided for a $1 trillion cut in Medicaid and a $500 billion cut in the Medicare Program. This is not hypothetical. We are here today to celebrate the 53rd anniversary but also to say that we should not be jeopardizing these programs through these reckless budget cuts. We should be strengthening these programs. Let me quickly point out what we need to do. In Medicare, I think we all understand that if an individual only has traditional Medicare, there are quite a bit of out-of-pocket costs they have to incur under the current Medicare laws. It is not going to cover things such as dental care or hearing aids. We should be looking at ways to strengthen the Medicare system, as previous Congresses have done. Let's make it stronger. Let's provide help for our seniors. Certainly, let's not cut the program. We need to strengthen the Medicaid Program. Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our States are asking for a waiver authority. There are some who are slow to act here in Washington, in the Trump administration. Let me give an example in my State of Maryland. My State of Maryland wants to move forward on dealing with the opioid crisis. How important are Medicaid and the Medicaid expansion? Let me give one example. On Monday, we were in Baltimore with Congressman Cummings and Senator Warren at Health Care for the Homeless looking at a program that provides some of our most vulnerable people the healthcare they need. Many, by the way, are veterans. Before the Affordable Care Act, 30 percent of their clientele were insured. After the Affordable Care Act, 90 percent were insured. That is what Medicaid expansion meant for Health Care for the Homeless in my community. What did they do as a result of that expansion? They expanded services at Health Care for the Homeless. They have a modern dental facility to take care of their population. They have expanded their behavioral health services. They have been able to expand the quality of service. We need to do more of that. We haven't yet figured out the opioid crisis. What we want to do in Maryland is expand peer review so that we have people who experienced this problem available to help those who are suffering. That means we need to invest more money in Medicaid to save money. The mayor of Baltimore wants to establish a stabilization center. What does that mean? Rather than people having OD problems and being taken to our emergency rooms, we can get them to a stabilization center that knows how to follow up their care. They know we get them in care. There is a challenge when people who are addicted all of a sudden get heroin laced with fentanyl. We have to protect our population who are addicted, and stabilization centers will help. They will save money, but we have to invest to do that. That means we need to expand our budget support for Medicaid, not contract it. On this 53rd anniversary, I wanted to join my colleagues and just praise the progress we have made. I urge our Republican colleagues to abandon this effort to reduce the Federal Government's commitment to both Medicare and Medicaid. Let's work together in the best traditions, in a bipartisan manner, to strengthen and expand these programs, and let's make that commitment on the 53rd anniversary of Medicaid and Medicare. I thank my colleague. His usual passion and eloquence is so appreciated and his decades of commitment to these wonderful programs. I thank him. Senator Stabenow, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Cortez Masto will have the opportunity to speak. Next in line is Senator Stabenow. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of a free press and its role since the founding of our Nation in protecting the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans. I was on the Senate floor on July 12 talking about a recent tragedy-- a mass shooting at the Annapolis-based Capital Gazette. A man who had a longstanding grudge against the newspaper for accurately reporting news about him shot his way into the newsroom and killed five good people. These five men and women died doing their jobs--reporting the news and supporting a publication that is an important part of their community. One victim in particular, Wendi Winters, fought back and worked to distract the gunman in such a way that those who bore witness to her bravery described her actions in this way: Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting the freedom of the press. Wendi died protecting the freedom of the press. We think of violence against reporters as something that happens in other countries, in war zones and the like, but not here in the United States of America. All around the world, reporters work to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of the free, open, and transparent societies and governments that all people deserve. Too often, reporters are harassed, jailed, and even killed simply because of the nature of their work, which often exposes cronyism and corruption. From this floor, I have stood in solidarity with the Reuter's reporters who were detained in Burma for shining a light on the horrific abuses that occurred in the Rakhine State. I have stood in solidarity with the Ethiopian journalists and bloggers who are routinely arrested for criticizing the Ethiopian Government and exposing human rights abuses in that country. I have talked frequently about China--a country that engages in routine censorship and online blocking, harassment, reprisals, detention of journalists, and visa delays or denials for journalists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists--an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide--more than 600 journalists and media workers have been killed in the last 10 years while doing their jobs. Of the member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Russia remains the deadliest country for journalists. Investigative journalist Maksim Borodin, who died in April, was the latest Russian reporter to be silenced by death. Turkey is the largest jailer of journalists in the world, and scores of media outlets have been closed since the attempted coup there. The heavyhanded measures used against media freedom in Turkey both before and during recent elections illustrate the lengths to which the government went to control the information available to voters. They also serve as a reminder of the essential role of a pluralistic media for free and fair elections. In May, a Helsinki Commission briefing on the murder of investigative journalists examined the unsolved murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia and Jan Kuciak. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese journalist known for her investigations into international organized crime and its connection to the Government of Malta. She relentlessly probed Maltese citizenship sales, revealed money laundering, and exposed sanctions evasion. At the Commission's briefing, her son, Matthew, described the years of harassment, intimidation, and threats she faced by those who sought to silence her. ``Growing up,'' he said, ``I thought these things were normal.'' She was murdered on March 16, 2017, by a bomb planted under the seat of her rental car. Jan Kuciak investigated financial crimes, organized crime, and high- level corruption in Slovakia. He was executed by gunshot in his home on February 25, 2018, along with his fiancee. On May 6, some 3,000 people attended a holy mass in the small village where the two 27-year-olds would have wed. I am troubled that at a time when media freedom in Slovakia is already under a spotlight, a Slovak judge is suing journalist Peter Getting for writing about Communist-era judges who handed down sentences against people for attempting to emigrate. The crimes of communism should be reported, taught, and remembered. Somewhat ironically, a law reminiscent of the Communist past is being used to thwart scrutiny of the crimes of that very era. Unfortunately, Slovakia is not the only country where defamation or insult laws are used to limit free speech. In addition to laws that criminalize libel and make insulting the President or other officials an offense, Belarus criminalizes providing media services without accreditation and has recently moved to limit access to the media on the internet. Here at home, Donald Trump, as a candidate and as President, has mused about taking ``a strong look'' at our Nation's libel laws, calling them ``a sham and a disgrace.'' Jason Rezaian, a reporter for the Washington Post who was falsely imprisoned in Iran for doing his job as a journalist, had this to say recently. He was talking about the attack I referenced earlier in Annapolis. Mostly I've covered attacks on the media taking place on the other side of the world, usually in countries where the flow of information is restricted, or conditions are such that a sense of desperation or political or tribal affiliation can compel individuals to take heinous action. . . . Writing about a deadly attack that happened less than 30 miles away, in an idyllic town that I recently visited with relatives from overseas, is a new experience for me. And I have to say I don't relish the task. 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 the First Amendment of the Constitution. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' 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 has created an open season on 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, whether they are in Annapolis, Washington, DC, or elsewhere. Then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump's rhetoric--calling the media ``a stain on America'' and ``the enemy of the people''--certainly has caused damage. On July 13, while Donald Trump was in the United Kingdom, he continued his assault on the media, brushing off a reporter from CNN by saying ``CNN is fake news.'' This was underscored yesterday by a question being asked by a White House press corps pool reporter at his meeting with the European Commission President. That reporter asked a question the President didn't like. Because the President didn't like the question being asked by CNN's Kaitlin Collins in her role as a reporter, she was told that she will be banned from the next event that is open to the press or otherwise open to all credentialed media. Then, Tuesday, at the Veterans of Foreign Affairs, the President said to the audience there to not believe what they see and hear. The President of the United States told a crowd of veterans: Stick with us. Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What you are seeing and what you are reading is not happening. That is the President of the United States saying those comments-- again, demeaning the press and the importance of our free press. Why is the President doing this? Earlier this year, CBS ``60 Minutes'' correspondent Lesley Stahl, an icon in the news business, shared comments from Donald Trump from an interview she did with him soon after his 2016 election win. Stahl recalled that she said to Trump about his attacks on the media: ``Why are you doing this? You are doing it over and over. It's boring and it's time to end that.'' The candidate's response was straightforward and shocking. He said: ``You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.'' Let that sink in for a moment. A man who was about to assume the position of President of the United States explicitly acknowledged that he was purposely working to diminish the integrity of the free press. After the Capital Gazette shooting, Donald Trump said that ``journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job.'' But how do we interpret his sincerity when more frequently he is calling the media ``fake news'' or ``totally unhinged'' and telling the American people and the world that reporters are ``truly bad people''? Donald Trump's constant, dismal refrain needs to end. He needs to accept that one of the press's most important roles is to speak truth to power--especially his. There is a reason why the leading newspaper in Helsinki bought 300 ads that said: ``Mr. President, Welcome to the land of free press.'' The message is clear. They put that ad up to let Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin understand that one of the basic tenets of a democratic society is to embrace and respect the freedom of the press. In Russia, Putin routinely jails political opponents and journalists. Here at home, we are left to wonder whether Donald Trump is more inclined to agree with Mr. Putin's view of the press than that of Thomas Jefferson, who famously said: ``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' Jason Rezaian wrote in the Washington Post that Donald Trump ``didn't create the problem of hostility to journalists, but he exploits it and exacerbates it. That's true, too, of the leaders in other countries who routinely call reporters enemies of the state, terrorists and national security threats. And we must be vigilant in standing up to these empty accusations.'' After the tragedy at the Capital Gazette, Annapolis and most of the country rallied in support of the survivors of the mass shooting. They received tremendous outpourings of support, including by this body, and I know it was heartfelt. Yet the paper has reported that it has received new death threats and emails celebrating the attack. This is sick, and it is dangerous. It shouldn't happen in Annapolis, it shouldn't happen in America, and it shouldn't happen anywhere else in the world. Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their jobs, both figuratively and literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less than the right of all of us to know. 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. As leaders of this great Nation, we have a responsibility to defend the rights of our citizens, including the freedom of the press. It is enshrined in our Constitution: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' Just before the July 4 recess, I had the opportunity to discuss the state of media pluralism and the safety of journalists with the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir. The Representative plays a key role in calling out threats to and attacks on journalists, including murders and violent attacks. He also assists OSCE participating states in fulfilling their commitments by providing them with expert opinions on media regulation and legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Desir has his work cut out for him. In the aftermath of the tragic murders at the Capital Gazette headquarters in Annapolis, Mr. Desir sent his condolences and words of support. That mass shooting and the other incidents I have just mentioned are all stark reminders of the incredible work journalists do every day in big cities and small towns around the world, reporting on all of the things that are important in our lives--and the dangers they face doing it. I appreciated the sentiment from the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. I am grateful to the other journalists at the Capital Gazette for carrying on their important mission even in the face of this tragic adversity. And I am grateful for journalists everywhere for their dogged pursuit of the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Brown for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of not just the Federal workers but on behalf of all Americans. Our Federal workers are the frontline of public service. I applaud their work. Our Federal workforce is the best national public workforce in the world. They do their work more professionally. They are civil servants, which means that they are immune from the politics, favoritism, or patronage, and they do their work with great pride. I am very proud of the Federal workforce in my State of Maryland. There are many reasons I am proud, along with Senator Van Hollen, to represent the State of Maryland, but one of the reasons is that we proudly represent almost 136,000 Federal workers who live in the State of Maryland. They do incredible work. They are the doctors at NIH, who are discovering how to deal with the diseases of the world and how to make us healthier and safer. They are the scientists at Goddard Space Flight Center, who are discovering the mysteries of space and how we can use that not only to discover what is happening in space but also to use that technology here at home. They are the professionals at the Social Security Administration, who are helping our seniors get the benefits they so much depend upon. They are the professionals at the FBI, who are keeping us safe. I can go through all of the different Federal agencies. There is the FDA, which deals with food safety and drug safety, and the work being done at EPA for cleaner air and cleaner water. These are the frontlines that provide the services to the people of our Nation. They do it at great sacrifice. It is not easy, as we all know, to serve in the public sector today. There has been an all-out assault by the Trump administration on our Federal workforce. They are not only hurting our Federal workforce, but they are hurting our country. The pay freezes, the hiring freezes, and the proposed cuts to benefits say to those who want to serve their Nation in public service: Maybe this is not the right field for you. We are seeing a hollowing out of our Federal workforce. It is becoming older. Let me point out that when you look at the Federal workforce in Maryland, it looks like the demographics of the State of Maryland. That is not true for all of our employers. The gender is basically 50-50. Over 40 percent of the workforce are minority. As Senator Brown pointed out, a much larger percentage of veterans are in our Federal workforce than in the general workforce, and, yes, they are providing services to our veterans, and it is public service also. So it is a representative group. We are finding that the President's policy is one of the most anti- government policies that we have ever seen from any President. I went through some of the specifics that concern us; that is, the fact that our Federal workforce has already contributed greatly to the deficit in tens of billions of dollars they have been asked to contribute. Even though they did not cause the deficit, they have contributed to it. They have had to go through sequestration and government shutdowns, with the uncertainty that comes with those issues. Just recently, in May, there were the President's Executive orders, and they need to be brought out. They are absolutely outrageous--three Executive orders. There was a court hearing today that was held, and I am hopeful the courts will intervene. They deal with so-called official time, collective bargaining rights, and the rights of our employees to some form of due process, all of which are jeopardized. As I said earlier to some of our Federal workers, this is not just about trying to bust unions. This is about busting democracy. I say that because the civil service laws were passed for a reason. We don't want to see cronyism and corruption with patronage in our Federal workforce. That is why we have a civil service law. In order for the employees to be protected, they have the voluntary right to join together in a union. Those unions don't have all the full rights you would normally have in private sector employment, but they do have rights. There are collective bargaining agreements. Part of their responsibility, for example, is that their representatives represent all of the employees, not just those who choose to join the unions. That is why on official time, they can take care of their responsibilities as it relates to the entire workforce, but they are prohibited, as always, to use official time for union activities. What does President Trump do in his Executive order? He tries to restrict the official time for official work. He tries to restrict the ability for Federal workers to join unions. He tries to make it more difficult to protect the rights of the workers. It not only violates collective bargaining agreements, but it violates Federal law. We need to speak out against that type of action. I want to mention one other point, if I may. The administrative law judges are one of our frontline defenses against abuses in our agencies, where you can get an independent review of findings. One of the major concerns that we see coming up is that there is a politicizing of the ALJ judges by this administration, in that what they are attempting to do is to influence the selection of ALJ judges by the agency and that the removal can be done for political reasons. This violates the basic protections that we have in our system. Our Federal workforce is the frontline of public service in this country. All of us are very proud of what we do as elected officials, but the frontline is really the Federal workforce out there doing the public work. As I said earlier, they are the best in the world at providing governmental services. They deserve our thanks and support, not the type of action that has been suggested by the Trump administration. I am proud to stand with my colleagues on the floor today to say thank you to our Federal workforce. We are going to stand with them to make sure they are treated fairly by the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am proud of the advancements we have made in healthcare in this country--advancements that have been made, including those in the Affordable Care Act. At lunch today we had an opportunity to see one of the faces of the progress that we have made. Elena Hung brought her daughter to our caucus lunch today, and we had a chance to see how a young girl has been able to literally survive as a result of the coverage provided under our healthcare system. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have found that more and more Americans have not only been able to get health insurance but they have been able to get quality health insurance that covers their essential health benefits and provides them protection against discriminatory insurance company practices. We are clearly moving to where healthcare is a right, not a privilege. I say that fully aware that President Trump's policies have reversed some of this progress and that he is trying to reverse even more of this progress. The President's policies have sabotaged the individual marketplace. As a result, we have seen significant premium increases caused by actions taken by the Trump administration in eliminating the individual responsibility, not providing the cost-sharing, and making it difficult for reinsurance to take place. All those add to the instability within the individual marketplace, turning it into more of a high-risk pool, increasing premiums, and causing a lot of insurance companies to wonder whether they should be in that market at all. Recently, the Trump administration went one step further--and I would hope all Americans would be very much outraged--and that is the protection against preexisting conditions that were included in insurance policies prior to the adoption of the Affordable Care Act. With regard to preexisting conditions, most of us have some form of preexisting condition. You may have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, heart condition, or diabetes. You may have had cancer, or you may have had behavioral health issues. All of those are preexisting conditions. According to a recent study by Health and Human Services, there are as many as 133 million Americans, nonelderly, who would qualify for preexisting conditions and would be subject to discriminatory actions by private insurance companies if the protections under the Affordable Care Act were to vanish. In my own State of Maryland, that number is about 2.5 million Americans, nonelderly, that could be subject to discriminatory practices by insurance companies--320,000 of whom are children. In June 2018, President Trump's administration broke a longstanding tradition and practice in this country and announced that it would not defend the court challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In the case of Texas v. United States, not only did the Trump administration say that they would not intervene to protect the constitutionality of the act passed by Congress but that they would submit a brief to the Court recommending that protections such as the preexisting conditions protections that we have under existing law should be held invalid. Well, the Trump administration is going to the courts asking them to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against people in this country based upon preexisting conditions. That is why we have insurance, to protect you for what you need. This is now in the courts, and we will see what will happen with Texas v. United States in that court, but it could very well end up in the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very clear that as we evaluate our judicial appointments, we need to understand the importance of the decisions they will be called upon to make. We had a circuit court appointment this afternoon that we were supposed to vote on, and it has been withdrawn. I am pleased about that because that individual would not have been sensitive to the rights of the people of our country. Now we have a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is critically important that we understand that the Supreme Court of the United States may very well be considering the case of Texas v. United States and may very well be considering whether preexisting condition restrictions that currently exist in law are valid or not. I think what we should be doing in our evaluation of President Trump's nominee is to determine whether that person will be an independent voice on the Supreme Court of the United States, representing the people of this country, protecting their constitutional rights against the abuses of power, whether that power comes from the White House or Capitol Hill or corporate America. There are so many areas that we should be concerned about. Today, I am going to talk about healthcare. Yes, it is very possible that this particular nominee, if confirmed, could be a deciding vote on preexisting condition restrictions. Judge Kavanaugh dealt with the Affordable Care Act in 2011 on the DC Circuit, where there was a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The Court did not hold it invalid, but Judge Kavanaugh was in the dissent on that opinion, raising concerns to us as to whether he will side with consumers or special interests as it relates to protecting consumers and policyholders in this country against the abusive practices of health insurance companies. We also, of course, have the concern over women's healthcare issues and whether women's right of choice will be protected--Roe v. Wade. Judge Kavanaugh has raised questions as to whether he will follow precedent. Roe v. Wade is well established, but I have little comfort as to whether Judge Kavanaugh, in fact, will follow that precedent. These are issues that, as we start the vetting process with our interviews and our committee hearings, we really need to drill down on and understand where Judge Kavanaugh is on these issues. Then I will bring up the high cost of prescription drugs. One of the basic protections I would hope our Court would do is to protect consumers against powerful special interests. We have to make sure, as we vet Judge Kavanaugh, whether he will side with the people of this country or with the powerful special interests. Now, we have a greater role than just vetting the next Supreme Court nominee. There are things that we can do to protect our healthcare system. I am talking to many of my colleagues, and many have said, on both sides of the aisle, that we want to protect against the preexisting condition restrictions in insurance policies. So why don't we take action? Let's make sure that we protect the Affordable Care Act as it relates to denying insurance companies the ability to deny coverage based upon preexisting conditions. We could also intervene in the lawsuit that is pending to tell the Court that we meant what we said: Insurance companies cannot impose preexisting restrictions on coverage. Yes, we should deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. There are things that we can do. We have had suggestions on both sides of the aisle. The President talked about this during his campaign, but he has done little to deal with the cost of prescription drugs. One of the basic things that can be done--economics 101--is to use the collective purchasing power of the government and the larger market share to bring down costs. Why are we paying two to three times what consumers in industrialized nations in the world are paying for the same drugs? Let's organize our markets so that our consumers can get a better price. We can pass legislation to make that a reality. Then, yes, we should take the necessary time in the process of considering President Trump's nominations to the courts, particularly for the Supreme Court of the United States. To make sure that we recognize that the balance of the Court is at stake, let's make sure that we use as our barometer whether Judge Kavanaugh will represent your constitutional rights over the powerful, over the abuses of any President, Congress, or corporate America. We don't want to be a rubberstamp for President Trump, particularly in these times, when we have the sensitive Mueller investigation going on, when we have the President taking so much power. We saw what he is doing with the borders and what he is doing in so many ways, violating the basic values of this country. We want to make sure there is an independent court that will not be beholden to the President of the United States. We need to protect the advancements we have made in healthcare, including protections against preexisting conditions, women's right to choice, and continue with the work on the high costs of healthcare. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, to my colleagues, let me just say that we must speak out and act. President Trump's appearance with Russia's President Putin--a U.S. President capitulating to a strongman dictator, unprecedented in American history--compromised America's national security and brings into question whether America can be relied upon as the leader of the free world. With Mr. Trump standing with Mr. Putin while he discredited America's investigation into Russian meddling--this is an American President, with a dictator, challenging the investigation being done against Russia--the President questioned the conclusions of U.S. intelligence agencies. He left unchallenged Mr. Putin's lies and illegal military invasions. In short, Mr. Trump did Mr. Putin's bidding. In Russia, they are smiling; at the White House, they are scrambling. Congress must speak out and act. Congress must repudiate the President's actions to make clear to the American people and the world that Russia, directed by Mr. Putin, attacked our free election system in 2016 and tried to tip the scales in favor of Mr. Trump. Russia illegally invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea, which the United States must make clear we will never recognize. Russia, under Mr. Putin, murders its political opponents and journalists. Russia has interfered in the politics of several European democratic states. Six months ago, I authored, on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats, a report entitled ``Putin's Asymmetrical Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security.'' I sent a copy of that report to President Trump and hoped that he would absorb it and use it in his meeting with Mr. Putin. Unfortunately, he either didn't read it or didn't heed the advice in that report. That report spells out in detail the asymmetrical arsenal that Mr. Putin uses. Yes, he uses his military, propaganda, and cyber; he supports organized crime and corruption, weaponizes energy, and supports fringe political groups, all to attack our democratic system of government. The report spells out numerous recommendations for steps we should take to protect our national security against what Russia is trying to do to us. The report spells out several recommendations I just want to underscore today. We urge the President to assert Presidential leadership and launch a national response, an interagency response, so we make it clear that we will not tolerate this. Mr. Trump has done just the opposite. He has downplayed any significance to what Russia has done, has not allowed us to have a coordinated effort with the executive branch, and has fought what Congress has tried to do in giving him additional resources in order to prepare us against what Mr. Putin is doing. The report goes on to further recommend that we expose and freeze Kremlin-linked dirty money. The administration has not done that. It goes on to say that we should subject state hybrid threat actors to an escalating sanctions regime. Here Congress did act. We passed the CAATSA statute, which requires--these are mandatory sanctions against Russia because of what they did to us in 2016 and what they did in regard to the Ukraine and their other activities. This administration has not fully utilized those sanctions that are available under the legislation we passed. The report calls for publicizing the Kremlin's global malign influence efforts and building an international coalition to counter hybrid threats. Mr. Trump did just the opposite in his most recent foreign trip. In his performance in Brussels with NATO and then later in London, he not only took the opportunity to criticize two of our closest allies, Mrs. Merkel in Germany and Ms. May in London, England-- the U.K.--but he also challenged the unity of Europe, weighing in with regard to Brexit and the politics of Brexit. That is not how the President brings unity among our allies in order to stand tall against the threats of Russia. The report goes on to say that we need to build global cyber defenses and norms. Congress has appropriated funds; the administration has not fully utilized those funds. We need to hold social media companies accountable. We see the infiltration of Russia into our social media platforms. Europe has already taken action to make sure that it identifies and is protected against infiltration of foreign entities getting involved in trying to influence policy in their country. The United States, under Mr. Trump, has not taken similar action. First and foremost, we need to recognize Russia for what it is today--not the Russian people, but under the leadership of Mr. Putin, Russia is an adversary. They are against our system of government, and they are trying to bring down our system of government. I saw the President's tweet this morning, and I just want to acknowledge that we want to have relations with all countries in the world. I want the relationship between the United States and Russia to be on a better plateau, but it has to be under our terms, not Mr. Putin's terms. That is the problem with what the President did in Helsinki. He allowed Mr. Putin to control the dialogue and allowed Mr. Putin to look as though everything he is doing is reasonable when it is not. If you give Mr. Putin space, he will push to fill it, and then he will go even further. Ten years ago, Mr. Putin saw an opportunity. He saw an opportunity to put a wedge in regard to the NATO expansion and the growth of a unified Western Front. He saw that opportunity in the independent state of Georgia, and he took advantage of that. Russian troops invaded. They are still there today, and Georgia is still not part of NATO. Mr. Putin's strategy paid off. The Western World gave him that open space; he took advantage of it. In 2014, Mr. Putin, based upon his experience in Georgia--and also, by the way, based upon his experience in Moldova--said ``Well, we can do the same in Ukraine,'' and they invaded Ukraine. They took over Crimea; they illegally annexed Crimea, and guess what. Ukraine, today, is nowhere closer to being a NATO ally as a result of Mr. Putin's strategies. It worked for him, not for us. That is not in our national security interest. The President gives him a pass. They tried it in Montenegro. Russia financed operations of a coup to try to prevent the parliamentary elections from having a government that would ratify NATO. The people of Montenegro stood up and said no. They fought it, and they won. Now Montenegro is a NATO ally. We can't give this space to Mr. Putin. Mr. Putin, not just in the United States, but in Europe, interfered in elections. But what happened in 2016 in America? This is a fact; this is not subject to debate. We know that Russia, directed by Mr. Putin, interfered in our elections. That has been confirmed by our intelligence community. It has been confirmed by our own Intelligence Committee here in the U.S. Senate. This is not something that you debate. We know that is a fact. We understand the President has tried to convince the public here in America that may not be true, but those are the facts. We know the facts. We are privy to the facts. We know that Russia interfered in our elections, but the message from Helsinki, President Trump's message to President Putin, is: OK. Let's move on. That gives space to Mr. Putin. His calculation: 2018 is fair game. I can do whatever I want in the U.S. elections. After all, I know the President will be on my side and will not hold me, Russia, accountable for interference in the U.S. elections. That is certainly not in our interest. Congress must speak out and act. We have to protect this country. It is our responsibility. We are an independent branch of government. We need to speak out on behalf of our Nation. Let me just lay out issues that I hope we will work on not only in response to the President's summit with Mr. Putin but also because it is our responsibility as an independent branch of government to speak out for America. First, we need to protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation. I am not going to prejudge what the Mueller investigation will come in with. I have confidence that Mr. Mueller will do his work. Mr. Trump has been openly critical over and over and over and over again about this investigation. It is outrageous that the head of the executive branch of government is trying to compromise the checks and balances in our own system, but we have to make sure that the checks and balances remain. We have to make sure that we protect the integrity of the Mueller investigation. Congress needs to pass legislation, and there is legislation that has been recommended by our Judiciary Committee that would protect the integrity of the Mueller campaign. We should take up that legislation and pass it immediately. I said that I will not prejudge what Mr. Mueller will come in with. We know there are people who have been indicted. We know that Russia has been engaged in the election. We know that some Americans were involved. Was there collusion with the Trump campaign? It will be up to the Mueller investigation to give us those findings. But we do know from Helsinki that Mr. Trump openly colluded with Mr. Putin in regard to an orchestrated message coming out of Helsinki. Secondly, Congress needs to exercise its oversight capacity with hearings. That is our responsibility. I was pleased to see that Senator Corker announced that Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, will be before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday of next week. This meeting is long overdue. Let me just remind my colleagues that this meeting is being set up to get our very first briefing on what happened in Singapore in the President's meeting with Kim Jong Un in North Korea. We haven't had a single briefing in Congress on the North Korean summit. Now we have Mr. Pompeo coming up here for North Korea. I urge Mr. Pompeo and Senator Corker to make sure that Mr. Pompeo is prepared and has the time not only to address North Korea but also to address what happened in Helsinki. We have a right, an obligation, to find out. While we are able to question representatives from the executive branch in regard to Helsinki, let's make sure that we have a chance to talk to Jon Huntsman, our Ambassador to Russia, to get his take, his assessment of what happened. We need to talk to our Director of National Intelligence as to his assessments. We need to have oversight hearings here in Congress. Most importantly, we need to understand what happened in the room-- where it happened--where Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump spent over 2 hours. We have no information about what happened in that room. We have a responsibility as Members of Congress to understand what discussions took place, what commitments in regard to our elections, in regard to Ukraine, in regard to Syria, in regard to North Korea, in regard to Iran. We have a lot of interest in knowing what took place, and we should get that information now. That is our constitutional responsibility. We need to speak out and act to carry out our responsibility. This is not a partisan issue. This is a constitutional issue of what we do. We are a check and balance in the system. The public expects us to act that way and to get that information. We should also strengthen the sanctions regime against Russia. I say that mindful that the bill we passed last year, the CAASTA bill--I worked very closely with my colleagues in drafting that bill--provides a whole array of options to President Trump to impose new sanctions against Russia for their activities. Many of these sanctions, by the way, are mandatory. The President has no discretion. I say that with some disbelief because these sanctions have not been imposed yet, even though they are mandatory sanctions. So Congress needs to speak out and act. We need to speak out to make sure these sanctions are indeed imposed, and we have to make sure we strengthen the sanctions regime, if the President needs more of a reminder or needs additional tools in order to act against Russia. One thing we want to make crystal clear is, we don't want to see the weakening of any of these sanctions. I think many of us know about conversations that took place in the past about Mr. Trump's thoughts about easing up some of these sanctions. We have to make sure that, in fact, they are not. It was interesting that during the summit, there was a conversation against Mr. Browder about the Magnitsky sanctions that have been imposed by Congress. Browder worked with Senator McCain on that legislation. We have to make sure those sanctions remain in place and are strengthened, not weakened. That is our responsibility to make sure that takes place. We must also make sure that we protect the integrity of our election system. We have appropriated funds for this. There is legislation that is pending by Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. We now know we are even more vulnerable. We have seen some indictments of late that point out what Russia could be doing in the 2018 elections, which are only less than 4 months away. One of the fundamental principles of our democracy is our free and fair elections. We have a responsibility to make sure they are free from international tampering and the influence Russia may try to play in this election cycle. We need to take concrete steps to make sure that is done. Lastly, I suggest that the Senate go on record repudiating President Trump's actions in Helsinki. The Republican leadership should bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate such a resolution. It is our responsibility to consider such a resolution. By passing such a resolution, we can restore confidence to the American people and to the world that the United States, indeed, is the leader of the free world.

Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a topic far too many of my colleagues have also had to face--yet another fatal mass shooting in their State. This time it was in Annapolis, MD, in our State capital. Exactly 2 weeks ago, on June 28, at about 2:30 p.m., a 38-year-old man who had a longstanding 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. The Capital Gazette is the local paper of record in Annapolis. It is one of the oldest, continuously published newspapers in the United States. It traces its roots back to the Maryland Gazette, which began publishing in 1727, and to the Capital, which was founded in 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 it covers. It is perhaps embodied in Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: ``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' Just 2 weeks ago, a man with a shotgun--a man who had made known his threats against this paper--purposefully entered the building which houses the Capital Gazette and killed people. Let me take a moment to mourn those lost and to thank the first responders who first appeared on the scene literally 60 seconds after the first 911 call. Location means everything in so many areas. On this day, 2 weeks ago, the fact that there were Anne Arundel County police officers down the street from the Capital Gazette offices at the time the shooting started most definitely saved lives. According to the Annapolis police chief, Timothy Altomare, within 2 minutes, the Anne Arundel County Police Department, the Annapolis Police Department, and the Anne Arundel County Sheriff's Office had rushed into the offices and into the newsroom to apprehend the gunman. State and Federal law enforcement--including the FBI, the ATF, and many others--arrived soon thereafter to support local officials in their efforts to clear the building and meticulously investigate the scene. I want to thank each and every one of those law enforcement officers, from the individuals who rushed into the newsroom not knowing what danger they might encounter to those helping get others to safety, to those gathering the evidence to ensure nothing was lost in the bustle and chaos of the moment, and to those diverting traffic so that people could be safely evacuated and the investigators could do their jobs safely. I thank each and every professional who did their job and contributed to this emergency response. We often say about our first responders that when we run from trouble, they run to it in order to save our lives. We owe our first responders our thanks and our admiration for the manner in which they handled this assignment under extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, when faced with an individual intent on killing, lives were lost despite the swift response by law enforcement. Among them was Gerald Fischman, 61, who was an editor with more than 25 years of service with the Capital Gazette and was known 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. Fischman was described by Rick Hutzell, the Capital Gazette's editor, as ``someone whose life was committed to protecting our community by telling hard truths.'' Rob Hiaasen, 59, was a columnist, editor, teacher, and storyteller who brought compassion and humor to his community-focused reporting. Rob was described as a coach and 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, who 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. ``Becca,'' as she was known, was described by a friend of her fiance 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. She 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 Navy daughter. As we learn more about the details of the shooting from the survivors, it is clear that Wendi herself saved lives during the attack. According to the Capital Gazette editorial that ran this past Tuesday, Wendi confronted and distracted the gunman with whatever she could find around her. 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 families of those who were killed in this attack. They did not send their loved ones off to work that day knowing it would be the last day they would see them alive. It isn't right, and it never should have happened. The surviving staff members also deserve our praise for their resilience and dedication to their mission as journalists and their respect for their fallen colleagues. During and after the attack, staff continued to report by tweets, sharing information to those outside, taking photos and documenting information as they would at other crime scenes. Despite their grief, shock, anger, and mourning, surviving staff--with the 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 day, Friday, and they have done so every day since. This is known as grace under pressure. Fittingly, the editorial page the day after the shooting was purposely left blank with just a few words. The few words were: Today, we are speechless. This page is intentionally left blank to commemorate 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.'' It has been incredible to witness the unity, compassion, and resilience of the Capital Gazette staff, the city of Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County. I want to repeat one quote from the Capital Gazette editorial page that bears repeating: Wendi Winters 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. As Americans, we have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us through the Constitution, which establishes the rule of law in this country. Freedom of the press is central to the very first amendment of the Constitution, and it has often been under attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding. Today, those attacks have become more frequent and more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that has nearly created an ``open season'' on denigrating the media and harassing reporters and editors from doing their job: answering questions that need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power, whether they are in Annapolis, Washington, DC, or elsewhere around the world. This rhetoric has gone beyond the pale and it must stop. Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of being violently attacked while doing their job. On this day, 2 weeks ago, just as the public was learning about the shooting at the Capital Gazette, I stopped in for a meeting one of my staffers was having with a group of students to talk about gun violence and school safety. Since what happened in Parkland--and we recently had an episode in our own State--I have been meeting with students on a frequent basis just to hear their concerns. In all circumstances, the students have expressed to me their fear and frustration with regard to how safe they feel in their schools. Some are angry, and all of them want to know when the adults will finally start acting like adults and do something to keep them and their country safe. Without fail, students have told me that ``thoughts and prayers'' simply are not enough. Thoughts and prayers will not protect them from bullets, and they want Congress to act. Some of my colleagues have bought into the false rhetoric that there is nothing we can do about these acts of violence. But students in Maryland and around the country know that is not true, and so do the American people. A recent CNN poll found that 70 percent of Americans now back tougher gun safety laws. These responses get higher with each deadly incident. Congress must act now to address the epidemic of gun violence in this country. Let's reinstate the assault weapon ban now. We can ban bump stocks now. Let us assure that all gun purchases have completed background checks. I understand that the weapon used in the Annapolis shootings was a shotgun. It would not have been covered under these new laws. But the fact remains that if we pass sensible gun safety laws, we will save lives. I do want to say clearly that ``doing something'' does not mean arming educators or bringing more guns into our schools. Teachers are hired to teach, not to be security guards. Instead of putting guns in the hands of educators, we need to get them out of the hands of attackers in the first place. Let me conclude with these words of one of the survivors of the Capital Gazette shooting. Reporter Selene San Felice shared her thoughts in a July 1 opinion piece for the paper. She recounted the moments of the shooting and shared pretty succinctly what she thinks needs to happen next in this country. Selene wrote: I watched John McNamara die. I had to step over Wendi Winters to escape . . . If your help ends at thoughts and prayers, I don't want them. What I want is action. I'm not just talking to the president, or our governor, or our elected officials. I'm talking to every single person in this nation. We must do better. We must vote better. We must push for legislation so that this doesn't feel normal. Rob Hiaasen, Gerald Fischman, Wendi Winters, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith and thousands of people are dead because of shootings like the one I lived through. The man who killed the people I love bought this gun legally. His record of stalking and harassment had been expunged. But even if it hadn't been, he still could have bought the gun he used to shoot Rebecca, Wendi, Rob, Gerald and John. This is not political. I'm not asking for change as a liberal media puppet. I'm asking for something to be done for the sake of our humanity. I think, quite frankly, Selene is speaking for many, many people in our community. We need to act. Now. For Rebecca, Wendi, Rob, Gerald, John, and the thousands of other innocent people who have been lost to needless gun violence, Congress must act. We must show that we can protect the American people, which is perhaps the most important task we have as lawmakers. We cannot stand by and pretend we are helpless and powerless to prevent another tragedy. We can do something powerful today. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the service and achievements of COL Edward P. Chamberlayne upon his retirement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Colonel Chamberlayne has been a valued member of the Army Corps for the past 25 years. He has served with distinction from Germany to Afghanistan to Iraq, where he participated in crucial route clearance operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Colonel Chamberlayne's accomplishments have earned him the Bronze Star Medal among numerous other decorations, but his most crucial mission, from my perspective, has been his service as the 67th commander of the Baltimore District. The commander of the Baltimore District leads more than 1,200 employees in the protection and restoration of Maryland's military installations, waterways, infrastructure, and environment. Under Colonel Chamberlayne's leadership, the Baltimore District has maintained 290 miles of Federal channels and 148 miles of Federal flood protection levees; managed 15 reservoirs and the Washington Aqueduct, which supplies an average of 150 million gallons of drinking water daily; constructed 500 acres of oyster reefs in Maryland; restored 1,140 acres of environmentally fragile remote island habitat; completed aerostat pads for a missile defense system; coordinated tens of millions of dollars in dredging and restoration projects throughout the State of Maryland and streamlined the aquaculture permitting process. Colonel Chamberlayne's vision and skills in navigating the budget forces within his own agency have brought many local projects to fruition. From dredging, construction, beach replenishment, habitat restoration, and permitting, Colonel Chamberlayne and his team have significantly improved the infrastructure, environment, business climate, regional partnerships, and economic development opportunities throughout the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland has benefitted tremendously from Colonel Chamberlayne's service. Therefore, it is my honor to recognize the contributions of COL Edward P. Chamberlayne in his role as commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, and to thank him for his years of dedicated service to our country and his tremendously positive impact on the State of Maryland.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Ben Cardin, which would increase access to preventive bone density screenings and improve osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in the process. We are pleased to have Senators Wicker, King, and Stabenow as cosponsors. The public health risk of osteoporosis cannot be understated. Today, approximately 54 million Americans either have osteoporosis or low bone mass, which places them at increased risk for osteoporosis. Women are disproportionally affected, accounting for 71 percent of osteoporotic fractures and 75 percent of costs. Osteoporosis is often called ``the silent disease'' because bone loss usually occurs gradually over the years without symptoms. As the NIH Osteoporosis and Related Bone Disease National Resource Center observes, falls are especially dangerous for people who are unaware that they have low bone density. If the patient and the doctor fail to connect the broken bone to osteoporosis, the chance to make a diagnosis with a bone density test and begin a prevention or treatment program is lost. Early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are proven to dramatically reduce fracture rates, and appropriate reimbursement for tests that measure bone mass and predict fracture risk are necessary to maintain patient access to care, particularly in rural or underserved areas. Our legislation, the Increasing Access to Osteoporosis Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2018, tackles a proven barrier to proper screening by creating a floor reimbursement rate under Medicare for the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test, the ``gold standard'' for osteoporosis diagnosis. Congress has twice recognized the importance of reversing Medicare cuts to DXA reimbursement in order to maintain patient access, yet the Medicare reimbursement rate for DXA tests administered in a doctor's office has declined from $140 in 2006 to only $42 in 2018--a dramatic 70 percent decline. The National Osteoporosis Foundation has found that declining reimbursement rates have created a 26 percent decline in physicians performing DXA tests since 2008, resulting in a corresponding 22 percent decline in diagnoses since 2009. Regrettably, as a result of reduced screenings due to declining reimbursements, it is estimated that more than 40,000 additional hip fractures occur each year, resulting in nearly 10,000 additional hip fracture-related deaths. As osteoporosis is already under-diagnosed in the Medicare population, it is clear that we must change this trajectory. This legislation is endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and more than forty additional national medical societies and patient advocate organizations. I thank Senator Cardin for joining me in this effort to increase patient access to osteoporosis screening and diagnosis, while lowering costs and consequences resulting from a lack of diagnosis. I encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Ben Cardin, which would increase access to preventive bone density screenings and improve osteoporosis diagnosis and treatment in the process. We are pleased to have Senators Wicker, King, and Stabenow as cosponsors. The public health risk of osteoporosis cannot be understated. Today, approximately 54 million Americans either have osteoporosis or low bone mass, which places them at increased risk for osteoporosis. Women are disproportionally affected, accounting for 71 percent of osteoporotic fractures and 75 percent of costs. Osteoporosis is often called ``the silent disease'' because bone loss usually occurs gradually over the years without symptoms. As the NIH Osteoporosis and Related Bone Disease National Resource Center observes, falls are especially dangerous for people who are unaware that they have low bone density. If the patient and the doctor fail to connect the broken bone to osteoporosis, the chance to make a diagnosis with a bone density test and begin a prevention or treatment program is lost. Early diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are proven to dramatically reduce fracture rates, and appropriate reimbursement for tests that measure bone mass and predict fracture risk are necessary to maintain patient access to care, particularly in rural or underserved areas. Our legislation, the Increasing Access to Osteoporosis Testing for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2018, tackles a proven barrier to proper screening by creating a floor reimbursement rate under Medicare for the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test, the ``gold standard'' for osteoporosis diagnosis. Congress has twice recognized the importance of reversing Medicare cuts to DXA reimbursement in order to maintain patient access, yet the Medicare reimbursement rate for DXA tests administered in a doctor's office has declined from $140 in 2006 to only $42 in 2018--a dramatic 70 percent decline. The National Osteoporosis Foundation has found that declining reimbursement rates have created a 26 percent decline in physicians performing DXA tests since 2008, resulting in a corresponding 22 percent decline in diagnoses since 2009. Regrettably, as a result of reduced screenings due to declining reimbursements, it is estimated that more than 40,000 additional hip fractures occur each year, resulting in nearly 10,000 additional hip fracture-related deaths. As osteoporosis is already under-diagnosed in the Medicare population, it is clear that we must change this trajectory. This legislation is endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and more than forty additional national medical societies and patient advocate organizations. I thank Senator Cardin for joining me in this effort to increase patient access to osteoporosis screening and diagnosis, while lowering costs and consequences resulting from a lack of diagnosis. I encourage my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is passing a resolution I introduced along with Senators Collins, Wyden, Gardner, and Bennet to commemorate the American Homebrewers Association's (AHA) 40th ``birthday''. Since its founding in 1978, the AHA--whose mission is to promote the community of homebrewers and empower homebrewers to make the best beer in the world--has had a tremendous impact on America, both within and well beyond the scope of beer. After then- President Jimmy Carter signed the momentous legislation (Public Law 95- 458) to legalize homebrewing at the federal level, the AHA worked ceaselessly and successfully to extend that legalization to all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Today, the AHA has over 46,000 dues-paying members and works on behalf of more than 1.1 million homebrewers in our Nation. While the AHA was established in 1978, homebrewing has been an important part of our Nation's life from its inception. The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock because they were running out of beer, which was safer to drink than water (each adult on board had a ration of one gallon of beer per day). Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all homebrewers who enjoyed crafting their own libations. In 2011, President Obama introduced a honey ale which became the first beer known to have been brewed in the White House. Homebrewing isn't just a wonderfully delicious hobby; however. Home- brewing has an important economic impact, creating thousands of jobs and adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy. There are more than 700 homebrew shops nationwide, and scores of small businesses that fabricate the brewing, fermenting, and packaging equipment homebrewers use. Homebrewers also support American agriculture, with their demand for domestic malts, hops, yeast, and other ingredients. In the aggregate, American homebrewers produce 1.4 million barrels of beer each year. That production level puts homebrewers between the Boston Beer Company and the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which are the second and third largest craft brewing companies in America, respectively. Homebrewing is collaborative and social. The AHA hosts major events that bring thousands of people together, including the National Homebrewers Conference, the National Homebrew Competition, the Big Brew for National Homebrew Day, Learn to Homebrew Day, and the Hill Staff Homebrew Competition, which encourages bipartisan participation in celebrating home-brewing and its rich history in the United States. Thirty years ago, Congress designated May 7th as National Homebrew Day and the AHA celebrates that anniversary each year with the Big Brew for National Homebrew Day on the first Saturday each May. The AHA initiated Learn to Homebrew Day, which is held in November, in 1999 to encourage homebrewers to introduce their non-brewing family members and friends to the hobby. Nearly 4,800 people from 45 States and 11 other countries participated in Learn to Homebrew Day last November. The ``big daddy'' of the AHA-hosted events is the National Homebrew Conference, which attracts as many as 3,400 participants. In 2016, ``Homebrew Con,'' as it is affectionately known, was held in Baltimore and I enjoyed speaking to the group and sampling some of the best beer in America. This year, the 40th Homebrew Con will be held in Portland, Oregon--also known as Beervana--starting this Thursday. Homebrew Con also features the final round of the National Homebrew Competition each year, the largest beer competition in the world. Over 143,000 homebrews have been entered and judged in this competition since the first one was held in Boulder, Colorado, where the AHA is headquartered, in 1979. Since its inception, the AHA has successfully created community, camaraderie, competition, and, of course, great beer. Today, the hobby of homebrewing unites Americans from coast to coast of all backgrounds, life experiences, and political beliefs. Just as important, the AHA and its diverse members have played a key part in the rise of the craft brewing industry, which is larger today than it has ever been in the country's history. The United States is now home to over 6,000 small and independent craft breweries, most of which were started by homebrewers. Craft beer now accounts for $26 billion in sales and 23 percent of the U.S. beer market. More than 80 percent of Americans age 21 and up live within 10 miles of a brewery, and these breweries are reinvigorating local economies and creating good local jobs that won't go overseas. Collectively, they are adding $68 billion to the economy and donating over $70 million to charitable causes. Beer isn't just good to drink; it's good for the economy. I would be seriously remiss if I were to fail to mention the one individual most responsible for the creation of the AHA, the growth of homebrewing as a hobby, and the reemergence of American craft beer: Charlie Papazian. Charlie, along with Charlie Matzen, founded the AHA in 1978 in Boulder. Charlie Papazian is rightfully known as ``the godfather of homebrewing''. As for the AHA's successes and the growth of the domestic craft beer industry, we can credit Charlie and his passion, enthusiasm, creativity, and commitment. In 1972, Charlie graduated from the University of Virginia with a degree in Nuclear Engineering. After working as a kindergarten teacher, his passion for beer--and for the art and science of its creation--led him to swap hydrogen for hops. In 1978, he founded the AHA and published the first issue of Zymurgy magazine, announcing the new organization, publicizing the federal legalization of homebrewing, and calling for entries in the AHA's first National Homebrew Competition. In 1984, he published The Complete Joy of Homebrewing, which to this day remains one of the definitive guides to creating quality beer at home. Charlie's reassuring motto--``Relax. Don't worry. Have a homebrew.''--spawned an American movement that is now spreading abroad. In 1983, Charlie founded the Association of Brewers, which included the AHA under its umbrella as well as the new Institute for Fermentation and Brewing Studies, which served the needs of the small, but growing, microbrewing industry. The Association of Brewers later merged with the Brewers Association of America to become today's Brewers Association (BA). I was honored to work with the BA and its members as the lead sponsor of the Small Brewer Reinvestment & Expanding Workforce (Small BREW) Act, which intended to cut the federal excise small, independent, domestic craft brewers pay. That bill was incorporated in the Craft Beverage Modernization & Tax Reform Act, which Congress passed last year. Charlie launched a number of popular events, including the World Beer Cup and the Great American Beer Festival, which today gathers over 60,000 attendees annually. Beyond beer, Charlie also founded National Pie Day--which takes place each year on his own birthday, January 23rd--as an annual celebration of America's favorite dessert. Charlie is a true trailblazer, pioneer, and entrepreneur. His irrepressible enthusiasm, sense of humor, and joie de vivre have endeared him to millions of people. The original wooden spoon he used to stir his mashes now resides at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. Charlie purchased the spoon for $1 in a hardware store. ``I was walking down an aisle in the store,'' he recalls, ``and that spoon spoke to me. It said, `Give me a try, I'm special.' That was the start of our affair.'' He used the spoon when he started teaching homebrewing in 1973 out of a series of houses he rented in Boulder. From 1973 to 1982, he taught five semesters per year, five classes per semester, with 20 people per class. According to Charlie, ``Students had to get their hand on the spoon. They gave it a turn and got the ingredients going in the pot. It was an important part of the class and a lot of people touched that spoon.'' As Charlie puts it, ``It makes for a stirring tale, doesn't it? The spoon has been a witness to the evolution--and the revolution--of homebrewing and craft beer. When you hold it in your hand now, it kind of vibrates a little bit. It's got so much mojo in it.'' Come January 23, 2019, on his 70th birthday, Charlie will be exiting the AHA and its parent organization, the Brewers Association, where he served as president from 1978 to 2016. He is currently spending his time completing an array of projects, including a craft brewing history archive. This week, he will deliver the keynote address at Homebrew Con in Portland. He is often asked, ``Charlie, did you ever imagine that beer would become all of this?'' His answer is always yes. At St. Paul's Cathedral in London, Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph reads, Si monumentum requiris, circum-spice--``If you seek (his) monuments, look around you.'' Charlie Papazian's monuments are all around us--from homebrewers making a chocolate stout in their kitchens or garages to the craft brewery down the street. From President Obama's ``beer summit'' to the neighborhood bar, beer is the beverage that refreshes us and brings us together. We can thank Charlie Papazian for being able to choose from the best beers brewed in the history of civilization to quench our thirst and warm our hearts. I would ask all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the American Homebrewers Association, and thanking Charlie Papazian for his seminal and lasting contributions to homebrewing and the craft beer renaissance and wishing him all the best as he completes his final year at the AHA and begins the next chapter in a life that serves as an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Dr. J. Alex Haller, Jr., a pioneer in the field of pediatric surgery, who died on June 13 at the age of 91. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``The greatest gift life has to offer is the opportunity to work hard at work worth doing.'' Alex Haller certainly spent his life working hard on something worthwhile. He was a professor emeritus of pediatrics, surgery, and emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School and was the surgeon in charge of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center for nearly 30 years. Over the course of his distinguished career, he became known as the ``father of pediatric trauma care.'' Throughout his life, Dr. Haller pushed the boundaries and transformed how we care for our children. Dr. Haller was born in Pulaski, VA, in 1927. He earned his bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt University and then came to Baltimore to earn his MD from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. After he graduated from Johns Hopkins in 1951, Dr. Haller spent a year as a fellow in pathology at the University of Zurich, and then served in the military for 2 years. He returned to Johns Hopkins to complete his residency. In 1959, he went to Louisville General Hospital, where he served as chief of cardiac surgery for 4 years. Then, Alfred Blalock, the chief of surgery at Johns Hopkins, asked him to return to head the new pediatric surgery division Blalock planned to launch. During his time at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Haller was responsible for helping to make Johns Hopkins one of the best hospitals for pediatric care in the country. For almost 30 years, he served as the surgeon in charge of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center and was the founding co- director of the division pediatrics. He created the regional trauma center for children, the first such program of its kind in the United States, and at his urging, Johns Hopkins became the first academic medical center to implement pediatric surgery subspecialties. Outside of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Haller created opportunities for his colleagues to learn from one another. He was one of 24 pediatric surgeons who founded the American Pediatric Surgical Association and played a key role in developing the Pediatric Advanced Life Support, or PALS, protocol, which details the steps and procedures for stabilizing critically injured children or those with other emergency conditions. Nelson Mandela once said ``There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.'' Dr. Haller spent his life ensuring that our children will have the best care that modern medicine can offer. He leaves a lasting legacy in the lives of children whom he saved and who will be saved because of his pioneering work and because he trained so many other doctors and surgeons who carry on the mission. On behalf of my colleagues, I send my deepest condolences to his wife of 67 years, Emily Simms, whom he met in college and who became an obstetrician; his daughter, Dr. Julia Haller, ophthalmologist in chief at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia; two sons, J. Alex Haller III of Asheville, NC, and Frederick B. ``Fritz'' Haller of Winston-Salem, NC; another daughter, Clare Haller Hughes of New Canaan, CT; and 16 grandchildren. In the midst of his family's grief, I hope they can find solace in reflecting on what a truly great and kind and humane person Dr. Haller was. The Baltimore Sun contained an obituary and I ask that the obituary be printed in the Record following my remarks. The obituary, I think, captures Dr. Haller's wonderful humanity, which should serve as a beacon for all of us to follow. The material follows: [From the Baltimore Sun, June 6, 2018] J. Alex Haller Jr., Johns Hopkins Pediatric Surgeon Who Gained Fame in Separating Conjoined Twins, Dies (By Jacques Kelly) Dr. J. Alex Haller Jr., a retired Johns Hopkins pediatric surgeon recalled as the ``father of pediatric trauma care,'' died of respiratory arrest June 13 at his Glencoe home. He was 91. He was a professor emeritus of pediatrics, surgery and emergency medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical School and was the surgeon-in-charge of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center for nearly 30 years. ``Putting yourself in a child's shoes is part of being a good surgeon,'' he once said. Born in Pulaski, Va., he was son of J. Alex Haller, a dentist, and his wife Julia Allison. Emerging from scarlet fever as a young child--he lost his hair permanently as a result--he was determined to go into medicine. After the death of his mother, he was raised by his father and two maiden aunts who instilled a strong moral sense in him. An Eagle Scout, he was a 1944 graduate of Pulaski High School, where he played basketball. He obtained a bachelor's degree at Vanderbilt University, where he met his future wife, Emily Simms. She would go on to become an obstetrician. In a 2008 oral history, he said he came to Baltimore in 1947 and hailed a cab at Penn Station to take him to Hopkins. He wound up, incorrectly, at the Homewood campus in North Baltimore. From there he caught a streetcar to the East Baltimore medical school. ``I went down through every imaginable slum area, and it got worse and worse as I went deeper and deeper into East Baltimore and finally ended up right there at the hospital,'' he said. ``I got out and said to myself, `Oh, my. This is the end of the world.' . . . So I registered and that was the beginning of my medical school journey.'' While in medical school, Dr. Haller also studied at Boston Children's Hospital, where he developed an interest in pediatric surgery. After graduating from Hopkins in 1951, he studied pathology at the University of Zurich. He did his military service in the Coast Guard--he said he was mainly called upon to remove tattoos--and at the National Institutes of Health. He performed his residency at Hopkins and joined the faculty of the University of Louisville in 1959, where he served as chief of cardiac surgery at the Louisville General Hospital. The renowned Johns Hopkins surgeon Alfred Blalock asked him to return to Baltimore to head a new pediatric surgery division. In 1971 Hopkins opened the country's first pediatric emergency room within a general hospital. In an article in The Baltimore Sun about the opening of the new facility, Dr. Haller said he did not like mixing children with adults in crowded general emergency rooms. In 1982 he led a surgical team that separated conjoined twins, who were connected at their chests. The twin girls, Emily and Francesca Selvaggio, were separated in a 10-hour surgery. ``Dr. Haller was a pioneer in pediatric surgery and responsible for training innumerable surgeons and leaders in the field,'' said Dr. George Dover, former director of the Department of Pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and former pediatrician-in-chief of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center. He said Dr. Haller ``was responsible for the concept of the Children's Medical and Surgical Center . . . the first building to house all children in a separate facility at Johns Hopkins. His impact on pediatric medicine was enormous.'' Dr. Haller also worked with the University of Maryland's shock trauma pioneer, R Adams Cowley, to organize a statewide shock trauma system, the Maryland Emergency Medical Services system. ``By far, the leading cause of pediatric death was then and remains trauma--injury from auto accidents, falls and burns,'' said Dr. James A. O'Neill, a friend for more than 50 years. ``The basis of trauma medicine was military experience in Korea and Vietnam. Very little was known about how to treat children involved in accidents,'' Dr. O'Neill said. ``Dr. Haller led the effort to treat injured children and is truly the father of pediatric trauma care.'' Dr. O'Neill, a professor of pediatric surgery at Vanderbilt University, also called Dr. Haller ``a true social genius. He could relate to anyone. He was charming, outgoing, calm, humble and sensitive to other people. He had a fantastic sense of humor and an appreciation for other people's strengths as well as their foibles. He never cared about money.'' ``He was one of the best-known and well-beloved persons to walk the halls of Hopkins,'' said his daughter Dr. Julia Haller, ophthalmologist-in-chief at Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia, Pa. ``As a father, he gave us a wonderful childhood,'' she said. ``He shared his enthusiasm about the world with all of us.'' He published more than 350 scholarly papers and 60 book chapters. He also wrote the 1967 book, ``The Hospitalized Child and His Family.'' His daughter said her father and mother were a well-known couple, particularly in the Hopkins medical community. ``They were true partners, and each year hosted back-to- back Christmas parties on Friday and Saturday nights so that whoever had the weekend rotation could attend,'' she said. ``They served country ham and crab dip. Everyone sang Christmas carols late into the night,'' she said. ``On family vacations, they canoed together. When we were young, they spent a month as camp doctors in western North Carolina. My father threw himself in all the camp activities, too. ``It's not hard to see why children loved him,'' she said. He was the recipient of the American Academy of Pediatrics' William Edwards Ladd Medal, the Denis Browne Gold Medal, the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons' award and the Vaclav Kafka Medal from the Society of Pediatric Surgery of Bohemia. A funeral will be held at 11 a.m. June 23 at the Episcopal Cathedral of the Incarnation, University Parkway and St. Paul Street. In addition to his wife of 67 years and daughter, survivors include two sons, J. Alex Haller III of Asheville, N.C., and Frederick B. ``Fritz'' Haller of Winston-Salem, N.C.; another daughter, Clare Haller Hughes of New Canaan, Conn.; and 16 grandchildren.

Mr. CARDIN

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