Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow, June 20, is World Refugee Day. The United Nations General Assembly in 2000 declared June 20 to be World Refugee Day so we can have public awareness and support for refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced people. The numbers are now out as to the number of displaced people in the year 2017, and that number is kind of shocking. It is record-setting for recent times--65.6 million people are displaced from their homes today. Over 22 million are refugees, over 40 million are displaced in their own country--internally displaced individuals, and almost 3 million are asylum seekers. These numbers rival the number of displaced people we saw after World War II. Fifty-five percent of the refugees come from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan, and South Sudan. We have seen recent additions to the number of displaced people. In Burma, the Rohingya Muslims were forced out of their homes, and 650,000 had to flee. In the Central African Republic, we saw, again by reason of conflict, a lot of people being displaced. In our own hemisphere in Venezuela, there are 1.5 million people displaced from that conflict, and of course we all are familiar with the problems in Central America and El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras--countries which have been plagued by violence, from which a lot of families have tried to escape in order to save their children. In Syria, there are 12 million displaced people. That is over half the population of Syria as a result of the conflict and the ISIS campaign. Over half the people in that country are displaced. When we talk about the impact it has on other countries when individuals seek to leave and become refugees--in Lebanon, for example, 1 million Syrians have fled to Lebanon. In Jordan, 660,000 Syrians have fled to Jordan. These countries have been prepared to take in these refugees. The impact, of course, is immediate to the individuals who are displaced. There is also an impact on the region, and as far away as we have seen the distances people will go in order to seek safety, there has been a major impact on the Continent of Europe. I will be introducing a resolution for the U.S. Senate to go on record recognizing World Refugee Day. It will reaffirm the U.S. Government commitment to uphold international leadership, our strong support for humanitarian assistance, particularly in helping host countries' living conditions. I just saw the press accounts of the Rohingya population living in tent cities during the monsoon season who are at great risk. We need to join the international community that is working to help these vulnerable people. The resolution speaks to us partnering with our international communities. This is an international effort, with U.S. leadership. We are reaffirming our longstanding tradition of resettling refugees in the United States. I have worked on this issue since I have been in Congress, and it has always been bipartisan. I have had strong partners on both the Democratic and Republican side fighting for America to maintain its leadership against the vulnerable people in the world who have been displaced and the refugee population and the asylum seekers. I remember vividly working with Senator McCain on humanitarian aid and holding those who prey on these vulnerable people who are displaced, the perpetrators, accountable for their human rights violations. There have been many other examples of us working together. We should be welcoming the persecuted and vulnerable refugees in the United States, recognizing that America's strength is in our diversity, the people who braved coming to this country who built this great country, the United States of America. So I need to comment that President Trump's policies stand in sharp contrast to what America's role must be in regard to promoting the welfare of displaced people as we tomorrow celebrate World Refugee Day. I know the subject that is getting the most debate right now--and rightly so, and I am going to talk about it--is the removal of children from their parents at our border, which, to me, is an abomination. I am going to talk about that, but that is not the only problematic part of President Trump's refugee policies. This administration has reduced dramatically the refugee caps for those permitted to resettle in the United States. We believe the number is as high as an 83 percent reduction in America's willingness to accept refugees. Here we are with global leadership asking countries to keep their borders open for those who are at risk to enter their country, and we are closing our borders. That is not what the world leader does in that regard. We have seen policies that discriminate against who can come to this country. There is no question the Trump administration tried to impose a Muslim ban, a religious test, as to who could come to this country. We heard the President's comments about certain countries, which raised questions about whether the demographics of that country affect the ability of people being able to come to America. We have seen this administration propose, time and time again, cuts in humanitarian aid to vulnerable, displaced people in order to fund a wall on our southern border. Then there are the Dreamers, the DACA registrants. Through Executive order, President Trump created a problem that didn't exist for the Dreamers who were given status to be able to work and go to school under an Executive order by President Obama. President Trump changed that by Executive order. It wasn't Congress. Congress didn't create the problem, the President did. Then we have those who are legally here--legally here under temporary status, TPS--from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and other countries. They have been here a long time because the conditions in their country have not changed. It is still not safe for them to go back to their country. They are legally in the United States, and against the recommendations of our own missions in these countries, the Trump administration decided to put an ending date for their legal status in the United States, meaning, even though they have been here for 15 years, they are going to have to leave America. That is done by Executive action by President Trump, not by Congress. We didn't create this problem--whether it is the Dreamers or TPS, the President could change that today with the stroke of a pen. Then we have asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are the most persecuted. Their own lives are at risk if they have to go back to their host countries. What did Attorney General Sessions do? He removed victims of domestic abuse and gang violence from those who can seek asylum in the United States. They did that by Executive action, not Congress. We didn't create this problem. The Trump administration created the problem, and they could change it with the stroke of a pen. Yes, there are a lot of issues where I believe President Trump's policies are not what America is about, whether it is support for humanitarian aid or whether it is the number of refugees we accept or whether it is dealing with the Dreamers or those in TPS, the asylum seekers. All of that, to me, violates the basic principles of America that make us the strong Nation we are. The most recent force of separation of parents from their children at our southern border is outrageous, and it is affecting people's lives every day--children's lives every day. Let me set this up because, again, this was done by the President. He can correct it with the stroke of a pen. Congress didn't create the problem; the President did this. The President can change this today. It is my understanding that as many as 70 children every single day are being separated from their parents at our southern border. This can't wait until tomorrow. Each one of these children will be scarred for the rest of their life because of this cruel and inhumane policy announced by the Trump administration. Let me set this up as to how this happened, because there is no law requiring this. The President decided that because you happen to be a parent concerned about your child's life--you live in a country in which you have a choice of your child joining a gang--by the way, if you join a gang, you are going to have to take someone else's life. That is usually the admission to join a gang. And if you refuse to join a gang, not only is your life at risk, but your family's life is at risk. So what would you do as a father or a mother if your child were in that position? You are trying to seek the safety of your child, so you leave and you come to our southern border. Now you are told you are going to lose your child in separation for doing what--trying to protect that child's life? Is that the United States? No, it isn't. But that is the policy President Trump has now established at our southern border. It has to end, and it can end today by the President of the United States signing an order saying we are not going to do that. We all want to have rule of law and enforcement of laws at our border. We understand that. But you don't separate children from their parents. That can change, and we need to change it. Why are we doing this? Attorney General Sessions said we are doing this as a deterrent. We take children away from parents as a deterrent when parents are acting in order to protect their children? That makes absolutely no sense. Then I heard: Congress could take action. The President said that. We could take action. Our domestic policies must support our fundamental ideals of compassion and freedom and unwavering support for human rights. I agree with that. Yes, it would be nice for Congress to pass laws. I am all for doing that. We saw that we weren't even able to pass a bill protecting the Dreamers, even though Democrats and Republicans agreed on it, because President Trump wanted to use that for leverage for his wall and for repressive immigration policies. Let's not go down another path where we are going to have delay after delay and children being separated from parents every day. It is President Trump's responsibility to correct this today. Yes, we should work on legislation. I applaud Senator Feinstein for her legislation that would keep families together with the proper legal process. I congratulate Senator Smith for the HELP Separated Children Act, which gives fundamental principles. A lot of us have talked about various parts of immigration reform and comprehensive immigration reform. I am all for that. I voted for comprehensive immigration reform. But make no mistake about it--children are being taken away from their parents today by U.S. authorities on our southern border, when their parents have done nothing other than try to protect their children. It is happening today, and the way to change it today is for President Trump to say that is not what we are going to do here in America. I stand ready to work with any of my colleagues on reasonable laws that could protect the vulnerable people. Tomorrow, as I said, is World Refugee Day, where we have record numbers of people who have been displaced. America has the responsibility to be a leader on these issues and to lead by example, recognizing that diversity is our strength. We have responsibilities to those who have been persecuted to welcome them under our reasonable vetting rules so that we can, in fact, live up to our principles and lead the world. I ask my colleagues--on the eve of World Refugee Day--let us work together. I ask President Trump to do the right thing and reverse these repressive, un-American policies that he has put into place. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment the senior Senator from Arkansas has offered to the H.R. 5515, the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. Senator Boozman's amendment is a thoughtful one. It proposes to solicit information from the Department of Defense to help us carefully think through our response to the changed strategic situation in Europe. Russia's military aggression and Military incursions in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere have made it abundantly clear that we are no longer in the security environment that provided the context for the commitments we made in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. The United States and Poland have a long record of highly effective cooperation in military matters. Poland has made important contributions to operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and an American-led NATO battle group in Poland is playing an important role in reinforcing NATO's eastern flank today. Still, a decision to permanently deploy U.S. forces to the territory of even such a stalwart ally should not be taken lightly. This amendment wisely requests that the Department of Defense provide its assessment of a number of factors that we will need to weigh when deciding whether to take such a step, including the reactions we should anticipate from other allies, possible responses by Russia, and more practical considerations including cost and timing. Poland needs no reminder about the external threats it faces. After all, it borders Ukraine. However, Poland faces an enemy within: democratic backsliding, which plays into Vladimir Putin's hands as he aims to undermine democratic values across Europe. Since 2015, the Polish Government has challenged constitutionalism, eroded checks and balances, and indulged in historical revisionism. The breadth and depth of the government's actions led the European Commission to conclude in December that Poland's ``executive and legislative branches have been systematically enabled to politically interfere in the composition, powers, administration and functioning of the judicial branch.'' I discussed these concerns in a meeting with Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marek Magierowski in February, including a controversial law, introduced on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which may actually impede research, scholarship, and journalism about the Holocaust. The Department of State rightly observed that this law might have repercussions for ``Poland's strategic interests and relationships--including with the United States and Israel. The resulting divisions that may arise among our allies benefit only our rivals.'' Independence of the judiciary will take another hit on July 3, when a new law will go into effect forcing the early retirement of up to 40 percent of Poland's 120-member supreme court, the reintroduction of the Soviet-era feature of ``lay judges,'' and make final judgments subject to ``extraordinary appeals.'' These developments--very concerning both for Poland and the region--should be part of the administration's dialogue with Warsaw on comprehensive transatlantic security.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, next month will be the 65th anniversary of the armistice that ended the battles and bloodshed of the Korean war. As I am sure my colleagues know, the Korean war was never officially ended. Over the last 65 years, we have seen hostility on the Korean Peninsula. We have seen North Korea develop nuclear weapons, raising security concerns, and active in cyber attacks and human rights violations. The list goes on and on in the context of a formal state of war between the north and the south. The United States has made major investments in this region as a result of our security concerns and our national interests. We helped rebuild Japan and South Korea, we developed allies that share our values, which is certainly in our interests, and we created a military deterrent against a belligerent North Korea. Yet, during this period of time, the Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea developed a nuclear weapons program, including delivery systems. It violated international commitments. The international community, led by the United States--I must say, empowered by this Congress, which gave the administration the ability to impose sanctions--with the leadership of the United States, sanctions had been imposed against North Korea, and those sanctions had impact. This year, we saw a breakthrough with there being some hope of security in the future. With the election of President Moon of South Korea, the South Koreans have a leader who wants to have a better relationship with North Korea, and the use of the Winter Olympics helped to develop confidence between North Korea and South Korea. Now President Trump is scheduled to meet with Kim Jong Un at the Singapore summit on June 12, where there will be great opportunities. We hope this will be an opportunity to end the war between North and South Korea, create a framework to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, and forge a path toward stability and security for all. It starts with an acknowledgment by North Korea that it has violated international norms. That is the reason sanctions have been imposed. It has an illegal nuclear program; its missile program violates international norms; and it has created an oppressive regime against the basic human rights of the North Korean people. Clearly, diplomacy is our best option. That was the purpose of imposing sanctions--so that we could get to this moment at which diplomacy actually may lead to results. We couldn't have gotten here if we had not had a strong sanctions regime imposed against North Korea. As I have said all year, Congress gave the administration the tools with which to do that. In working with our partners around the world, the United States led in the effort in isolating North Korea in its continuing down this path. We now have an opportunity for diplomacy. Diplomacy is our best option. If we have to use the military, the risk factors are so great as to what could happen that it begs the point that, really, the only successful option is for diplomacy to work. This is where we have hope, because there is a common objective between the principal parties in trying to use diplomacy to end this crisis. North Korea and China very much want to preserve the Kim Jong Un regime. China does not want to see a democratic country on its border. It wants to preserve North Korea's Communist regime. Obviously, Kim Jong Un is interested in preserving his regime. The United States and China have a common agenda in that both countries want to see the Korean Peninsula absent of nuclear weapons. Secretary of State Pompeo testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and indicated that the U.S. position is not for regime change. I think that gave Kim Jong Un the ability to go forward and say: Look, if the regime can be preserved and we get security assurances, then we can do that without nuclear weapons. That gave us the opportunity for diplomacy to succeed. So where are we in regard to the summit that is scheduled in less than 1 week? I was pleased that the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy, which is within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held a hearing this week with regard to the status of the summit--with regard to what we can expect and how we should be prepared. I appreciate Senator Gardner and Senator Markey, the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, for holding that hearing. Joe Yun, who is the former top American diplomat and one of the United States' leading experts on North Korea, was one of our witnesses. Victor Cha, who is the former National Security Adviser for North Korea, was the other witness. We had two of the top experts in this country who understand North Korea, who understand Kim Jong Un, who understand where we are in regard to what we can expect at the summit that will take place on June 12. Both agreed that we will need to have a realistic strategy in going into these negotiations. I asked a specific question of the witnesses: Would Kim Jong Un be willing to give up his nuclear weapons in going into these negotiations? Both agreed that was unlikely--unlikely, in the initial meetings, that he would agree to give up his nuclear program. What should we expect? What should the conditions be? We had a robust discussion about that in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was pretty well agreed that it will start with a declaration by North Korea of its current program. We will need to understand what it is doing. We will need to know the venues of its nuclear program. We will need to know exactly from where we will be starting. We will need to make sure that the commitment to freeze that program will, in fact, be carried out. We will need international inspectors to make sure that, in fact, North Korea will not be advancing the program or its missile program. Then we will need a plan to dismantle its nuclear weapons program--all aspects of it. We will need to have a roadmap for getting there. That is the realistic expectation of what we will be able to achieve on June 12. It is key for the United States to make it clear that we will not make concessions until we have at least reached that understanding--a commitment to North Korea's dismantling the program, a freeze in place, and inspectors in place. We will have to be patient, but we will also have to be resolved that we will not make unilateral concessions. This past week, several of my colleagues sent a letter to the administration that outlined this. It was led by Senators Schumer and Menendez, along with Senators Durbin, Feinstein, Brown, Leahy, and Warner. I agree with the letter. Let me just quote some of the conditions that are spelled out that we should be expecting in these negotiations. Ultimately, it should include the dismantling and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea. The goal must be the full, complete, and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea. North Korea must continue its current ballistic missile test suspension. North Korea must commit to having robust compliance inspections, including a verification regime. The agreement with North Korea must be permanent in nature. These are conditions I would hope we could all agree on. The letter goes on to read something that is critically important. In its addressing other critical matters, it includes North Korea's human rights practices and the need for them to be included in these discussions. Dr. Cha said it best when he said that a comprehensive political settlement with North Korea must include its agreement to end the regime's systematic violation of human rights. I understand our objective is to make sure we have a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, and I agree with that. Yet, for long-term stability in that region, we need a North Korean Government that respects the rights of its citizens, and those discussions must start taking place on June 12. Here is my concern and the reason I am taking this time today. We have to be prepared for this summit. President Trump needs to be prepared, but President Trump needs to be prepared by working with Congress. That is where we know we are the strongest. I have seen no signs whatsoever of any congressional briefings or consultations from the Trump administration in leading up to the June 12 summit. We need to be on the same page in going into these discussions. Yet we have had absolutely no consultation. Dr. Cha said to consult with Congress given its role in funding and ratifying an agreement. We need to be involved. Let me just underscore as to what Secretary Pompeo testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I asked him a question as to what role Congress should play in this. Secretary Pompeo volunteered to say that he anticipates that this will be a treaty that will be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification if they are successful. If we are going to be called upon to ratify a treaty or if we are going to be called upon to change the sanctions regime against North Korea, we will need to be part of the process. We will not have to reinvent the wheel. We ran into a similar issue in 2015 with regard to President Obama's negotiations for an Iran nuclear agreement. At that time, I was the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I worked with our distinguished chairman, Senator Corker, and other members of our committee, including Senator Kaine and Senator Menendez and others, and we came up with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. We know how difficult it is to get consensus in the U.S. Congress on any particular issue. Yet we passed that Review Act by a 19-to-0 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It passed overwhelmingly in the Congress itself, and it establishes a proper role for Congress in its review of such an agreement. It doesn't restrict the President in his negotiations; it strengthens the President in his negotiations by giving him the power of the American Government, including the congressional part of our government. It strengthens the oversight of compliance. It did that with Iran, and it would do the same thing with regard to North Korea. Just as with Iran, there is no trust when it comes to North Korea. So the final agreement must be verifiable, transparent, and make clear that any violation will result in the strongest possible sanctions. Our congressional role can complement both the ongoing and forthcoming negotiations with North Korea. Such legislation will help Congress's oversight and representative responsibilities to the American people. As we go to this historic meeting that will take place next week, I know that every Senator--indeed, every American--will want the President to be successful in this endeavor to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and to bring security and stability to the region. The best chance for that to happen is with Congress exercising its responsibility and being in a position to support the efforts and understand the efforts so that we can act with a united voice in America. Let us act accordingly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed two pieces of bipartisan legislation that will increase access to capital for small businesses and strengthen the Small Business Administration's oversight of its largest lending program. First, I want to talk about the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act. This bill modifies SBA's Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program by increasing the amount of capital SBICs with a single fund can invest in qualifying small businesses. This legislation will unlock millions in additional capital for small businesses with high-growth potential, create jobs, ensure the program keeps pace with inflation, and align the program with changes Congress made in 2015. Earlier this year, I introduced the Senate version of this legislation with Senators Risch and Kennedy as original cosponsors. It was reported out of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee in March by a vote of 19-0. SBICs are privately owned and managed investment funds that use their own capital--plus funds borrowed with an SBA guaranty--to capitalize small businesses. The purpose of the SBIC program is to stimulate investment in America's high-growth small businesses. The investments are made at no expense to taxpayers. This bill is straightforward. Under current law, SBA can guarantee up to $150 million for a single SBIC investment fund. This legislation increases that cap to $175 million. The cap has not been raised since 2009. Today, adjusted for inflation, the amount should be nearly $170 million. Raising this cap ensures the program keeps up with inflation. This change also builds upon a bill Senators Risch and Shaheen and I passed in 2015 that increased the maximum leverage from $225 million to $350 million for SBICs with more than one fund, commonly referred to as a ``Family of Funds.'' Aligning the maximum leverage cap for a single SBIC fund with that of a Family of Funds expands the capacity of SBA and its private-sector partners to deploy more capital to innovative, fast-growing small businesses. These are firms that boost local hiring, support our communities, drive innovation, and help our country maintain its competitive edge. Last year, SBICs helped more than 1,200 firms, creating or saving nearly 113,000 jobs. Some of America's most iconic brands have received investment capital from SBICs, including Apple, Tesla, Whole Foods, Staples, Intel, FedEx, and Costco, among others. Maryland is home to five SBICs, some with multiple funds. I would like to highlight a few successful small firms that got financing through a Baltimore-based SBIC called Patriot Capital. CSS Antenna is based in Edgewood, MD. This firm designs and manufactures products that support the wireless communications industry. Patriot Capital invested in CSS Antenna to support new product development and provide a stable layer of working capital to nurture company growth. During the life of Patriot's SBIC investment, CSS Antenna quadrupled its revenue and employee count, from 25 to 100. Patriot also invested in Advantage Engineers, based in Columbia, MD. This firm provides engineering services focused on the telecom, geotechnical, and environmental services markets. Since Patriot's SBIC investment in 2016, Advantage Engineers' has doubled its revenue and tripled its employees from 200 to 600. This firm could benefit from additional SBIC investment once the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act is implemented. Finally, for those of you who like to check the weather on your smartphone, you might be interested to know that WeatherBug is an SBIC investment. WeatherBug provides desktop and mobile users with real- time, local weather information. WeatherBug is the product of Earth Networks, based in Germantown, MD. Patriot Capital has provided various levels of SBIC capital to Earth Networks to support a series of initiatives, including expansion into Smart Home technology that allows you to remotely control your home's lights, locks, and heating and cooling systems. With passage of this legislation, I am hopeful that more investments will flow to innovative small businesses in Maryland and throughout the country. I also thank my colleagues for supporting the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018. The goal of this legislation is to strengthen SBA's ability to conduct effective oversight of its largest lending program, the 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program, and 7(a) lenders. The 7(a) program, through government guaranteed loans made by private sector lenders, provide small businesses with the capital they need for a broad range of purposes, from working capital for payroll and inventory to financing for buildings and equipment. The maximum loan size is $5 million, the maximum term is 25 years, and the program operates at zero subsidy, with costs covered by borrower and lender fees. Protecting the integrity and stability of the 7(a) program is important because it is one of the largest sources of long-term capital available to small businesses in our country. The program's longer terms reduce the monthly payments for small firms and provide essential working capital to manage startup and growth. Last year, the SBA 7(a) loan program helped more than 62,000 small businesses. Combined, they were approved for more than $25 billion in loans, which supported more than 571,000 U.S. jobs. In Maryland, the 7(a) loan program helped 833 firms, which pumped nearly $300 million into local communities, supporting more than 6,700 jobs. The Small Business 71(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018 strengthens SBA's oversight of 7(a) lenders in the following ways: modernizes the definition of and compliance with the Credit Elsewhere test; creates a streamlined process to prevent a shutdown of the program with a process by which SBA can request an increase of the 7(a) lending cap, up to 15 percent, after an appropriate waiting period; ensures the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management, OCRM, is qualified and nonpartisan; improves the quality of lender reviews and examinations; and strengthens the rights of lenders to get timely reports of oversight reviews and appeal penalties. Of the reforms we are enacting, two of the most significant are modernizing the credit elsewhere test and streamlining the process to increase the 7(a) program cap. The credit elsewhere test is the bedrock of the 7(a) program. It was created to ensure SBA is only backing loans to qualified borrowers who, but for the guaranty, would not get a loan based on conventional market standards. This lender oversight bill updates the credit elsewhere definition to reflect current market gaps, reinforces OCRM's duty to ensure lenders use the credit elsewhere test for the benefit of the borrower and not the lender, and strengthens OCRM's authority to substantiate how lenders determine and document the credit elsewhere test. Creating a streamlined process to increase the lending capacity of SBA's largest loan program will provide needed stability to this essential source of long-term capital for small businesses. Currently, if the 7(a) program hits its lending cap, Congress must act legislatively to raise the program level. Finding a timely legislative vehicle is difficult and this legislative uncertainty can trigger market uncertainty and shutdown the program. To address this problem, this bill establishes a notification-and- wait process by which SBA can notify Congress of its intent to increase the 7(a) lending cap, up to 15 percent, after a 30-day waiting period. To prevent abuse of this authority, SBA may only increase the cap once a year. I support the 7(a) loan program and these lender oversight reforms. I look forward to building on this legislation by identifying ways to increase 7(a) loans to borrowers in unserved markets.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today we are proceeding to consideration of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, which is fitting: On this day 74 years ago, thousands of American troops, alongside our allies, executed a bold assault on the beaches of Normandy. The bravery of those troops on D-Day in their stand against Nazi tyranny and oppression has been admired by a grateful world ever since. The Nazi regime upended democratic freedoms and espoused a system of persistent human rights violations bent on trampling the existence of minority groups which culminated in the concentration camps and genocide. The accomplishments of allied forces on D-Day and thereafter during Operation Overlord led to the defeat of the Adolph Hitler's Nazi government and its heinous authoritarian, nationalist ideology. D-Day remains a sterling example of how international partnerships and a spirit of collaborative defiance can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. It is also a stark reminder of what is required in the presence of iniquitous leaders. The leaders of the D-Day alliance and the troops who fought mightily that day on the beaches and in the French countryside and towns deserve our most sincere thanks and admiration. It is because of their bravery and hardship that the western world remains free. As we remember the courageous actions of those present that ``longest day,'' I ask that we express our gratitude by carrying on their example. We must resist the present-day reemergence of nationalist and racist influences in the Western world and beyond. Concurrently, we must hold authoritarian regimes accountable for their acts against humanity. We must expand our diplomatic reach by strengthening our alliances against authoritarianism. By working together like the daring souls who fought on D-Day, we can secure a future free from cruelty, oppression, and persecution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strengthening American Communities (SAC) Act of 2018. My bill seeks to expand access to debt-free public service career pathways for Americans who want to serve their communities, States, or Nation. No one should be denied the opportunity to serve their community as a law enforcement officer, public health practitioner, social worker, or educator based on his or her ability to afford the rising cost of an undergraduate education. My bill is a first step toward correcting public sector workforce disparities by enabling people to serve their communities without being hobbled by massive student loan debt, and by providing current public servants with the financial freedom to continue to heed their calling to service. Every city, town, and rural community in the United States relies on individuals who choose to utilize their talents for the betterment of others while accepting the lower pay of public service careers. The very foundation of our civil society is based on these public servants making such sacrifices. Far too many individuals who feel drawn to public service do not pursue such careers--or they are forced to abandon such careers prematurely--due to the high cost of obtaining their college educations. When I had the opportunity to hear directly from a student at an Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in my home State of Maryland, I was saddened to hear from an academically successful sophomore who was planning to drop out of school because she feared further indebting herself and her family. She said that while she appreciated the financial assistance she did receive, it simply wasn't sufficient to cover her cost of attendance. While this student had aspirations to serve in her own community, she could not bear to burden her family with the cost of her education. As a result, my home City of Baltimore lost out on a young, engaged aspiring public servant. Our current system of indebting individuals at the onset of their careers has led to minority underrepresentation in the public sector workforce. First generation college students and students from low- income families cannot afford to take on student loan debt and enter into lower-paying public service careers. As a result, our Nation is deprived of the talents and perspectives of individuals who want to serve their communities but simply cannot afford to do so. As a result, our workforce is less representative of the people it serves. We must find new ways for people to earn the degrees they need to serve our communities. I believe that students who make a commitment to public service should be afforded a debt-free pathway to the baccalaureate degree they need to start their public service career. And those individuals who have already made the decision to choose service over salary should not have to wait for ten years in a lower-paying public career before seeing any reward in the form of Federal student loan forgiveness. The Strengthen American Communities Act I am introducing today offers a new path for future public servants to earn their baccalaureate degree. Through a new partnership between the Federal Government, States, and public and private, non-profit institutions of higher education, students will have the ability to receive the first two years of their education at a community college, Minority Serving Institution, or Historically Black College or University tuition- and fee-free. Colleges would be required to commit to ensuring student success, and students would have to meet certain academic standards and complete their education within two years. Once students transfer into a four-year institution for their junior and senior years, those who commit themselves to at least three years of public service and meet academic standards will receive a National Public Service Education Grant to pay a significant portion of their college's tuition, fees, and room and board costs. Universities must provide students with opportunities to engage in public service commitments, academic counseling and student support services, and the opportunity to earn to finish their degree in fewer than two years. Depending on a student's financial need, under the Strengthening American Communities Act, she or he may be able to graduate with a baccalaureate degree debt-free before embarking on the path to becoming a public servant. For those individuals who have already answered their calling to public service, my legislation would assist more public servants continue serving their communities by accelerating the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Under current law, these dedicated workers must work for 10 years in a public service career and make 120 payments on their Federal student loans before they see a dime of Federal student loan forgiveness. Economic, family, and other reasons can cause individuals to leave the public sector workforce and despite their years of service, the service these workers provided are not taken into consideration. I propose to accelerate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to provide more immediate student loan relief. For every two years of employment and corresponding monthly Federal student loan payments, hard-working public sector employees will receive a percentage of their student loans forgiven, with 100 percent of the Federal student loan balance being forgiven at the end of 10 years of service. By accelerating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, we can encourage additional individuals to stay in the public sector workforce despite the lower-paying salaries, reduce their cost of borrowing for home and auto loans, and set aside additional money for their own retirement. As Congress moves forward with an overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help individuals who are wholly committed to public service by supporting the Strengthening American Communities Act. No individual willing to serve his or her community in a public service career should be held back from that calling due to the high cost of obtaining a college education. No individual willing to serve his or her community should be forced to leave public service because of financial hardship.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is poised to confirm the nomination of David Cornstein to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Hungary. Against that backdrop, as well as reports that Secretary of State Pompeo will meet with the Hungarian Foreign Minister in Washington at the end of this month, it is timely to consider the troubling situation in Hungary. Budapest is a fabulous city. The Parliament is regarded by many as one of the most beautiful legislative houses in the world. Hungarians are a warm and generous people, and the United States and Hungary have a shared history dating to the times of Lajos Kossuth, whose bust graces the halls of the U.S. Congress. Hungarians have come to this country as both immigrants and refugees, enriching our national fabric. The beauty of Budapest masks a growing climate of fear, however. For the past 8 years, Hungary's ruling Fidesz party has tried to pass majoritarianism off as democracy. Media pluralism has disappeared. The government plays favorites with religions, preferring some while discriminating against others, like the Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship. Moreover, the checks and balances that are essential for democracy are missing in action. To say that the ruling party now exercises unchecked legal power is not an exercise in hyperbole, but merely a concise analysis of the facts. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has allowed corruption to flourish, enriching his own friends and family. The government has recentralized, and more of the economy is either under state control or in the hands of Orban's cronies. Once Fidesz won two-thirds of the seats in Parliament in 2010, the party changed the election system to perpetuate that outcome. As Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, elections observers concluded, separation of state and party is no longer respected. For a country that suffered under a one-party regime, that is a deeply disturbing conclusion. In 2013, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing on the trajectory of democracy in Hungary. Frankly, I did not think things would get this bad, in part because I did not think the ruling Fidesz party would become more extremist than Hungary's strongest opposition party, Jobbik, but after 2010, with Jobbik's anti-Semitic and anti-Roma rhetoric serving as a Greek chorus, Fidesz leaders carved out their own revisionist bona fides, worked to rehabilitate fascist-era figures, and repeatedly awarded, elevated, and amplified one of the country's most extremist polemicists. They determined that they could get away with further escalating hate-mongering against racial and religious minorities with one tweak: call them Muslims and migrants. Hatred, it seems, is fungible. Not surprisingly, the politics of fear, historical revisionism, and national grievances have found expression in the ruling party's foreign policy too. The most alarming example has been Hungary's opportunistic approach to Ukraine following Russia's 2014 invasion, with Hungary's rhetoric often echoing Moscow's. Overall, the Hungarian Government's approach suggests that it is not interested in a dialogue about the Hungarian minority in Ukraine, but in finding a new political enemy. The fact that this is music to Vladimir Putin's ears may be just a coincidence. In any case, Hungary's posture regarding Russia is unusual in the region, to say the least. As suggested in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report we issued on ``Putin's Asymmetric Assault,'' Russian disinformation isn't just creeping in over the transom; the Hungarian Government has opened the door and put out a welcome mat. Paradoxically, however, while Prime Minister Orban may tilt his country to east, Hungarians themselves remain among the most pro-European Union of Europeans and many still vote with their feet, forming a steady exodus west. In fact, the outward exodus is contributing to an emerging labor shortage. It is not surprising that Hungary gets compared to Russia: the nongovernmental organization, NGO, Law adopted in Budapest last year was inspired by Russia, proposed by Jobbik, and passed by Fidesz, but there are still big differences between Hungary and Russia. Journalists are not murdered in Hungary, and no one goes to jail for his or her opinions. Instead, Hungary is using a fist in a velvet glove to silence civil society and thwart political dissent without ever leaving a mark. Viktor Orban has mastered nonviolent means of repression. He has used the renationalization of segments of the economy, the recentralization of state authority, and the kleptocratic control of putatively private business to stymie opposition and dissent. I know political analysts are using a lot of different terms to describe the specific system that has emerged in Hungary under Orban--illiberal or mafia state? Oligarchy or kleptocracy? One of the most apt may be ``goulash authoritarianism.'' There are worrying signs that things may get worse before they get better. Viktor Orban now appears set to fulfill his campaign pledge to extract ``moral, political and legal'' retribution from those who opposed him. He welcomed the publication of an ``enemies list'' containing some 200 names--including numerous American citizens--and urged the close-to-Orban media to do more to root them out. This is the kind of smear campaign that often comes just before the gloves come off and the blows begin. Under these challenging circumstances, the United States needs to speak with a clear and unambiguous voice. As Senator Corker said at the confirmation hearing last week, ``Mr. Cornstein will have the important task of reminding the Government of Hungary that its future lies not in a return to the dark days of the past but in remaining an active member of the community of liberal democracies.'' Messages delivered behind closed doors are likely to have little effect or may even be completely misrepresented in public by Hungarian officials. The United States will always have a relationship with Hungary, but the question is: What kind of relationship will that be? One built on deeply shared values or only fleeting transactional interests? Our strongest alliances are with countries where human rights are respected and democracy is strong, and that is the kind of relationship I hope Mr. Cornstein will help build.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this Monday, we will celebrate Memorial Day. Across our proud Nation this Memorial Day weekend, we remember the men and women of our Armed Forces who made the greatest sacrifice imaginable. Whether it was on the battlefield of Antietam, the beaches of Normandy, or in the mountains of Afghanistan, thousands of Americans have taken up the mission to defend our Nation, ideals, and freedoms at home and abroad, knowing that they may not survive. This Memorial Day, let us pause to pay honor to their immense courage. I specifically remember the sacrifices of my fellow citizens from Maryland such as SPC Tocarra Green. She was the first woman from Maryland to die in the Iraq War. I remember SGT Erick M. Houck, a Baltimore native like me, who died in Afghanistan just last year. It is a remarkable notion that our fellow citizens were willing to pay such a high cost for our own freedom. They and those like them deserve every honor we can bestow. Memorial Day weekend often serves as an opportunity for Americans to spend time with friends and family. As we consider the cost of our freedom, let us also remember the families of our fallen, our Gold Star families. As we remember the sacrifices of our fallen servicemembers, we also recognize the tremendous loss to their families and admire their patriotism and perseverance. Despite all of these sacrifices, the struggle to preserve our freedom continues. Just as in times past, our enemies seek to threaten the freedom for which our American brothers and sisters have laid down their lives. These enemies don't just fight our troops on the battlefield; they have attacked the integrity of our electoral system and our freedom of speech while seeking to reverse our progress against racial inequity and religious freedom. One of the best ways to honor our fallen comrades is for us to work together to defend our freedom and our American principles. We cannot allow the erosion of the liberties our family members and friends have fought so hard to defend. As I pray for the fallen and their families this weekend, I will also pray for our men and women currently serving in harm's way and for their families too. I am truly grateful for those who have served our country, past and present, and I will continue to do my very best to serve them in return.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Strengthening American Communities (SAC) Act of 2018. My bill seeks to expand access to debt-free public service career pathways for Americans who want to serve their communities, States, or Nation. No one should be denied the opportunity to serve their community as a law enforcement officer, public health practitioner, social worker, or educator based on his or her ability to afford the rising cost of an undergraduate education. My bill is a first step toward correcting public sector workforce disparities by enabling people to serve their communities without being hobbled by massive student loan debt, and by providing current public servants with the financial freedom to continue to heed their calling to service. Every city, town, and rural community in the United States relies on individuals who choose to utilize their talents for the betterment of others while accepting the lower pay of public service careers. The very foundation of our civil society is based on these public servants making such sacrifices. Far too many individuals who feel drawn to public service do not pursue such careers--or they are forced to abandon such careers prematurely--due to the high cost of obtaining their college educations. When I had the opportunity to hear directly from a student at an Historically Black College and University (HBCU) in my home State of Maryland, I was saddened to hear from an academically successful sophomore who was planning to drop out of school because she feared further indebting herself and her family. She said that while she appreciated the financial assistance she did receive, it simply wasn't sufficient to cover her cost of attendance. While this student had aspirations to serve in her own community, she could not bear to burden her family with the cost of her education. As a result, my home City of Baltimore lost out on a young, engaged aspiring public servant. Our current system of indebting individuals at the onset of their careers has led to minority underrepresentation in the public sector workforce. First generation college students and students from low- income families cannot afford to take on student loan debt and enter into lower-paying public service careers. As a result, our Nation is deprived of the talents and perspectives of individuals who want to serve their communities but simply cannot afford to do so. As a result, our workforce is less representative of the people it serves. We must find new ways for people to earn the degrees they need to serve our communities. I believe that students who make a commitment to public service should be afforded a debt-free pathway to the baccalaureate degree they need to start their public service career. And those individuals who have already made the decision to choose service over salary should not have to wait for ten years in a lower-paying public career before seeing any reward in the form of Federal student loan forgiveness. The Strengthen American Communities Act I am introducing today offers a new path for future public servants to earn their baccalaureate degree. Through a new partnership between the Federal Government, States, and public and private, non-profit institutions of higher education, students will have the ability to receive the first two years of their education at a community college, Minority Serving Institution, or Historically Black College or University tuition- and fee-free. Colleges would be required to commit to ensuring student success, and students would have to meet certain academic standards and complete their education within two years. Once students transfer into a four-year institution for their junior and senior years, those who commit themselves to at least three years of public service and meet academic standards will receive a National Public Service Education Grant to pay a significant portion of their college's tuition, fees, and room and board costs. Universities must provide students with opportunities to engage in public service commitments, academic counseling and student support services, and the opportunity to earn to finish their degree in fewer than two years. Depending on a student's financial need, under the Strengthening American Communities Act, she or he may be able to graduate with a baccalaureate degree debt-free before embarking on the path to becoming a public servant. For those individuals who have already answered their calling to public service, my legislation would assist more public servants continue serving their communities by accelerating the existing Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Under current law, these dedicated workers must work for 10 years in a public service career and make 120 payments on their Federal student loans before they see a dime of Federal student loan forgiveness. Economic, family, and other reasons can cause individuals to leave the public sector workforce and despite their years of service, the service these workers provided are not taken into consideration. I propose to accelerate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program to provide more immediate student loan relief. For every two years of employment and corresponding monthly Federal student loan payments, hard-working public sector employees will receive a percentage of their student loans forgiven, with 100 percent of the Federal student loan balance being forgiven at the end of 10 years of service. By accelerating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, we can encourage additional individuals to stay in the public sector workforce despite the lower-paying salaries, reduce their cost of borrowing for home and auto loans, and set aside additional money for their own retirement. As Congress moves forward with an overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help individuals who are wholly committed to public service by supporting the Strengthening American Communities Act. No individual willing to serve his or her community in a public service career should be held back from that calling due to the high cost of obtaining a college education. No individual willing to serve his or her community should be forced to leave public service because of financial hardship.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the loss of Amy S. Caprio of the Baltimore County Police Department, who was 29 years old. Sadly, Ms. Caprio is the first female police officer to be killed in the line of duty in the history of the Baltimore County Police Department and the 10th officer killed in the history of the department. As a longtime resident of Baltimore County and as the Senator from Maryland, I want to express my profound sadness and condolences to the family and friends of Ms. Caprio, especially her husband Tim. Officer Caprio was killed on Monday after responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle and potentially a burglary in progress in the Perry Hall region. According to police reports, Officer Caprio had ordered suspects to leave the car when she was deliberately run over by a suspect. It is unclear whether a firearm was discharged, and police are reviewing the footage from her body camera before she was killed. The Baltimore County police now report that they have several suspects in custody, including juveniles who have been arrested and charged as adults with first-degree murder. A resident of the neighborhood told the Baltimore Sun that his son saw the officer struck by a vehicle. Tony Kurek, 54, had just walked into the door of his home when his son, Dakota, shouted to him: ``Dad, Dad, a cop just got run over out front,'' the father recalled his son saying. The officer was lying in front of his house, he said. Dakota told his father he had seen the officer draw her gun on a black Jeep Wrangler and order the people inside to get out. Instead, the driver sped forward, ramming the officer with the vehicle. She landed about 20 feet away. ``She basically landed almost in front of my mailbox,'' Kurek said. Let me thank the Kurek family, as well as the EMS and MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center staff, who rushed to try to save Officer Caprio's life. I know this event has shaken the Perry Hall community, as well as residents who were asked to shelter in place, and several local elementary schools were placed on lockdown during the police search for the suspects. I am hopeful that the Blue Alert System in use helped to quickly catch the suspects in this case. As we learn more about Officer Caprio's life, we grieve for her loss. According to a story in the Baltimore Sun, she served just shy of 4 years with the Baltimore County Police Department, but she had already proven herself to be a dedicated officer. She was credited with bringing down a pair of alleged package thiefs, closing dozens of cases reported around the county at the end of last year. Because of her efforts, the department was able to recover a cache of stolen property. The department officials stated: She didn't realize she was embarking on what would become a considerable investigation into holiday package thefts around the eastern portion of Baltimore County. This involved numerous cases being independently investigated by officers in multiple precincts, and would eventually result in the identification and arrest of two suspects, leading to the return of a very sentimental gift. Officer Caprio had pieced together evidence from security cameras, interviewed witnesses, tracked a vehicle, and compared notes with other officers who were investigating package thefts in the area. She ended up linking two suspects to dozens of stolen package cases in the Parkville, White Marsh, Dundalk, Towson, Cockeysville, and Essex precincts. When officers found the suspects' hotel room, it was filled with stolen goods, including a brightly colored handmade quilt with a heartfelt inscription that a woman had shipped to her granddaughter. This quilt was eventually returned to the family. Closing the case earned her praise across the nearly 2,000-member department, and she was named the Parkville precinct's officer of the month in March. Police Chief Terrence Sheridan said: Officer Caprio was the type of officer that you'd want to hire. She was the kind of officer that was going to go up in this organization. Officer Caprio had graduated from Towson University in 2010 and was a 2006 graduate of Loch Raven High School. She joined the county police department in July 2014. She graduated with the department's 140th recruit class in December 2014 and was initially assigned to the Essex precinct. The men and women of law enforcement put their lives on the line every day and run towards danger, not away from it. Family members always worry about being reunited with their spouses, parents, and family members at the end of the day. Last week, I held a delegation meeting in the Capitol with our Federal law enforcement officials from Maryland. I thanked them for their service and told them I would fight for the resources they need to combat crime and provide the best possible equipment and training for their agents. This includes providing full funding for the COPS and Byrne JAG Programs, which are absolutely critical to our Federal, State, and local law enforcement partnerships. Teamwork is critical, particularly when we are combating crime across jurisdictional boundaries. Last week was National Police Week. It is when we pause to recognize and remember those law enforcement and emergency services officers in Maryland who have paid the ultimate price and have made the ultimate sacrifice. Each spring, law enforcement takes a rollcall to solemnly mark the ``end of watch'' for the fallen law enforcement officers. Their names are then added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Judiciary Square, close to Capitol Hill. Carved on the memorial's walls are the names of more than 21,000 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history. Let me share with my colleagues the other law enforcement officers who were killed this past year in Maryland in addition to Officer Caprio. Sean Matthew Suiter, a detective in the Baltimore City Police Department, was shot on November 15, 2017, while attempting to interview a suspect during a homicide investigation. Sander Benjamin Cohen, a deputy chief in the Maryland Office of the State Fire Marshal, was killed in a traffic accident on December 8, 2017, as he attempted to assist a law enforcement officer whose car was disabled on I-270. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Carlos Wolff was also killed. This year, on February 21, 2018, Corporal Mujahid Ramzziddin, a corporal in the Prince George's County Police Department, in Maryland, was killed while he was off duty and assisting a woman who was involved in a domestic dispute. Once again, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to keep Officer Caprio's family and colleagues in their thoughts and prayers today. We thank our law enforcement officers and all first responders who run towards danger instead of away from it. Congress should make sure that our officers have all of the tools and resources they need to effectively carry out their mission to protect and serve their communities and bring offenders to justice. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 52, which would reinstate the free and open internet. I thank my colleagues, Senator Markey and others, for bringing this to our attention. It deals with the Congressional Review Act to block regulation which had been suggested that would repeal the protections we have on the free internet. Let me just give a little bit of background so we can put this in context. Internet service providers--known as ISPs--are basically utility companies that provide internet service to our constituents, to our businesses, and to America. Without the protection for net neutrality, these utilities have the ability to block or throttle content on the internet or charging what is known as being in the fast lane, charging more. So this is a debate between whether we are on the side of the big utility companies that provide internet service and their special interests or the individuals and small businesses of America to guarantee them equal access to this critical service. Let me give one example, and there are many that can be given. I am sure, in every one of our communities, we have a lot of small businesses. They recognize that they can now do business on the internet, and they have an opportunity to compete with the large companies that do most of their business through the internet. In Baltimore, in Maryland, I have small shop owners. One I am particularly familiar with sells bikes. This shop owner now is using the internet in order to get to customers so he can show his wares on the internet and be able to compete against one of the large, giant retailers that does a lot of business on the internet. If a consumer in Baltimore goes onto that bike shop's website, and if the product that consumer is interested in will not pop up within a couple seconds, the consumer is gone. There has been study after study that shows that about 3 seconds is the maximum attention span of a consumer shopping on the internet. The large store that has access to the fast-service broadband will have an incredible advantage over our small businesses if we allow the utility that provides the internet service to discriminate against the smaller users. That is what this debate is about. It is about protecting individual consumers, and it is about protecting small businesses. There is a reason why, in 2015, the open internet order was passed to protect utilities that provide internet service from blocking or slowing down internet service. Broadband internet service is a public utility. It is interesting that almost half of the consumers have no choice in whom they have to provide their internet service. They have basically one internet provider to choose from. Competition does not exist. So this is not a matter of competition; this is a matter of preventing discrimination. I have had the honor of being the ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, and I can tell you, on behalf of the small businesses of Maryland and around the Nation, on behalf of farm owners around the Nation, they need to have access to the internet, and they depend upon net neutrality. Fifty-six percent of the small business owners oppose the FCC's repeal of net neutrality; 70 percent of small business owners feel they are at a disadvantage compared to a large corporation due to their size and market power. The internet gives them that capacity to try to equalize that disadvantage. John Duda is co-owner of Red Emma's, a cooperative bookstore and restaurant in my hometown in Baltimore. He summed it up best by saying: I don't have the money to pay an internet service provider to guarantee my website will load quickly for all users, so I'm concerned the end of net neutrality means customers will buy from retailers that have the resources to pay for faster service. Additionally, if my internet service provider slows load times for--or blocks access to--my web content, we'll be up against more than just larger book sellers or restaurants--we're suddenly competing against any website that loads quickly because those are the ones that will draw people's attention. This is a matter of economic survival for small businesses. Everybody wants to make sure they have access and that we have superhighways for broadband. We have that in Maryland, and we need the last mile to make sure you can get connected. Absolutely, we have to do more to make sure all communities have access to internet service, but, like healthcare, if you don't have quality care, access is not going to help you. You need to be able to have reliable broadband service. Net neutrality has lowered the barriers to starting and growing a small business, and that is undeniably good for our economy. We all brag about the fact that small businesses are the growth engine of America and more jobs are created by small business, innovation, et cetera. Let's make sure we give small business what they need. Let's preserve net neutrality. As FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel put it, ``For the first time, small business could think big and consumers could shop small, from anywhere in the world.'' Think about that for a moment: Small businesses can think big because they have access to the internet, and consumers can shop anywhere in the world and shop in small companies anywhere in the world. The loss of net neutrality jeopardizes that progress. In every State, community, and home across our Nation, Americans expect the water coming out of their tap to flow on demand and be safe to drink. They expect the lights in their homes to go on thanks to the utility company that provides the electricity. And, yes, they not only want but need to have access to broadband internet in the very same way. This is a utility, and it needs to be regulated as such. These providers should not have the last word in what any American can see on the internet. Access to the information vital for our democracy and our economy to function must be preserved. Congress has a chance to put consumers and small businesses first and prevent the FCC from bowing to corporate interests instead of serving the public interest. I urge my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 52. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the recent rise of anti- Semitism and racism in our communities. As Members of Congress, we have an enormous responsibility to take strong action and stand up against intolerance before it takes root in the next generation. It is incumbent upon all people to ensure that adequate tools are in place to counter the resurgence of fear and hate- mongering--whether directed at old targets or new--that led to the Holocaust and other atrocities. America must maintain its leadership abroad, especially when it comes to the issues of human rights and religious freedom--the core foundations upon which our Nation was built. We must uphold these standards here at home and defend and promote them globally. In my role as the representative on anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, I visited Paris and Copenhagen and met with local leaders in the aftermath of the violent, anti-Semitic attacks in 2015, including the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The gruesome murder of Holocaust survivor Mireille Knoll in Paris on March 24 is a grim reminder of the urgency of our task. In Poland, there have been no attacks recently, but there is a growing climate of fear. Government officials have equivocated regarding Polish responsibility for the World War II massacre in Jedwabne and the postwar pogrom in Kielce, which occurred on our Independence Day--July 4, 1946. The Polish President recently signed into law an anti-defamation bill that makes it illegal to attribute responsibility for or complicity during the Holocaust to the Polish nation or state. This law will, in fact, restrict academic freedom, chill free speech, and hinder teaching about the Holocaust and the crimes committed in occupied Poland during World War II. In Hungary, Viktor Orban has stoked a campaign of hatred against migrants and Muslims in his bid for a third term as Prime Minister. In the final days of his campaign and perhaps revealing some concerns for his margin of victory, his party has sharpened its call for a country that is White and Christian, escalating its anti-Semitic and anti-Roma rhetoric. Here at home, we have witnessed extremists and neo-Nazis marching in the streets openly carrying painful hate symbols from the 1930s. In a brazen public display, neo-Nazis and White supremacist groups took to the streets in Charlottesville, VA, last August, inciting violence that cost 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer her life. Just this past weekend, another group of neo-Nazis marched in Newnan, GA, and burned a large swastika afterwards. Burt Colucci, a member of the National Socialist Movement, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that there was no particular reason Newnan was chosen for the rally. He said: We pick these rallies randomly. It is always preferable that it is in a white town. How can we address these challenges and build a more tolerant, peaceful, and global community? Earlier this year, in commemoration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Italian Government hosted the Rome International Conference on the Responsibility of States, Institutions and Individuals in the Fight against Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Area. At that event that convened on the 80th anniversary of the passage of Italy's ``racial laws,'' which discriminated against Jews and people of African descent, leaders from across Europe and the United States recommitted to address anti-Semitism in their societies--from collecting and reporting hate crime data to supporting education--at a time when few Holocaust survivors or witnesses to the atrocities of World War II remain. The OSCE also reported on its Turning Words Into Action project, designed to assist governments and civil societies in bolstering security for Jewish communities, educate our own societies on how to recognize and address prejudice, and build coalitions between Jewish and other communities. Yet, at this critical juncture, we have been cutting funding and other resources meant to bolster America's diplomatic efforts abroad. It is for this reason that I fought to include $1 million to combat global anti-Semitism in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill recently passed by Congress. I also wrote letters urging President Trump and his administration to select a new special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. This position has been critical in working with governments and organizations abroad to facilitate action against anti-Semitism in communities around the world. We must all understand that a threat against one religion, race, or ethnicity is a threat against all religions, races, and ethnicities. Hatred unleashed rarely forms its own boundaries. In the aftermath of World War II, a Protestant pastor famously said: In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; and then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; and then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; and then they came for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak up. History has shown time and again that the failure of governments and political leaders to denounce those who advance an agenda of hate and bigotry brings instability and violence. As hate crimes continue to rise in our own Nation and as the number of refugees around the world fleeing political violence and persecution reaches record highs, we must reaffirm our sense of duty and our commitment to preserving freedom, equality, and fundamental human rights for all people. Addressing the anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination and persecution takes a concerted and sustained effort from a coalition of governments, faith and community leaders, and global advocates to denounce these atrocities and promote peace and tolerance around the world. Now more than ever, we need to join together and speak up to protect human rights around the globe because it is in all of our interests to do so. We must also use tools available to us, from hate crime laws to capacity-building measures for civil society and governments, such as those offered by the OSCE. I will continue to stand alongside civil society and remain an advocate for equality and human rights, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time because I know that shortly we are going to be voting on Mr. Pompeo's nomination as Secretary of State, and I want to explain to my colleagues why I cannot support his nomination. As I said in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his nomination hearing, I appreciate Mr. Pompeo's public service throughout his career--his service in the military and his service in Congress and as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I also appreciate the fact that he is willing to serve our Nation in this most important post as Secretary of State. In the United States, we urgently need a confirmed Secretary of State, but it is our responsibility in the U.S. Senate to advise and consent on the President's nominations and to act as an independent branch of government. I must state that we are in this urgent need because of Mr. Trump's abrupt dismissal of our former Secretary of State in the midst of many international challenges. In my view, though, Mr. Pompeo is not the right person. I reached that conclusion by his actions and his rhetoric. If Mr. Pompeo is confirmed, he will be the top diplomat for the United States. He must be an independent voice in the White House. I have questions as to whether he will be that independent voice. He needs to engage our allies. That is how our diplomacy works. He has to be the loudest voice for diplomacy in our national security, in the use of our tools, and the military needs to be a matter of last resort. I was reminded of this challenge for America when President Macron addressed the joint session of Congress yesterday. President Macron pointed out that the United States established multinational world order in the aftermath of World War II, which is embodied in the transatlantic partnership, and we, the United States, must lead in order to preserve that national security blanket. So it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to work with our allies--particularly our European allies but all of our allies. As just one example, when I look at Mr. Pompeo's record in regard to the nuclear agreement with Iran, during that discussion as to whether we would have diplomacy, it was Mr. Pompeo who said that the solution rests with 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iran nuclear capacity. That is not diplomacy. That is not leading with diplomacy. Now he is espousing that, if necessary, we should pull out of the agreement if we can't change it, even though Iran is in compliance with the agreement. That is not diplomacy, and that is certainly not working with our European allies. Yesterday, we heard President Macron assert that it is critically important that that agreement move forward if Iran is in compliance. Yes, we can build on it, but to walk away from it would be wrong. Another example that gives me great concern is Mr. Pompeo's position in regard to the Paris climate talks. I know we all have different views about climate and what our individual policy should be in order to deal with the realities of climate change, but one thing should be clear: that we want to be in the discussions with the international community. In regard to Iran, Mr. Pompeo would isolate us from our European allies, but in regard to withdrawing from the Paris climate talks, he would isolate America from every other nation in the world. We would be the only nation not a part of that discussion. Let me remind my colleagues that the commitments made in Paris are only enforceable by us. There is no international enforcement mechanism. Words matter. A top diplomat needs to engage a very diverse global community. Mr. Pompeo's words unfortunately make it very challenging for him to be able to have the confidence of the international community. He associated American Muslims with terrorism by stating that their perceived silence in condemning attacks ``has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit.'' I know that after each of the horrible terrorist activities we have seen in America, Muslim leaders in Maryland and Muslim leaders around the world have stood up and said that they condemn in the strongest possible terms those terrorist acts. That should have no space. Unfortunately, those types of comments give space to those who are promoting a form of nationalism that allows for hate-mongering, and that cannot be tolerated in our country. The LGBTQ community is rightly concerned. I go to Mr. Pompeo citing verbatim the following passage from a sermon castrating members of the LGBTQ community. America has worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism. We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle. That type of language should have no place for someone who wants to be the top diplomat of America. So I have come to the conclusion, based upon the necessity of the Secretary of State to engage the national community, to provide leadership and the use of diplomacy, that based upon those--my priorities, policy priorities, not politics or partisanship--that I cannot support Mr. Pompeo for Secretary of State. I want to conclude with this. I have had the chance to lead the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee my entire 12 years in this institution. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its leaders have had a long tradition of bipartisanship, of recognizing the independent role of the legislative branch and the critical role played by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and we are always stronger when we act in unity. That is a tradition of our committee. I want to just point out that I don't question anyone's motives on how they vote on the nominee for the Secretary of State, but I have great confidence that we in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will continue the great tradition we have established as an independent voice and as a voice that tries to work in unity in the best interest of our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering two important labor-related nominations: the nominations of John Ring to serve as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, and Patrick Pizzella to serve as Deputy Secretary of Labor, DOL. Unfortunately, given the nominees' well-documented hostility to the collective bargaining rights of working men and women, I will not vote to confirm either of them. If Mr. Ring is confirmed, he will restore the Board to the 3-2 anti- labor majority, with no assurances that President Trump will fill the Democratic seat of former chairman Mark Gaston Pearce expiring this summer. It is important to note here that nominations to the NLRB have traditionally been confirmed in bipartisan pairs. Mr. Ring authored blog posts calling the NLRB an ``activist'' organization during the Obama administration. In other blog posts, he characterized the NLRB's union election procedures as ``some of the biggest assaults on employer rights in recent history.'' In fact, the election rule simply modernized union election procedures and has actually resulted in slightly fewer union elections. During the brief 3-2 Republican majority late last year before then- Board Chairman Phillip Miscimarra completed his term on December 16, 2017, the NLRB rushed to overturn landmark decisions, weakening workers' rights under the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, and undermining the statute's core purpose of promoting collective bargaining, including the Browning-Ferris Industries joint employer standard decision. The Board's inspector general has faulted those efforts, and the Board has been forced to vacate the joint employer decision. A new Republican majority may reorganize the NLRB in ways that are unfavorable to workers and their collective bargaining rights. Mr. Pizzella is a vocal advocate of so-called right-to-work laws. They really ought to be called right-to-be-exploited laws. As Ross Eisenbray of the Economic Policy Institute reported last year, ``Wages are 3.1 percent lower in so-called `right to work' (RTW) states, for union and nonunion workers alike--after correctly accounting for differences in cost of living, demographics, and labor market characteristics. The negative impact of RTW laws translates to $1,558 less a year in earnings for a typical full-time worker.'' There is a clear correlation between the decline in union membership and stagnant wages. If the Senate confirms Mr. Pizzella and Mr. Ring, the Republican assault on unions and collective bargaining rights enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, will gain momentum, and working people and their families will suffer as a result. Mr. Pizzella previously served at the Department of Labor, as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration and Management under President George W. Bush. During Mr. Pizzella's previous tenure at DOL, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, determined that the Department left workers vulnerable to unscrupulous employers while investigating complaints of minimum wage, overtime, and child labor violations. GAO found that the Wage and Hour Division's complaint intake, complaint resolution, and investigation processes were ineffective and discouraged workers from lodging wage-theft complaints. Mr. Pizzella also has expressed his antipathy to Federal workers and their unions. I am proud to represent many of these public servants. The Federal workforce is one of our Nation's finest assets, and public sector unions make it more productive. It is ironic that the Senate is considering two nominees this week who are openly hostile to the collective bargaining rights of working people. Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, which symbolizes the number of extra days a typical woman who works full-time, year-round must work into 2018 to be paid what a typical man was paid in 2017. Women are still only paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to a man, a yearly pay difference of $10,086, and the disparity is even worse for many women of color. Based on an analysis of Census Bureau data, the National Partnership for Women and Families is releasing a study which concludes that, in sum, women employed full time in the U.S. will lose nearly $900 billion to the wage gap this year. If the wage gap were closed, on average, a working woman in this country would be able to afford more than 1 additional year of tuition and fees for a 4-year public university, 74 more weeks of food for her family, nearly 7 more months of mortgage and utility payments, or 14 more months of childcare. If Mr. Ring and Mr. Pizzella and President Trump are unwilling to protect female workers and try to close that pay gap, which seems likely, then let us let us arm women with the most powerful tool in our legal system: the U.S. Constitution. Let us finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA. The ERA is barely longer than a tweet, but it would finally give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. Section 1 of the ERA states, quite simply, that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' When Congress proposed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States--38 States--within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution, but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982. Note that the deadline wasn't contained in the amendment itself; the deadline was in the text of the joint resolution. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for the ratification of amendments, so the ERA deadline is arbitrary. To put the matter in context, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits congressional pay raises without an intervening election, was ratified in 1992, 203 years after it was first proposed. The Senate should vote on a Senate Joint Resolution I have introduced--S.J. Res. 5--to remove the ERA deadline, and every State in our Union that has not yet taken up its consideration should do so without any further delay. Nevada became the 36th State to ratify the amendment last March, leaving the ERA just two States short of the required three-fourths of the States threshold under the Constitution if the deadline were to be abolished. The ERA would incorporate a ban on gender-based discrimination, explicitly written or otherwise, into the Constitution. It could change outcomes in discrimination cases by requiring the Supreme Court to use the higher standard of ``strict scrutiny'' when assessing those cases, the same standard used in racial and religious discrimination cases. I think many--perhaps most--Americans would be shocked to learn that our Constitution has no provision expressly prohibiting gender discrimination. In a 2011 interview, the late Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the need for an Equal Rights Amendment best. He said, ``Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.'' So I ask my Senate colleagues this question most sincerely: Are we willing to do what must be done to prohibit gender discrimination in the Constitution? The people being affected by systemic gender inequality are our constituents. They are our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and our granddaughters. They are American citizens who deserve basic respect and equality. It is time to end the assault on working families in this country. Let's end discrimination by making it possible to ratify the ERA. Let's close the pay gap. Let's stop denigrating Federal workers. Let's support, not attack, the collective bargaining rights that are the cornerstone of a strong middle class. I regret that the Senate is poised to confirm two individuals who are unlikely to assist these efforts. We can and must do better.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the contributions of Renee Sprow, who dedicated over 30 years of service to the Small Business Development Center, SBDC, network. Ms. Sprow spent her career promoting economic development and the growth of small businesses, which means that she spent her career helping countless people and their families achieve the American dream. One of many highlights of Ms. Sprow's service to the Federal Government and private industry was her critical role in helping to establish the National Minority Purchasing Council, now known as the National Minority Supplier Development Council, which reports private contracts exceeding $1 billion to minority suppliers. She designed and directed small, minority and women-owned subcontracting programs for major Federal and private-sector construction and revitalization projects, resulting in the award of multimillion dollar subcontracts. Under Ms. Sprow's leadership as director of the Maryland SBDC, the value of contracts awarded to minority firms who met the U.S. Department of Defense's Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business Utilization qualifications increased by more than 200 percent. Ms. Sprow also participated in the drafting of Public Law 95-507, which established the legal authority to reshape Federal procurement policy for contracting with minority and women-owned firms. As an entrepreneur herself, Mr. Sprow owned and operated two businesses that generated annual revenues exceeding $1 million. Ms. Sprow's objective while serving as director of the Maryland SBDC was to contribute to economic development within the State by making the network responsive to the needs of Maryland's small business community. She deftly managed a $4.3 million annual budget and 50 staff members in 22 offices located throughout Maryland. During her tenure, she realigned the SBDC network to target assistance to businesses more effectively and efficiently. In 2009, one of her regions ranked first in region III and second nationwide for the annual SBDC of the Year award presented by the Small Business Administration, SBA. In addition, the Washington, DC, and Baltimore district SBA offices each selected a Maryland SBDC region as the winner of the 2009 SBDC Excellence and Innovation Center Award. Ms. Sprow transformed the SBDC network's operational methods to favor economic outcomes over mere output. To do so, she instituted a management performance system to ensure accountability for network performance. This management tool for evaluating, measuring, analyzing, and improving SBDC operations also helped objectively determine economic impact and customer satisfaction. Ms. Sprow established a subsidiary program to assist firms in obtaining government contracts. In 2008, the program's clients obtained more than $37 million in government contracts. In conjunction, she developed industry assistance programs for high technology, retail, construction, and green business opportunities in response to client needs. Under Ms. Sprow's leadership, the Maryland SBDC attained national accreditation in 2000, 2005, and 2009. It is no surprise that, thanks in part to Ms. Sprow's significant contributions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has named Maryland the No. 1 State in the Nation for entrepreneurship and innovation. Ms. Sprow received a B.A. in business administration from Howard University and a master's degree in business administration, specializing in marketing, from The George Washington University. She was the guest of honor at a luncheon last week, while the Senate was in recess, to celebrate her career and her retirement, so I wanted to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Sprow for her exemplary service to her community, to Maryland, and the Nation and to send our best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am deeply saddened by the recent death of my friend and colleague, Representative Louise Slaughter. We served together in the House of Representatives and on the Helsinki Commission, which monitors human rights commitments across the globe. Her time on the Commission is one of the many examples of her unwavering commitment to justice and human dignity. Louise first became interested in the Helsinki Commission's work in the early 1990s when she joined congressional efforts to address the mass rape of women and girls as a deliberate and systematic part of the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In her calls for justice, she worked to ensure that rape wouldn't be considered as unfortunate violence incidental to conflict, but as a war crime and crime against humanity to be prosecuted as such. Her commitment to peace, justice, and reconciliation in Bosnia and the Balkans extended well beyond the period of conflict. In 2009, she joined a Helsinki Commission delegation I led to Sarajevo, where she championed the efforts of university students who saw the politics of ethnicity and nationalism--and the corruption it perpetuates--as denying them opportunities for a brighter future in a more prosperous Bosnia. She also worked to ensure those guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were prosecuted and to provide humanitarian relief to victims of the conflict. As part of her efforts to promote human rights around the world, we traveled together on a commission delegation to Greece in 1998 to advance the rights of Roma, Europe's largest ethnic minority population that historically faced persecution, were the victims of genocide during the Second World War, and continue to face disproportionate levels of racism and discrimination to this day. Few other Members of Congress, House or Senate, matched her ongoing and effective engagement. During her time on the Helsinki Commission, Louise represented the United States at numerous meetings of the Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe, OSCE, Parliamentary Assembly, an interparliamentary body which has encouraged diplomats to focus on issues of concern and importance to the United States, especially human rights and fundamental freedoms. From 1993 to 2010, she participated in more than a dozen assembly meetings as a member of U.S. delegations, helping to show the depth of our country's commitment to transatlantic relations. Louise was born in Kentucky. Her father was a blacksmith for a coal mine. She had a sister who died of pneumonia as a child, which impelled Louise to pursue degrees in microbiology and public health at the University of Kentucky. She moved to New York to work for Procter & Gamble and was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1982 and then to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986. We were House freshmen together. She coauthored the Violence Against Women Act--VAWA--secured funding for breast cancer research, and was responsible for establishing an office of research on women's health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In 2007, she became the first woman in U.S. history to chair the House Committee on Rules. Louise was legendary in the Rochester area as her constituents know well. Her background as a microbiologist shaped her priorities in securing infrastructure upgrades, research funding for local universities, and bringing two manufacturing institutes to the area. She most recently secured funding for Rochester's new Amtrak station, which is rightfully being renamed in her memory. Louise was universally respected, and it has been an honor to call her a friend and colleague, as well as to have served on the Helsinki Commission with her for two decades. My thoughts and prayers go out to her children and the rest of her family, friends, and constituents during this difficult time. She had an extraordinary life and her myriad accomplishments on behalf of her constituents, other New Yorkers, all Americans, and indeed all of humanity secure her legacy and are a wonderful testament of her commitment to public service.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate J. Michael ``Mike'' Nussman, who is retiring next week from the American Sportfishing Association, ASA, the trade association that represents the recreational fishing industry. Mr. Nussman joined the ASA's government relations team in 1992 and became president and chief executive office of the association in 2001. I am proud to call him a fellow Marylander. Sportfishing provides outdoor recreation for more than 47 million Americans each year. In Maryland, we are blessed with some of the best fishing opportunities in the Nation. From fishing for striped bass-- ``rockfish''--on the Chesapeake Bay, to fly fishing for trout on the Gunpowder, to fishing for smallmouth bass on the Potomac, we have great waters and angling throughout our State. Whether casting for yellow perch and pickerel on the Eastern Shore or trolling for tuna and white marlin off Ocean City, fishing in Maryland provides opportunities for young people and families to get into the great outdoors and enjoy our public lands and waters. Like many other outdoor industries, sport fishing is sometimes overlooked as a significant job generator and economic engine. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that, nationwide, recreational fishing generates $48 billion in retail sales, $115 billion in total economic activity, and 828,000 jobs. In 2016, Congress passed the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act. Because of that legislation, in 2018, the U.S. Commerce Department Bureau of Economic Analysis included outdoor recreation's impact, including fishing and boating, in our Nation's gross domestic product, GDP, for the first time. Possibly the most important aspect of recreational fishing is that sportfishing manufacturers, anglers, and boaters pay for most of State fish and wildlife agencies' fisheries conservation and boating programs. Through special Federal excise and fishing license sales, anglers and boaters are providing more than $1.2 billion each year in funds that are allocated to the States Much of this progress is due to the leadership of Mr. Nussman, who hails from Crownsville, MD. While ASA has been a trade association since 1933, it has really been in the past 25 years--a period that coincides with his tenure--that the organization has assumed more of a leadership role in the angling community. With the support of ASA, the aforementioned excise taxes have been expanded to cover programs such as wetlands restoration, boating safety and infrastructure, and the establishment of the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation, RBFF. In fact, Mike Nussman led the effort to establish RBFF to turn around a decline in recreational fishing participation, which started to appear in the 1990s. The most recent data indicate an upward trend in recreational fishing, including among more diverse and urban communities. Mr. Nussman's success should come as no surprise. He worked for the Senate Commerce Committee and then-Chairman Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. Mr. Nussman was the lead professional staff member for the subcommittee that oversees fisheries policy, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Prior to that, Mr. Nussman worked for the South Carolina Sea Grant Program, earning undergraduate and graduate degrees in science, and an MBA from the University of South Carolina. Mr. Nussman's tenure at the ASA also has improved the organization's business operations. The sportfishing industry's annual trade show is now the largest in the world. His leadership has made the organization financially strong, helping it weather economic downturns. He has also served on numerous boards of directors and advisory groups, from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources. He has served as a U.S. Commissioner on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Trade associations serve a unique role by allowing companies in the same industry to come together to express their views on issues affecting the entire industry. They are an important segment of our U.S. private sector and provide a legal, accepted mechanism to allow small and large companies in an industry to have a common voice when working with the Congress, the Executive, the States, and local governments. When Mr. Nussman joined the ASA, he brought special expertise as a former Senate staffer to the recreational fishing industry and conservation communities. So upon the occasion of his retirement, I think it appropriate that he be recognized and congratulated today for a job well done. Anglers and sportfishing- related businesses in Maryland and across our Nation can be thankful that he has been at the ASA helm. I wish him all the best as he begins the next chapter in his life which will include, presumably, even more time for fishing.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Fairness Act of 2018, the common sense legislation I am introducing with the junior Senator from Maryland today. This legislation seeks to eliminate a barrier that potential college students with difficult personal and financial circumstances face when applying for Federal financial aid. This body has worked to improve the college application process for students and their families over the last several years and successfully lobbied the Department of Education to allow students and their families to submit their FAFSA application in October and utilize prior-prior year tax data. These changes provide future college students and their families with several months to submit their financial information instead of a short time frame between January and February to meet State and institutional based deadlines for need- and merit-based financial aid programs. These steps have made it easier to students to sit with their families and make informed financial decisions on which college or university will provide the student with the highest quality yet least expensive college education. Despite our work, a number of our students are being left behind and cannot take advantage of these changes. Those students, who face difficult personal and financial situations, including those who have left home due to abusive family environments, have parents who are incarcerated, or are unable to locate their parents are unable to fill out the FAFSA application. Rather than fill out one universal Federal financial aid application form, a potential college student must contact each institution they are applying to and undergo a ``dependency override'' process before a college or university will put together an estimated financial aid package for the student. Under this process, a student applying to one university in my state must submit nine different pieces of financial information, personal statement, and references in order to verify their independent status. These students, often first generation students unfamiliar with the process for applying to school, may give up on the dependency override process and fail to finish the college application process or leave significant Federal financial aid on the table. The FAFSA Fairness Act would seek to correct this inequity for some of our most vulnerable students. If enacted, my legislation would allow students in these difficult personal and financial circumstances to fill out a FAFSA as a ``provisional independent'' student that colleges and universities would be able to provide those students with an initial financial aid award package. Once the student has had the opportunity to review the financial aid award packages from the schools they applied to and selected the school of their choice, that school's financial aid administrators will work with the student to complete the ``dependency override'' process and finalize the student's financial aid award package. I'm proud to lead the Senate efforts with my seatmate from Maryland and appreciate the work of my colleague from Maryland's 7th Congressional District to lead this effort in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help students achieve their dream of higher education despite their difficult family and financial circumstances. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Fairness Act of 2018, the common sense legislation I am introducing with the junior Senator from Maryland today. This legislation seeks to eliminate a barrier that potential college students with difficult personal and financial circumstances face when applying for Federal financial aid. This body has worked to improve the college application process for students and their families over the last several years and successfully lobbied the Department of Education to allow students and their families to submit their FAFSA application in October and utilize prior-prior year tax data. These changes provide future college students and their families with several months to submit their financial information instead of a short time frame between January and February to meet State and institutional based deadlines for need- and merit-based financial aid programs. These steps have made it easier to students to sit with their families and make informed financial decisions on which college or university will provide the student with the highest quality yet least expensive college education. Despite our work, a number of our students are being left behind and cannot take advantage of these changes. Those students, who face difficult personal and financial situations, including those who have left home due to abusive family environments, have parents who are incarcerated, or are unable to locate their parents are unable to fill out the FAFSA application. Rather than fill out one universal Federal financial aid application form, a potential college student must contact each institution they are applying to and undergo a ``dependency override'' process before a college or university will put together an estimated financial aid package for the student. Under this process, a student applying to one university in my state must submit nine different pieces of financial information, personal statement, and references in order to verify their independent status. These students, often first generation students unfamiliar with the process for applying to school, may give up on the dependency override process and fail to finish the college application process or leave significant Federal financial aid on the table. The FAFSA Fairness Act would seek to correct this inequity for some of our most vulnerable students. If enacted, my legislation would allow students in these difficult personal and financial circumstances to fill out a FAFSA as a ``provisional independent'' student that colleges and universities would be able to provide those students with an initial financial aid award package. Once the student has had the opportunity to review the financial aid award packages from the schools they applied to and selected the school of their choice, that school's financial aid administrators will work with the student to complete the ``dependency override'' process and finalize the student's financial aid award package. I'm proud to lead the Senate efforts with my seatmate from Maryland and appreciate the work of my colleague from Maryland's 7th Congressional District to lead this effort in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help students achieve their dream of higher education despite their difficult family and financial circumstances. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today, as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish to recognize America's small business development centers, SBDC, and the vital role this national business assistance and counseling network plays in supporting economic development, job creation, and success at our Main Street small businesses. The mission of the nationwide SBDC network is to help America's entrepreneurs realize the dream of businessownership and assist existing small businesses in adapting to the changing marketplace and compete in the global economy. SBDCs are hosted by universities, colleges, and State economic development agencies and funded in part by our Small Business Administration. There are nearly 1,000 SBDC service centers and 4,000 SBDC consultants available to provide free and low-cost business consulting and training to help entrepreneurs write a business plan, access capital, market their products, and recover when a disaster strikes. SBDCs offer a great return on investment for taxpayers. It is estimated that SBDC small business clients create a new job every 5 minutes and a new business every 30 minutes and generate $100,000 in capital every 10 minutes. Job growth for SBDC clients is more than 14 times higher than job growth for an average business. Last year, the Maryland SBDC at the University of Maryland in College Park assisted almost 8,000 businesses, counseled 2,200 entrepreneurs, and helped train nearly 5,700 businessowners. Small business services provided by the Maryland SBDC led to the creation of 208 businesses and 1,251 jobs and access to $49 million in capital. Behind the statistics are real Marylanders who realized their small business dream with the help of an SBDC consultant, like a women-owned restaurant in Baltimore called Flavor. In 2015, Julia and Vanna Belton went to their local SBDC office for help securing a business loan. After months of tinkering with their business plan and adjusting their loan paperwork, their SBDC consultant guided Julia and Vanna to approval on an $800,000 SBA loan they used to purchase and renovate a building for their restaurant. Today, the restaurant has $1.2 million in revenue and 30 full and part-time employees. Last year, they were named Maryland's ``2017 Women-owned Business of the Year.'' Flavor is just one of the millions of small businesses and entrepreneurs who have been touched by America's Small business development centers over the last 35 years. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated men and women of America's small business development center network and to thank them for their commitment to the small businesses that drive the American economy. Thank you.