Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, just last Wednesday, I spoke on the Senate floor about the extremely suspicious timing of the firing of FBI Director James Comey by President Trump. In the past few days, President Trump's actions, statements, and changing of his story on the Comey firing has only strengthened the case for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate ties and collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government in the 2016 Presidential election. Congress should also establish an independent commission to get to the bottom of the Russian interference in our election. In addition, there needs to be an independent investigation into whether Mr. Trump abused power and played a role in obstruction of justice in terms of the ongoing criminal investigation at the Department of Justice. Let me start by going back to the beginning of the Trump administration. According to news reports, on January 27, Mr. Trump invited Mr. Comey to a private dinner with him at the White House. Mr. Trump then asked Mr. Comey for his ``loyalty,'' but Mr. Comey only promised to provide his ``honesty'' or his ``honest loyalty.'' Why did the President allegedly ask Director Comey for his loyalty? On March 4, President Trump tweeted without evidence that ``how low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!'' On March 20, Mr. Comey testified he has ``no information'' to support Mr. Trump's claim. Why did the President try to distract the public's attention by blaming President Obama for the Russia investigation? On April 12, in an interview, Mr. Trump said Mr. Comey ``saved Hillary Clinton'' during the campaign and said that ``it's not too late'' to remove Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump continued: ``But, you know, I have confidence in him. We'll see what happens, you know, it's going to be interesting.'' What changed between Mr. Trump having confidence in Mr. Comey in April and firing him in May? On May 3, Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said ``it makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election.'' On May 8, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both testified before the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Yates testified about the warnings she gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn about how National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was compromised by the Russians and was lying to White House staff and the Vice President about his conversations and interactions with the Russians. On May 9, we witnessed a series of three letters, all dated that day. The first letter was from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Rosenstein letter concludes that the FBI's reputation and credibility had suffered ``substantial damage'' due to Mr. Comey's actions during the Clinton email investigation. Notably, Rosenstein's memo does not explicitly recommend Mr. Comey's removal. That same day, Attorney General Sessions, who has recused himself from the Russia-Trump campaign investigation, sent the Rosenstein letter to the White House, along with his own letter, concluding that ``a fresh start is needed at the leadership of the FBI.'' Again, on the same day that Mr. Trump fired Director Comey, the Trump letter includes a curious aside: ``I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation.'' Did Director Comey really give those assurances to President Trump when the criminal and counterintelligence investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia connections are still active and ongoing? At the same time, we heard from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and we heard from the Vice President of the United States that the reason for the firing of Mr. Comey was the recommendation of the Department of Justice. That is what they said it was, only to find the next day President Trump saying: In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said ``You know, this Russian thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.'' Then he talked about Mr. Comey and said he had decided to fire him. So it was not the memos; it was what Mr. Trump had decided. So there is a lot of misinformation being sent out, which raises a lot of questions. Over the weekend, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated: I think in many ways our institutions are under assault both externally--and that's the big news here is the Russian interference in our election system--and I think as well our institutions are under assault internally. So we have the former Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper, saying we have some problems internally. The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this, the only way we are going to find out what this loyalty oath is all about or how Mr. Trump came to the conclusion to fire Mr. Comey or, more recently, where we hear Mr. Comey has memos of a meeting in which the President asked him to go easy on an investigation, which could rise to obstruction of justice--the only way we are going to get to the bottom of all this is by having an independent special counsel prosecutor appointed by the Department of Justice. That is what needs to be done. The facts need to go where they take us, but we also have to have an investigation that has the credibility that it will not be interfered with by the President of the United States. The only way to do that is by having special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice. It is the only way to restore the reputation of the Department of Justice. I might say that we also need to understand exactly what Russia was doing here in the United States. There are so many examples of Russia being aggressive in our campaign. We know they wanted to discredit the American campaign. We know they took sides in favor of Mr. Trump over Mrs. Clinton. We know they hacked information. We know they used misinformation. We know they used cyber and social media in order to further their advancements. We also know they met with representatives of the Trump campaign. The American people have a right to understand exactly what those contacts were all about. That is why I filed the resolution, which is supported by many of my colleagues, to set up a 9/ 11 independent commission in order to get to the bottom of what is happening. That can be done simultaneously with the work being done by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is important work for us to do, but we also need to have an independent commission in order to determine exactly what Russia was doing so we can take the necessary steps to prevent this from occurring in the future. There are a lot of unanswered questions. People say: Well, how can you call for action if you don't know all the facts? I am calling for us to know all the facts. I am calling for us to understand exactly why on one day the White House sends out one story that the Department of Justice recommended the firing of Mr. Comey, and then on the next day the President said: No, I decided that before I met with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. We need to understand why there was a conversation in which Mr. Comey has notes that indicate Mr. Trump wanted him to go easy in an investigation. That is a pretty serious charge. We need to understand this information. That is why it is impossible for the Department of Justice to do an independent investigation. It will always be suspect as to whether that investigation of the President of the United States or the White House will have impact as to how that investigation is being done because there is already evidence that they tried to do that previously in this investigation. The law is clear; the law is clear as to how special prosecutors and counsel are appointed where conflicts exist. The Department of Justice has this authority. We know that Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein now has the authority to make that decision. He should clearly make that decision, not because it is the right thing to do-- which it is, which it is--and we have the obligation to make sure the American people get all the facts as to what happened here, but it is also the reputation of the Department of Justice that is at stake. I urge my colleagues to continue. I know we will have a chance tomorrow in our meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, but I would urge us to listen to what the American people are saying and recognize that we are an independent branch of government, and one of our principal responsibilities is oversight--and oversight of the executive branch of government. I urge us to carry out that responsibility by collectively--it shouldn't be partisan--collectively telling the Department of Justice: Get all the facts, do it in an independent way, appoint an independent prosecutor, let the facts lead us where they are going to lead us, and let's not prejudge. But this is a serious, serious matter. In order to protect ourselves from an aggressive enemy--and that is Russia, which is trying to bring down our democratic government, which has now been acknowledged not just by the intelligence community over and over again, but their ability to try to compromise our system is now much better understood--we need to have that independent commission devoted to giving us the recommendations to keep America safe. I urge my colleagues to exercise that independent function and to set up an independent commission. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, April was Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. It commemorated some of the most horrific genocides and atrocities of the 20th century: the siege of Sarajevo in April 1992, the Rwandan genocide in April 1992; the Cambodian genocide in April 1975; and, the Armenian genocide in April 1915. Last, Yom Hashoah or Holocaust Remembrance Day fell during the month of April this year. We must remember the past. And we must also be mindful of the present and the future. As we know all too well, criminal atrocities persist around the globe. In South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, a political and ethnic conflict is now in its fourth year. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in mass atrocities and thousands more have fled the country fearing for their lives. In Iraq, ISIS has committed genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims, a determination made by former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last year. ISIS has killed, expelled, raped, and enslaved Yezidi men, women, and children in northern Iraq, and has committed similar atrocities against other groups living in areas under its control. In Burma, the Rohingya Muslim community faces such severe violence and dehumanization, including slaughtering and sequestration, that many experts believe their suffering amounts to genocide. Moreover, in Syria, repeatedly, we see a government committing atrocities against its own people. Children are being gassed. Hospitals are being bombed. Innocent people are being tortured to death. Too often, we have done too little, waited too long, or been caught unprepared by events that should not have surprised us. We continue to forget the lessons of the past and fail to live up to the post- Holocaust pledge of ``Never Again.'' Ignoring the genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the world sends a message to the global community that criminal atrocities are tolerable. We must do better to see that atrocities never again occur on our watch. On April 7, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act, which expands the tools the U.S. government is using to document atrocities in Syria and hold President Bashar al-Assad and other perpetrators accountable. Today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities occurring in South Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Syria, and elsewhere, I am introducing another atrocity-related bill, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017. This bill--named in honor of the courageous, inspiring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel--strengthens the U.S. government's infrastructure to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, wherever they may occur. I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to make sure the United States has the full arsenal of tools--diplomatic, economic, and legal--to take meaningful action before atrocities occur. The costs--both human and economic--of addressing these atrocities too late or after-the-fact are skyrocketing. The United States must do a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these crimes-- when warning signs begin to point towards possible atrocities occurring, and when strategic investments can have a greater impact in promoting stability and security. Essential to this effort is ensuring that the United States Government has structures in place and mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential atrocities. Atrocity prevention has long been a bipartisan cause. In 1988, President Reagan signed implementing legislation allowing the United States to become a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the 2006 National Security Strategy, President George W. Bush highlighted the ``moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish genocide.'' In 2008, the bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, stated: ``Genocide and mass atrocities . . . threaten core U.S. national interests.'' In 2010, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution recognizing ``the United States national interest in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass atrocities against civilians, and supporting and encouraging efforts to develop a whole of government approach to prevent and mitigate such acts.'' In 2011, President Obama declared: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.'' The same year, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power stated that preventing genocide ``required a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind of methodical organization that accompanies mass-killings.'' We need to continue taking proactive steps to enhance our Nation's capacity to quickly anticipate and address genocide and other atrocity crimes. I am introducing the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in this effort by Senators Young, Tillis, Durbin, Rubio, Menendez, Murkowski, Blumenthal, Warren, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Franken, Peters, Coons, Stabenow, Booker, Markey, Brown, Baldwin, and Wyden. This bill does a number of things. First, the bill authorizes the creation of a Mass Atrocities Task Force, which is a transparent, accountable, proactive, high-level, interagency body that includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Task Force would work collaboratively with representatives of governmental as well as nongovernmental organizations to oversee the development and implementation of U.S. policy on atrocity prevention and response. Second, this bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on the ground. They will be better equipped to see warning signs, analyze events, and engage early. Third, this bill calls on the Director of National Intelligence to include in his or her annual testimony to Congress on threats to U.S. national security a review of countries and regions at risk of mass atrocities as well as, whenever possible, specific risk factors, potential groups of perpetrators, and at-risk target groups. With this information, Congress will be better informed and better able to respond to mass atrocities that are brewing. Finally, this bill authorizes the Complex Crises Fund, which is a specifically dedicated portion of our foreign assistance budget for mitigating conflict. The Complex Crises Fund enables us to rapidly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential atrocities. We have already used the Complex Crises Fund to respond to crises in the Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. Without this important tool, our ability to effectively prevent and mitigate crises is severely constrained. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places the United States on solid moral ground. However, the moral argument is not the only reason to support this bill. We must also remember that America's security, and that of our allies, is impacted when civilians are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS systematically targeting communities because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs and practices, and yet, we still lack a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes. So, let this bill act as our framework, and our call to action, so that when we use the phrase ``never again,'' we know that we are taking meaningful preventative action.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, April was Genocide Awareness and Prevention Month. It commemorated some of the most horrific genocides and atrocities of the 20th century: the siege of Sarajevo in April 1992, the Rwandan genocide in April 1992; the Cambodian genocide in April 1975; and, the Armenian genocide in April 1915. Last, Yom Hashoah or Holocaust Remembrance Day fell during the month of April this year. We must remember the past. And we must also be mindful of the present and the future. As we know all too well, criminal atrocities persist around the globe. In South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, a political and ethnic conflict is now in its fourth year. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in mass atrocities and thousands more have fled the country fearing for their lives. In Iraq, ISIS has committed genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shiite Muslims, a determination made by former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last year. ISIS has killed, expelled, raped, and enslaved Yezidi men, women, and children in northern Iraq, and has committed similar atrocities against other groups living in areas under its control. In Burma, the Rohingya Muslim community faces such severe violence and dehumanization, including slaughtering and sequestration, that many experts believe their suffering amounts to genocide. Moreover, in Syria, repeatedly, we see a government committing atrocities against its own people. Children are being gassed. Hospitals are being bombed. Innocent people are being tortured to death. Too often, we have done too little, waited too long, or been caught unprepared by events that should not have surprised us. We continue to forget the lessons of the past and fail to live up to the post- Holocaust pledge of ``Never Again.'' Ignoring the genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity that continue to rage around the world sends a message to the global community that criminal atrocities are tolerable. We must do better to see that atrocities never again occur on our watch. On April 7, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act, which expands the tools the U.S. government is using to document atrocities in Syria and hold President Bashar al-Assad and other perpetrators accountable. Today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities occurring in South Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Syria, and elsewhere, I am introducing another atrocity-related bill, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017. This bill--named in honor of the courageous, inspiring Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel--strengthens the U.S. government's infrastructure to prevent and respond to mass atrocities, wherever they may occur. I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to make sure the United States has the full arsenal of tools--diplomatic, economic, and legal--to take meaningful action before atrocities occur. The costs--both human and economic--of addressing these atrocities too late or after-the-fact are skyrocketing. The United States must do a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these crimes-- when warning signs begin to point towards possible atrocities occurring, and when strategic investments can have a greater impact in promoting stability and security. Essential to this effort is ensuring that the United States Government has structures in place and mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential atrocities. Atrocity prevention has long been a bipartisan cause. In 1988, President Reagan signed implementing legislation allowing the United States to become a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In the 2006 National Security Strategy, President George W. Bush highlighted the ``moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish genocide.'' In 2008, the bipartisan Genocide Prevention Task Force, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, stated: ``Genocide and mass atrocities . . . threaten core U.S. national interests.'' In 2010, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution recognizing ``the United States national interest in helping to prevent and mitigate acts of genocide and other mass atrocities against civilians, and supporting and encouraging efforts to develop a whole of government approach to prevent and mitigate such acts.'' In 2011, President Obama declared: ``Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.'' The same year, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power stated that preventing genocide ``required a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind of methodical organization that accompanies mass-killings.'' We need to continue taking proactive steps to enhance our Nation's capacity to quickly anticipate and address genocide and other atrocity crimes. I am introducing the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2017 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in this effort by Senators Young, Tillis, Durbin, Rubio, Menendez, Murkowski, Blumenthal, Warren, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Franken, Peters, Coons, Stabenow, Booker, Markey, Brown, Baldwin, and Wyden. This bill does a number of things. First, the bill authorizes the creation of a Mass Atrocities Task Force, which is a transparent, accountable, proactive, high-level, interagency body that includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Task Force would work collaboratively with representatives of governmental as well as nongovernmental organizations to oversee the development and implementation of U.S. policy on atrocity prevention and response. Second, this bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on the ground. They will be better equipped to see warning signs, analyze events, and engage early. Third, this bill calls on the Director of National Intelligence to include in his or her annual testimony to Congress on threats to U.S. national security a review of countries and regions at risk of mass atrocities as well as, whenever possible, specific risk factors, potential groups of perpetrators, and at-risk target groups. With this information, Congress will be better informed and better able to respond to mass atrocities that are brewing. Finally, this bill authorizes the Complex Crises Fund, which is a specifically dedicated portion of our foreign assistance budget for mitigating conflict. The Complex Crises Fund enables us to rapidly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential atrocities. We have already used the Complex Crises Fund to respond to crises in the Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. Without this important tool, our ability to effectively prevent and mitigate crises is severely constrained. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places the United States on solid moral ground. However, the moral argument is not the only reason to support this bill. We must also remember that America's security, and that of our allies, is impacted when civilians are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS systematically targeting communities because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs and practices, and yet, we still lack a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to genocide and other atrocity crimes. So, let this bill act as our framework, and our call to action, so that when we use the phrase ``never again,'' we know that we are taking meaningful preventative action.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I was, to say the least, shocked last night when I heard that President Trump had dismissed FBI Director Comey from his position as the Director of the FBI. To me, this decision by President Trump crossed the line. I have tried to understand what was going through the President's mind at the time he dismissed Mr. Comey. It is clear that he had memorandums written by the Department of Justice that were released at the time, but there is also a clear indication that President Trump had been considering this decision for over a week and that after he had reached the decision to fire Mr. Comey, he needed grounds from the Department of Justice and that that information was supplied to Mr. Trump for his decisionmaking. This was Mr. Trump's decision. At the time he dismissed Mr. Comey, President Trump's associates had been involved in the investigation being done by the Department of Justice. This is a criminal investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice because of Russia's interference that involved Mr. Trump's associates in the U.S. election system. We do not know where that investigation is going--we do not--but we do know now that the President of the United States has compromised the ability of that investigation by firing Mr. Comey. That should not happen in American politics. No one is above the law. The timing of Mr. Comey's firing is extremely suspicious. If the President were really concerned about the FBI Director's conduct in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, why didn't the President fire Director Comey when he took the oath of office in January? It just does not add up. No one is above the law. According to news reports, President Trump was also upset over the amount of media coverage that the FBI Director and the investigations were attracting, and the White House asked DOJ officials to come up with reasons. It is clear to me that the decision to fire Mr. Comey was a personal decision that was reached by President Trump and that it was known by him at the time that it would compromise the investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice. I have been approached by others in their saying that Mr. Comey was not popular with Democrats or Republicans and that he had done things during his term as Director that had upset a lot of us, which is true, but the Director of the FBI has a 10-year term for a reason--a term that is longer than the two terms of the President of the United States. This is not a partisan position. The FBI is not required to be popular with either Democrats or Republicans. What he is required to do is to uphold the law of the land for all Americans, and no one is above the law. That is what we expect from the Director of the FBI. President Trump has compromised the integrity and independence of the FBI. At this point, what can we do? I would suggest, with regard to the criminal investigation that is being done by the Department of Justice, that there is only one course of action that will maintain the credibility of that investigation, which is that it is incumbent upon the Department of Justice to name, as soon as possible, a special prosecutor to take over that role. If that is not done, in my view, it will be difficult to have the confidence of the American people that that investigation is not being directed by those who were supposed to be the subject of that investigation. I think it would also compromise the nomination process of the next Director of the FBI. If we do not have a special counsel named, then there will be so much focus on how that next Director will handle this investigation that we really will not have attention paid to the other responsibilities and talents of that individual to be able to handle the FBI's broad jurisdiction. If that is not resolved--the investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor--it is difficult to see how we are going to have a truly bipartisan process for maintaining support for the FBI. I urge the Deputy Attorney General to name, as soon as possible, a respected person as an independent prosecutor to take over this investigation. There are deeper concerns than just the President of the United States' hampering a criminal investigation in which associates of his are involved because it also involves a country that is not a friend to the United States. All of this was triggered by Russia's involvement in our democratic election system. We know that Russia was directly engaged in trying to compromise our election system by calling into question the confidence of our system and trying to tilt the scales in favor of one of our candidates. Russia made contact with Americans in order to further its game at bringing down our democratic system of government. This is not unique to the United States. Russia has used similar tactics in other elections of democratic countries. In the Montenegro election, we saw that Montenegrins were voting on their government's accession into NATO and that Russia exported individuals into that country to try to disrupt that election. They were not successful, but they tried. Just recently, in the French election, we saw how Russia got directly involved in trying to help one of the candidates who it believed would help pull France away from the EU and create a vacuum for Russia's influence, but the French voters turned that down. It was not successful, but that does not mean Russia will not continue to try to bring down democratic systems of government. Mr. Trump's casual and consistent dismissal of the facts, as laid out by the entire Intelligence Committee, about Russia's engagement in the United States should set off alarm bells. It cannot be business as usual. Yet, today, President Trump and Secretary Tillerson met with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Today of all days, they decided to meet like nothing has happened, but a lot has happened. Did we see any indication that the purpose of that meeting was to raise our strong objections to Russia's interference in our election system or Russia's compromising Americans to try to help in regard to its campaign against our free election system or Russia's engagement and encroachment into other countries? Did we really hear a commitment by the President of the United States that we would not tolerate that type of behavior by Russia? No. Business as usual. The President wants to establish a friendlier relationship with Russia. Russia has not just tried to bring down free elections systems; they have invaded other countries. We know about the active campaign in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian presence in Moldova and Georgia. I met with the Prime Minister of Georgia with Senator Wicker earlier today, and he can tell you firsthand about how their country is trying to deal with the Russian presence in their sovereign country. We all know about Russia's engagement in other parts of the world. Their engagement in Syria is bringing about serious challenges to trying to resolve the crisis in that country. The Russian Government supporting the Assad regime, war crime activities targeting humanitarian convoys, targeting hospitals, the use of chemical weapons--all of that is facilitated by Russia. That is well known, but it might be not as well known that Russia is ambitious in going into many more parts of the world. Russia is now engaged in Afghanistan. We have had one of our longest wars ever in Afghanistan and our commitment to the people of Afghanistan to have a democratic government. So Russia is now engaged with the Taliban, trying to upset our ability to bring all of the parties together in unity in the government. That, to me, is totally counter to history. We know about Russia's presence in Afghanistan. Does anyone believe Russia is really sincere in maintaining peace in that country? Then we see Russia's fingerprints in Yemen, trying to get a naval base on the Yemeni coast, showing no concern for the humanitarian crisis that has been created in that country. We see Russia's presence in Libya, supporting General Haftar, who has committed his own human rights violations and war crimes and has disrupted the Government of National Accord, which is our best chance for peace in Libya. We see Russia's presence in Nicaragua, sending troops and equipment to that country and now building a major compound that many believe is being built to spy on the U.S. compound. That is Russia. So to President Trump: It is not business as usual with Russia. There is a reason we need an independent commission to investigate what Russia was doing in the United States because Russia is trying to create space where they can expand their influence, and expanding their influence is for values that are just the opposite of ours--a corrupt government, no respect for human rights, no respect for democratic institutions, and opposition to a free press. That is what Russia is trying to expand. We know that in their involvement in the United States, they are trying to find a way to expand that opportunity. So it is for all of those reasons it cannot be business as usual, and when the President of the United States interferes with a criminal investigation that was precipitated by Russia's engagement in the United States, every American should be alarmed. Every American should be asking what we can do to make sure we have an independent review so we can take steps to protect our national security. It is not acceptable for the Senate to say business as usual. We need to come together and facilitate the independent review of potential criminal involvement of Americans in facilitating the Russians and what they were doing, and we need to have an independent review of all of what Russia was doing in this country so we can take the necessary steps to protect our national security. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on December 19, 2015, in Paris, France, diplomats representing more than 190 countries finalized the world's most ambitious, comprehensive, and achievable multilateral agreement to combat climate change at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's 21st Conference of Parties, or COP21. I led a delegation of 10 Senators to COP21 to bolster U.S. leadership and to provide confidence in the U.S. commitment to the global effort to fight the existential threat of climate change. The result was an agreement that has nearly universal support, with every party committed to reducing carbon emissions. The momentum coming out of COP21 felt unstoppable. That momentum continued through 2016. On Earth Day, an impressive 175 nations signed the Paris Agreement. Six months later, and in less than a year's time, the Paris Agreement reached the threshold for entry into force. Up until recently, the United States has led this global effort. The strength of our commitment and diplomacy spurred global enthusiasm for the Paris Agreement. Some have said that we are the first generation to feel the effects of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it. Climate change impacts are apparent in my home State of Maryland. Recently, Annapolis began experiencing routine tidal flooding. Today's generations of Smith Islanders may be the last as a rising Chesapeake Bay encroaches further ashore each year. Around the world, climate change is expanding the range and duration of regional wildfire seasons, prolonging extreme droughts in the Middle East and Southern Africa, which I have witnessed firsthand, and has caused Bolivia's Lake Poopo to evaporate entirely, and entire island nations are being swallowed up by the South Pacific. The good news is, acting to prevent the worst effects of climate change holds tremendous economic and job growth opportunities for our Nation. The world looks toward the United States for leadership, not just in terms of domestic emissions reductions but also in our private sector and academia for clean energy solutions to power the world. Maryland is positioned to be at the forefront of U.S. leadership in technology innovation. For example, the University of Maryland, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy and a number of Maryland private sector companies like Redox Energy, are leading the way in developing commercial-scale, in-demand technology that the global energy market is demanding. In 2015, global investment in renewable energy was nearly $350 billion, which was more than the global investment in fossil fuel energy. The Department of Energy's 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report showed that nearly 1 million Americans work in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors. This is almost five times the current employment in the U.S. fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. Even though gas and oil have hit record-low prices on the global market, current and projected price per watt for renewables is also low, making clean energy remarkably affordable and competitive in the market. The United States stands at the crossroads of global clean energy and climate change leadership, and the policy path we take on these issues could not only shape the strength of our economic future but our overall standing in the world. Forward thinking domestic climate change and clean energy policy, including substantial investments in clean energy R&D and clean energy production incentives, have made the United States an incubator for clean energy investment and entrepreneurship. We see these things in every State of the Nation--new innovators and investors in the clean energy sector. Creating a robust domestic market helps U.S. companies develop tested records of accomplishment, skilled workforces, and scalable products to export around the world to a global energy market that is hungry for clean energy solutions. This is where domestic policy intersects with U.S. climate diplomacy, which is priming that export market by building good will and faith in U.S. capacity and commitment. The United States must not squander the considerable time and effort it took to build the world's confidence in the United States when combating climate change. The rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States severely strained a wide range of diplomacy issues for the Bush administration. That is not just a Senator saying this. Let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he stated: Kyoto--this is not talking out of school--was not handled as well as it should have been, and when the blowback came I think it was a sobering experience that everything the American president does has international repercussions. That was General Powell warning us about the importance of international diplomacy and that our actions have consequences. Hindsight on the impact U.S. participation in Kyoto would have had on the protocol's success and on the U.S. economy is another debate entirely--and we will leave that for a different day--but a clear lesson from the episode is that the United States must not underestimate how seriously the world takes the issue of international cooperation to combat climate change. Should the Trump administration withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, it will be an incredible insult to our global partners and severely tarnish the trust nations have in the United States. That distrust will bleed over into all areas of U.S. diplomacy and cooperation. While the Paris Agreement does not have enforceable, binding provisions that would punish parties for missing self-determined mitigation targets, nothing precludes other countries from acting outside the confines of the agreement to create uncomfortable conditions for nonmembers. It is worth noting here that if we were to pull out, we would be in a club with Syria and Nicaragua. For example, in November of last year, immediately after the election and during COP22, the New York Times reported that leaders from other countries--so deeply offended by the President-elect's ill-informed rhetoric on climate change and the Paris Agreement--were contemplating implementing border tariffs on goods imported from nations failing to account for carbon emissions. Staying in the agreement and continuing to advocate for what is in the best interests of the United States could prevent countries from taking such actions. Many critics of the Paris Agreement sound as though they are stuck in 1997, echoing concerns about the 20-year-old Kyoto Protocol that are simply untrue about the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement takes a different approach to international climate change cooperation by creating an action model that allows for ambitious action and accountability through peer review. The agreement takes a radically different approach to pollution mitigation that incorporates many conservative principles our Republican colleagues routinely espouse: increased transparency and universal reporting requirements for all parties. All parties, both developing and developed nations, commit to reducing greenhouse gas pollution. All parties determine their own greenhouse gas pollution mitigation commitments. Nationally determined commitments are nonbinding. Let me repeat that. The nationally determined commitments are nonbinding. It is up to us, our country, to determine how we will meet our targets and when we will meet our targets, and the enforcement is solely within our own means. No international group can enforce any of these commitments on us. That was at the request of many Members of this body, and that was followed in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was forged by the lessons the United States learned from the Kyoto Protocol process. Each addressed commonly criticized elements of the Kyoto Protocol. I cannot stress enough how seriously committed leaders around the world are to the success of the Paris Agreement. For example, it is the top agenda item for both the upcoming G7 and G20 meetings. As such, we absolutely cannot underestimate how thoroughly insulted our friends and allies around the world will be if the United States retreats from the agreement. Make no mistake, callously disregarding cooperation and partnership with the global community on a crisis that is literally threatening the very physical existence of countries will have consequences for our foreign policy, diplomacy, national security, and U.S. economic opportunity in an undeniably globalized economy. Retreating from the Paris Agreement puts America alone, not America first, and being alone is tantamount to being last. The expectation among our partners to the Paris Agreement is that the United States will remain engaged, although a common refrain among foreign delegations is that the world is moving ahead regardless. I take that to mean that if U.S. leadership falters, other countries will jump at the opportunity and fill the void we create and receive the gains which should have been ours. U.S. energy policy should support the goals of the Paris Agreement. We have already seen hundreds of American corporations make commitments in the agreement's name. There is infinite potential from enhanced U.S. production of scalable and exportable clean energy technology that the world is demanding to power our collective future. If we do the opposite and retreat from the global effort to combat climate change, then we can expect to lose out on this economic growth potential because countries like Germany, China, and India will gladly take our place as the world's leader for clean energy innovation and finance. I will do what I can to protect against this loss. It is in our national security interests for the United States to remain actively engaged with the world community to fight climate change. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a special member of the Senate family, Nancy Iacomini. Nancy, who has served as the Democratic Secretary's administrative assistant since 1998, is retiring after 34 years of devoted public service. I know I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues when I say I am going to miss Nancy, but she has certainly earned a respite, and I want to wish her all the best in her retirement. Nancy is a proud Pittsburgh native. She earned her bachelor of arts degree in art history from the University of Notre Dame. She was an excellent student: she was on the dean's honor list, she was a Notre Dame scholar, and she graduated cum laude. Then she earned a master of arts degree in art history with a concentration in museum practice from George Washington University. Armed with her degrees and proven academic success, Nancy went to work for the National Gallery of Art, NGA. She spent 5 years at the NGA, holding positions of increasing responsibility. During this time, she also contributed entries and artist biographies to ``La Vie Moderne: Nineteenth Century Paintings from the Permanent Collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art,'' Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1983. In 1988, Nancy decided to shift her focus from art history to the art of the possible, and she joined the Democratic Policy Committee as a staff assistant. Within a few short months, she was promoted to the position of special assistant to the floor staff and then again a short time later to the position of executive assistant. The art world pulled her back, though, and from 1994 to 1998, she served as deputy congressional liaison at the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA. Some may recall that this was a critical time in the NEA's history when its very existence was at stake. Nancy helped the NEA weather the storm and then returned to the Senate to work in the Democratic Secretary's office. Since Nancy came to work in Washington, she has lived in Virginia. Nancy has held leadership roles in the Ballston/Virginia Square Civic Association, the Cherrydale Citizens Association, and the Neighborhood Conservation Advisory Committee. She is a past member and chairman of the county's transportation commission, a past member and chairman of the historical affairs and landmark review board, and past chairman of the towing advisory board. She also chaired the fire station No. 3 relocation task force. Nancy has also participated in the East Falls Church Working Group, the Clarendon Sector Plan Update, neighborhood traffic calming measures ad hoc advisory group, the subdivision ordinance working group, and the joint George Mason University/ Arlington County advisory board. She served as Arlington's representative to WMATA's Riders' Advisory Council from 2006 to 2009 and chaired the council in 2008. Here in the Senate, Nancy has had so many responsibilities that it would be hard to list them all, but I would note a few. Every Tuesday when the Senate is in session, there is a conference lunch. Nancy has been responsible for organizing the lunch, the topics for discussion, and the materials to be distributed. Despite much complaining from Senators whom I shall not name, she singlehandedly made the lunches more nutritious, with healthier entrees and more salads. That is no small accomplishment. My staff and I worked with Nancy and Gary Myrick on updating and revising the conference rules. Nancy's institutional memory and patience and helpful suggestions were crucially important and much appreciated in that endeavor. She helped people find jobs. She answered every imaginable inquiry from Senators and staff. I could go on, but suffice it to say that Nancy Iacomini has kept the ``Democratic trains'' running on time here in the Senate. She has done so with diligence and grace and good humor and skill. Will Rogers famously said, ``I am not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat.'' Well, he didn't know Nancy. Of course, if he did, he would have liked her--just as we all do. We are going to miss Nancy's quiet competence and her sense of humor. We are going to miss the pumpkin outfits she would put on for Halloween. We are going to miss her wonder dog Flash. I hope Nancy will come back to visit us every now and then and even bring Flash with her, but I know she is looking forward to spending more time with her husband, Dan, and the rest of her family, pursuing her myriad hobbies, interests, and community activities and rooting for the Notre Dame football team. Nancy Iacomini has devoted 34 years of her life to government service. We are all better off because of that service. As the fictional Inspector Morse reminds us, ``To make an end is to make a beginning.'' I would ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Nancy and wishing her all the best as she begins the next chapter in her life.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, July 18, 2017, marks the 70th anniversary of the day that the ship Exodus 1947 arrived in Haifa, Israel. The story of Exodus 1947 is as important today as it was 70 years ago. In 1947, the world was horrified and outraged by the British policy of violently preventing Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine and forcing their return to Europe and refugee camps in Germany. Watching the British Navy ram the Exodus 1947, which had 4,515 Holocaust survivors on board, inflamed world opinion and prompted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, UNSCOP, to scrutinize the actions of the British. Eventually the British were forced to end their policy of preventing Jewish immigration to Israel, and the State of Israel was born. Why is the story of the Exodus 1947 so important that we are still talking about it 70 years later? After all, geopolitical transitions have launched multiple large-scale refugee migrations around the world in the 20th century, including Armenians in 1915, Russians in 1917, Chinese in 1949, Hindus from Pakistan and Muslims from India in 1947, East Germans between 1945 and 1961, Bosnians in the 1990s, Rwandans in 1994, Syrians in 2016--and many more. The story of the Exodus 1947 is important to remember and consider today because it reminds us of our responsibility to protect human rights, help people outside of our own borders, stand up for Americans values, and work with our allies and international organizations to advance our goals. It reminds us that our work is not finished. It reminds us that, while it was the Jews on the Exodus 1947 70 years ago, political outrages around the world continue to require our leadership and our action. As a U.S. Senator from Maryland and vigilant friend of the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's Maritime history, I would like to highlight the fact that, prior to its service in support of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust, the Exodus 1947 was called the President Warfield and it sailed the Chesapeake Bay for the Baltimore Steam Packet Company. The President Warfield changed hands many times, from the Baltimore Steam Packet Company to the British Navy to the U.S. Navy to the Potomac Shipwrecking Company, which was actually acting as clandestine purchasing agents of the Haganah who wanted the ship because the conditions that made it ideal for navigating the Chesapeake Bay, shifting sand of 3 feet or less in depth, made it ideal for getting immigrants quickly and closely up to the coastal areas of Palestine. After the Haganah secured the ship, she was retrofitted in Baltimore from where she sailed towards France to pick up 4,515 Holocaust the refugees and deposit them in Palestine--a plan which was destroyed after the British rammed the ship, prevented the refugees from disembarking in Palestine, detained them in inhumane conditions, and eventually returned them to Germany. The world witnessed the inhumane treatment of the Exodus's passengers and some righteous people cried out. We continue to talk about the Exodus 1947 to remind ourselves never to forget both our suffering and our empowerment. I would like to acknowledge all who have made the creation of this memorial possible. Along with a series of associated commemorative projects, the Exodus 1947 memorial is the culmination of decades of tireless effort by the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, JASHP, to recognize the historic events that led to the formation of Israel. In particular, I applaud the work of Dr. Barry S. Lever, chairman of the 50th Anniversary Commemoration of the Final Voyage of the SS President Warfied--Exodus 1947, the Jewish Museum of Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay Museum, and the individuals and organizations here and abroad who have aided in the efforts to honor the Exodus 1947 and its passengers. Thank you.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act of 2017. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller, has agreed to cosponsor this bipartisan, no-cost legislation that would allow occupational therapists to perform the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments in cases in which occupational therapy is ordered by the physician, along with speech language pathology and/or physical therapy services, and skilled nursing care is not required. Our bill will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive timely access to essential home health therapy care. Occupational therapists have long been recognized as a valuable component of our Nation's healthcare workforce and a critical aspect of home healthcare because of their focus on patients' functional capabilities and their expertise in home safety. Physicians frequently order occupational therapy as part of an initial plan of care for patients requiring home health care, alongside the qualifying services of physical therapy, speech-language pathology, and skilled nursing. Under certain circumstances, an occupational therapist is allowed to perform the comprehensive assessment to determine a Medicare beneficiary's continuing need for home healthcare. However, under current Medicare law, occupational therapists are not permitted to conduct the initial assessment for home health cases, even when occupational therapy is included in the physician's order and when the case is exclusively related to rehabilitation therapy. Additionally, occupational therapists are not allowed to complete the comprehensive assessment unless occupational therapy is the qualifying service. By permitting occupational therapists to perform initial home health assessment visits and comprehensive assessments in limited circumstances, the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act can help prevent delays in the time it takes for Medicare beneficiaries to receive essential home healthcare, especially in underserved areas where access to physical therapists and speech language pathologists may be limited. On January 13, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, released the final conditions of participation, or COPs, for home health agencies participating in Medicare and Medicaid. These new COPs expand the content of the home health comprehensive assessment to include the patient's functional, psychosocial, and cognitive status, all of which are areas of expertise for occupational therapists. The new COPs also require the creation of a patient-centered plan of care that is informed by the comprehensive assessment. As a result of their comprehensive education and unique training, occupational therapists are qualified to perform the necessary assessments to adhere to these new CMS home health guidelines. It is important to note that the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act would apply only to rehabilitation therapy cases in which skilled nursing care is not required. Nurses would still be required to conduct the initial assessment for all home health cases in which skilled nursing care is ordered by the physician. Also, although the legislation would allow occupational therapists to conduct the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments, it would not alter the existing criteria for establishing eligibility for the Medicare home health benefit. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller and to support the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act to correct the discrepancy in Medicare regulations between therapy providers and to help ensure timely access to essential, high-quality home health therapy care for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act of 2017. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller, has agreed to cosponsor this bipartisan, no-cost legislation that would allow occupational therapists to perform the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments in cases in which occupational therapy is ordered by the physician, along with speech language pathology and/or physical therapy services, and skilled nursing care is not required. Our bill will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive timely access to essential home health therapy care. Occupational therapists have long been recognized as a valuable component of our Nation's healthcare workforce and a critical aspect of home healthcare because of their focus on patients' functional capabilities and their expertise in home safety. Physicians frequently order occupational therapy as part of an initial plan of care for patients requiring home health care, alongside the qualifying services of physical therapy, speech-language pathology, and skilled nursing. Under certain circumstances, an occupational therapist is allowed to perform the comprehensive assessment to determine a Medicare beneficiary's continuing need for home healthcare. However, under current Medicare law, occupational therapists are not permitted to conduct the initial assessment for home health cases, even when occupational therapy is included in the physician's order and when the case is exclusively related to rehabilitation therapy. Additionally, occupational therapists are not allowed to complete the comprehensive assessment unless occupational therapy is the qualifying service. By permitting occupational therapists to perform initial home health assessment visits and comprehensive assessments in limited circumstances, the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act can help prevent delays in the time it takes for Medicare beneficiaries to receive essential home healthcare, especially in underserved areas where access to physical therapists and speech language pathologists may be limited. On January 13, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, released the final conditions of participation, or COPs, for home health agencies participating in Medicare and Medicaid. These new COPs expand the content of the home health comprehensive assessment to include the patient's functional, psychosocial, and cognitive status, all of which are areas of expertise for occupational therapists. The new COPs also require the creation of a patient-centered plan of care that is informed by the comprehensive assessment. As a result of their comprehensive education and unique training, occupational therapists are qualified to perform the necessary assessments to adhere to these new CMS home health guidelines. It is important to note that the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act would apply only to rehabilitation therapy cases in which skilled nursing care is not required. Nurses would still be required to conduct the initial assessment for all home health cases in which skilled nursing care is ordered by the physician. Also, although the legislation would allow occupational therapists to conduct the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments, it would not alter the existing criteria for establishing eligibility for the Medicare home health benefit. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller and to support the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act to correct the discrepancy in Medicare regulations between therapy providers and to help ensure timely access to essential, high-quality home health therapy care for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Rod J. Rosenstein to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States at the Justice Department. Rod has served the people of Maryland extraordinarily well since 2005 as the U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I hope the Senate will confirm him in very short order. I might point out that he received a favorable recommendation from the Judiciary Committee by a lopsided vote of 19-to-1. Rod Rosenstein is the total package. He has committed his life to public service. Rod graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a B.S. in economics, summa cum laude, in 1986. He earned his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1989, where he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a law clerk to Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. After finishing his clerkship in 1990, he became a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. He has remained at the Justice Department for his entire career. Mr. Rosenstein has devoted his life to public service. In Maryland, Rod was appointed in 2005 by President Bush and then held over by President Obama, with the strong support of his two home State Senators, which include myself and the senior Senator at that time, Senator Barbara Mikulski. Rod has now become the longest serving U.S. attorney in the country today. I really want to underscore that point. I know my colleagues know the prerogatives we have when we come into office and there is an opening at the U.S. attorney's office because of an election of a President from your own party where the previous U.S. attorney was appointed by the other party. In this case, it was a Republican who appointed Mr. Rosenstein. President Obama came into office, and the senior Senator and junior Senator had the opportunity to replace that U.S. attorney, which has been the tradition in the Senate. Senator Mikulski and I had no hesitation when asking Mr. Rosenstein to remain on as the U.S. attorney in Maryland. We did that because we knew how valuable he was for law enforcement in our State. As U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, Rod has garnered broad bipartisan support from the State and local law enforcement officials across our great State as he has tackled problems of crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, gun and gang violence, civil rights enforcement, environmental crimes, intellectual property fraud, and corruption. I just mentioned a couple of those. I sat down with the U.S. attorney to talk about gang violence in our State because I had been to Central America and I saw the exporting of gang violence from Central America to Maryland. The U.S. attorney, Mr. Rosenstein, and I had a chance to talk about the strategies we would use in Maryland to combat that. But he didn't just work by himself at the U.S. attorney level; he worked with local law enforcement to make sure we had a team approach. In terms of his pro bono work, Rod wrote in his Judiciary Committee questionnaire: My entire legal career has been devoted to public service, and much of my work directly benefits disadvantaged persons. In addition to my official duties and public speaking, I have taught without compensation at area law schools, served as a judge at law school moot court and mock trial competitions, and counseled other lawyers who have devoted some or all of their career to public service. He has truly been a model for many others in public service, a real role model. Let me share a few examples with my colleagues of how State and local officials in Maryland have viewed Rod's work over the past decade. Let me begin with the city of Baltimore, which has just entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice to reform its police practices after the death of Freddie Gray in custody 2 years ago. Baltimore police commissioner Kevin Davis wrote: Mr. Rosenstein and the Baltimore Police Department have collaborated on numerous large-scale investigations and resulting indictments of violent criminal organizations operating in Baltimore City. Under Mr. Rosenstein's leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office and its prosecutors operate with the highest sense of justice and integrity in the course of these investigations and trials. Commissioner Davis continues: It is undeniable that Baltimore City is a safer place as a result of Mr. Rosenstein's tenure as U.S. Attorney. Through our professional collaborations, I have come to know Mr. Rosenstein on a personal basis as well. Mr. Rosenstein is a man of utmost character and intellect. Former State's attorney for Baltimore City, Gregg Bernstein, a Democrat, wrote: Simply stated, Rod was a terrific partner. Even a cursory review of his body of work as the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland makes readily apparent that Rod was committed to reducing the level of violent crime in Baltimore. His commitment and effort trickled down to other law enforcement agencies as well, including the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office. In Rod, we saw a person who was not interested in personal credit or accolade, but instead, one who created an atmosphere of collaboration that had not been seen in Baltimore for some time. It was much more important to him that everyone was working as hard as they could to fight crime in the City and the rest of Maryland. Mr. Bernstein continues: As a result of his tireless efforts, Rod helped to reduce the homicide rate in Baltimore to historically low levels not seen in decades. He also was responsible for supervising a United States Attorney's Office that was able to dismantle many of the gangs in Baltimore that were responsible for much of the illegal drug trade and violence that have plagued the City. He has earned the universal respect and admiration of not only his colleagues in the United States Attorney's Office, but other law enforcement agencies, and a debt of gratitude from the public that has greatly appreciated his work to make Baltimore a safer place to live and work. State and local elected prosecutors of both political parties in Maryland have also weighed in in support of Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County State's attorney, wrote on behalf of the Maryland State's Attorneys' Association: Rod has been an outstanding partner with every local prosecutor in the State of Maryland. Whether it is partnering with prosecutors in the City of Baltimore to stem gun violence, to the prosecution of prison gang corruption both in the city and in rural counties . . . Rod has always been there for law enforcement. When prosecutors in this State ask Rod for assistance, he does not care if you are a ``D'' or an ``R,'' he has only cared about making this State a safer place. Rod makes his decisions based on the law, the evidence, logic and reasons, never allowing emotion or passion to move him from his core mission. I have full confidence that Rod will call it like he sees it without regard to partisan or political considerations and that he will continue to uphold his oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. I must tell you that I have heard from State and local officials directly who have worked with Rod on political corruption cases and thanked Rod for the manner in which he collaboratively worked to root out corruption and misconduct by State and local officials in Maryland. As you can imagine, State and local officials do not always welcome Federal investigations or prosecutions into their domain, so this really speaks volumes about Rod as a prosecutor and a person and his ability to get along and accomplish results. Former Maryland attorney general Doug Gansler wrote: I have always found [Rod] to be totally by-the-book and completely apolitical. Rod understands the importance of staying out of the political limelight. The fact that I am a Democrat who served in elected office for 16 years and that Rod was appointed by a Republican President never was mentioned. He makes decisions for the right reasons and articulates those reasons with aplomb. . . . Rod is and always has been extremely ethical and conscientious, qualities which have earned him the respect of his peers and colleagues. As Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein would basically serve as the chief operating officer at the Justice Department and manage the daily operations of the Nation's largest firm. The Department of Justice is a sprawling Cabinet Department with more than 100,000 employees and a $28 billion budget. That is a pretty big undertaking. It is good to know that a person of his reputation has shown that he will not yield to partisan pressure but do what is right. It is good to know that we have that type of person whom we can confirm as the Deputy Attorney General. That is why it is so important that we have an effective manager and leader. Maryland attorney general Brian Frosh, a Democrat, wrote: I have found [Rod] to be intelligent, principled, and fair. As U.S. Attorney, Mr. Rosenstein has been an exemplary leader. He inherited an office that was in turmoil. With a steady hand and superb management, he has built it into an institution that is universally respected in our state. He has been able to recruit and retain extremely talented attorneys, investigators and staff, and the office has been effective and successful in carrying out its mission. I expect Rod to exercise the same management style as the Deputy Attorney General overseeing the dozens of divisions, offices, and agencies at the Department of Justice. He will use that same commitment that he used as the U.S. attorney for the State of Maryland. Lastly, let me quote from former Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who served in President Obama's administration under Attorney General Holder. I know Mr. Cole well. He was the special counsel during the House ethics investigation of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, which committee I was on. Mr. Cole supports Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. Mr. Cole writes: Rod brings with him the knowledge, skill, experience, and wisdom that is required for this job. He also brings an understanding of, and respect for, the important role the Department of Justice occupies in our government--the need for it to not only enforce the laws, but to also maintain a level of independence that enables it to have credibility in the eyes of our citizens. Rod will make an excellent Deputy Attorney General. . . . Even at an earlier age, he exhibited the sound judgment and careful thought that was necessary to handle the very sensitive public corruption cases that were prosecuted by the [Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division]. That is Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole was a former Deputy Attorney General, and he understands this role very well and understands Mr. Rosenstein is uniquely qualified to hold this position. I want to conclude by urging my colleagues to support Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. I especially thank Rod's family for their contribution to public service as well. As we know, we can't do this without a supportive family, and this service comes at a steep price in terms of time spent doing public service and sacrifices made by his family. I thank his wife Lisa and his daughters, Julie and Allison, for being willing to share their husband and father with our country. I urge the Senate to confirm Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to be the next Deputy Attorney General of the United States at the Justice Department.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to ask my Senate colleagues to join me in designating April 2017 as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia, also known as CDH, is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop, allowing abdominal organs to move into the chest cavity and preventing lung growth. When the lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for the baby to breathe after birth, or the baby is unable to take in enough oxygen to stay healthy. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a birth defect that occurs in 1 out of every 2,500 live births worldwide. Only about 50 percent of CDH cases are diagnosed in utero. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimates that CDH affects 1,600 babies in the U.S. each year. Every 10 minutes, a baby is born with CDH, adding up to more than 700,000 babies with CDH since 2000. According to the CDC, babies born with CDH experience a high mortality rate ranging from 20 to 60 percent, depending on the severity of the defect and the treatments available at delivery; yet most people have never heard of CDH. Researchers are making great progress to determine the cause of this birth defect and to identify optimal treatment methods. In fiscal year 2017, the National Institutes of Health funded approximately $4 million in CDH research, an increase of $700,000 from fiscal year 2015. There is still much progress to be made, however. The cause of CDH remains unknown, and there currently is no cure. CDH survivors often endure long-term complications, such as congenital heart defects and developmental delays, and the average CDH survivor will face postnatal care of more than $100,000. Last month, members from the Association of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Research, Awareness and Support, also known as CHERUBS, visited my office. Among them were David and Allison Finger and their daughter Vivienne from Hyattsville, MD. Vivienne was born with CDH and had to spend 60 days in the newborn intensive care unit after birth and had to have surgery to repair the hernia when she was only 3 weeks old. On March 18, 2017, Vivienne celebrated her second birthday and is doing very well. Babies like Vivienne, born with CDH, today have a better chance of survival due to early detection and research on treatment options. For these reasons, I am proud my colleague the junior Senator from Alabama, Mr. Strange, has joined me in submitting a resolution designating April 2017 as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. In previous years, I was pleased to work with his predecessor, Senator Sessions, on this resolution. Designating this month in this fashion provides an opportunity to raise public awareness about CDH; promote quality prenatal care and ultrasounds to detect CDH in utero; and support finding for the research necessary to improve screening and treatment of CDH, discover the causes of CDH, and develop a cure for CDH.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my Senate colleagues to join me in designating April 2017 as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia, also known as CDH, is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop, allowing abdominal organs to move into the chest cavity and preventing lung growth. When the lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for the baby to breathe after birth or the baby is unable to take in enough oxygen to stay healthy. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a birth defect that occurs in 1 out of every 2,500 live births worldwide. Only about 50 percent of CDH cases are diagnosed in utero. The Center for Disease Control & Prevention, CDC, estimates that CDH affects 1,600 babies in the United States each year. Every 10 minutes, a baby is born with CDH, adding up to more than 700,000 babies with CDH since 2000. According to the CDC, babies born with CDH experience a high mortality rate ranging from 20 to 60 percent depending on the severity of the defect and the treatments available at delivery, yet most people have never heard of CDH. Researchers are making great progress to determine the cause of this birth defect and to identify optimal treatment methods. In fiscal year 2017, the National Institutes of Health funded approximately $4 million in CDH research, an increase of $700,000 from fiscal year 2015. There is still much progress to be made, however. The cause of CDH remains unknown, and there currently is no cure. CDH survivors often endure long-term complications such as congenital heart defects and developmental delays and the average CDH survivor will face postnatal care of more than $100,000. Last month, members from the Association of Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Research, Awareness and Support, also known as CHERUBS, visited my office. Among them were David and Allison Finger and their daughter Vivienne from Hyattsville, MD. Vivienne was born with CDH and had to spend 60 days in the newborn intensive care unit after birth and had to have surgery to repair the hernia when she was only 3 weeks old. On March 18, 2017, Vivienne celebrated her second birthday and is doing very well. Babies like Vivienne, born with CDH, today have a better chance of survival due to early detection and research on treatment options. For these reasons, I am proud my colleague the junior Senator from Alabama, Senator Strange, has joined me in introducing a bill designating April 2017 as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. In previous years, I was pleased to work with his predecessor; Senator Sessions, on this legislation. Designating this month in this fashion provides an opportunity to raise public awareness about CDH; promote quality prenatal care and ultrasounds to detect CDH in utero; and support funding for the research necessary to improve screening and treatment of CDH, discover the causes of CDH, and develop a cure for CDH.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to explain to the people of Maryland and our Nation my views on Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no more important responsibility that a Member of the Senate has than the advice and consent of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Of the many important responsibilities we have, this is one of the most important responsibilities. I have taken this on to try to understand as much as I can about Judge Gorsuch, to understand the dynamics of what his membership on the Supreme Court would mean, because I recognize it is not just an appointment for this term of Congress. This is a lifetime appointment, and it is very possible that he, if confirmed, will serve on the Supreme Court for a generation. So his impact on the workings of the Supreme Court is something that is extremely important to each Member of the Senate. I think many of us are looking for an Associate Justice who can bring about more consensus on the Supreme Court, who can try to deal with some of the great divisions in our Nation in a way that represents the values of our Constitution, that will allow our Nation to move forward in a united way. We also recognize that the Senate must give an independent evaluation of a Supreme Court Justice. This is not because the President of your party nominated someone to the Supreme Court, whether you support or oppose; it is the independent review process that each Senator undertakes to determine whether the nominee should get our support. So what I look at is someone who would be a mainstream jurist, who is sensitive to the civil rights of all Americans, who would understand the importance of our Constitution, which has been a Constitution that has expanded rights and not one that we would look at ways to move in the wrong direction on extending constitutional protections--that is, move backward rather than forward. First, let me start by stating that I am troubled by the process President Trump followed in nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. During his campaign, he talked about a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices, that they must be pro-life in the mold of Justice Scalia. The list that was submitted to him in which Judge Gorsuch was a part was proposed by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. That is not a good way to start a process of bringing in a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States. To my knowledge, there was no consultation with any Democrats prior to the nomination being made. The reason why consultation with all Members of the Senate is important is that if you engage in real understanding as to what the Senate--and we represent the entire country--is looking for in a Supreme Court Justice, you have a much better chance of ending up with a nominee who is going to enjoy broader support, bipartisan support, real bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, and then the 60-vote threshold does not become a hurdle. There is a reason we have the rules we do in the Senate, and the 60- vote concept on a controversial nominee is so that we don't end up with an extreme candidate who would end up being on the Supreme Court of the United States, that there must be that process that would generate 60 votes. So despite my concern about the process that was initiated by President Trump in the nomination, I have tried to look at all of the opportunities to understand Judge Gorsuch's record and his likely actions as a member of the Supreme Court. I took the time to meet with Judge Gorsuch, and I found that interview, that process, to be extremely helpful in understanding his judicial philosophy. I monitored the hearings that took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I found that testimony to be helpful. I reviewed the testimony of experts who had submitted both verbal and written comments in regard to Judge Gorsuch. I have reviewed his extensive legal record. We do have an extensive legal record that I am going to comment about that went into my own process in determining whether I can support him. I came to the conclusion that I could not support Judge Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States because he is not a mainstream candidate. I am concerned that he would put corporate interests before individual rights. The strength of our Constitution is in the individual. Individual rights should be paramount to special interests or corporate interests. I saw in his legal opinions a hostility toward environmental interests, women's health, marginalized students with disabilities, and other vulnerable types of individuals, that had me greatly concerned. I was particularly concerned about whether he could separate his political views from his legal views. This is an extremely important point. We want our Justices on the Supreme Court not to be influenced by the politics around us. In the legislative branch, it is perfectly legitimate to take into consideration political views. The President of the United States is nominated by a political party; that is understood. But the Supreme Court--the Justices on the Supreme Court need to leave their political views outside of their responsibilities. I was deeply troubled, after reading the opinions of Judge Gorsuch and his writings, that he would not be able to separate his political views from his legal views. I was concerned about whether he would truly be an independent check on the Presidency. We know that President Trump is testing the constitutional reach of his office. We have seen that in some of the Executive orders he has issued. And I have little confidence by his responses at the hearings that Judge Gorsuch would be an independent voice toward the President of the United States. Let me cite some examples to fill in the blanks on what I am saying. Judge Gorsuch challenges the Chevron deference doctrine. In the Gutierrez case, he indicates that judges rather than agencies should be basically administering our laws. The longstanding deference to agencies to interpret our law has allowed agencies to carry out their mission. Without that authority, it is extremely challenging to see how an agency can carry out the missions of laws we have passed. Judge Gorsuch raises questions as to whether that document is still relevant. Let me make it clear. Who benefits from the Chevron doctrine? The Chevron doctrine has allowed agencies to protect workers' rights, protect our environment, protect consumers, food safety, and the list goes on and on. Each of our States has examples to show how important the Chevron doctrine has been. In my State of Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay is critically important to Maryland's economy, critically important to the character of our State we have in Maryland and our future. The protection of the public health of the Chesapeake Bay has very much been advanced by the Chevron deference doctrine. Judge Gorsuch wrote: ``Chevron appears to qualify as a violation of the separation of powers.'' Then he argued that its ``primary rationale is no more than a fiction.'' Looking at what he has said about a fundamental document that is there to protect our environment, protect workers, protect public health, versus what Justice Scalia once explained--and I quote from Justice Scalia: ``In the long run, Chevron will endure and be given its full scope, because it more accurately reflects the reality of government and thus more adequately serves its needs.'' In the Gutierrez case, Judge Gorsuch was showing a more activist conservative agenda than Justice Scalia. Let me move on to Citizens United. We have talked about Citizens United probably more than any Supreme Court case on the Senate floor. We know it is a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision. We know it opened up the floodgates for dark money, allowing corporations to have constitutional rights which we thought were only for individuals. In the Riddle case, Judge Gorsuch announced a strict scrutiny standard to political contribution limits that quite frankly would make the Citizens United case even worse and would gut campaign finance law limits. I think each of us should be concerned about that decision. Let me move on to the TransAmerican Trucking case. Here, Judge Gorsuch was in dissent. He was in the minority. What he basically said was that a truckdriver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job; otherwise, he could be fired. What I mean by that, as I think many of our colleagues know, but let me say to those who might not be totally familiar, the truckdriver found himself abandoned because the brakes of his trailer were frozen in subzero temperatures. He contacted his dispatcher for help and after several hours recognized that his life was in danger because of hypothermia. He did not have adequate heat in his cab. He had one of three choices. He could try to maneuver the cab and the trailer with frozen brakes, maybe costing himself his life or the lives of other people on the road; he could remain as he was instructed by the dispatcher and perhaps freeze to death; or he could do what I think any reasonable person would do: He disconnected the cab, took care of making sure he was safe, warmed himself up, and returned to the trailer in order to complete the mission. For that, he was fired, and Judge Gorsuch said that was acceptable. That is an extreme opinion and one that gives us great pause as to how Judge Gorsuch will act on the Supreme Court of the United States. Let me talk about NLRB v. Community Health Services, wherein Judge Gorsuch was again in the dissent. It had to do with backpay for workers. In this opinion, he showed real hostility to workers and unions--something that had me greatly concerned. Another case that received a great deal of publicity in this body was Hobby Lobby. I raise it here for one principal reason. What the Court was saying and Judge Gorsuch was agreeing with was that the religious protection that is provided under the Constitution--that it is more important for a company to be able to exercise that religious freedom than the employees. Once again, one of my principal concerns is whether Judge Gorsuch will protect the rights of individuals or whether he will side on behalf of business. Clearly, in the Hobby Lobby case, he decided on business, to the detriment of women's rights, the LGBT community, and others. In the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah case, he showed a direct hostility to Planned Parenthood. Quite frankly, this case is very difficult to understand because Judge Gorsuch would have allowed the Governor to cut off funds even though the case had been settled and the parties had not asked to have the case retried. We talk about activism and that we do not want to see activist judges. To me, that demonstrates that Judge Gorsuch, indeed, will be an activist judge in his trying to move a particular political agenda. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, which is a case that came in during the confirmation hearing process, we had a severely autistic child, and Judge Gorsuch was responsible for the absurd reading of the de minimis benefit of defending against private placement. The Supreme Court rightly rejected that logic on an 8-to-0 decision. Justice Roberts wrote the opinion about the IDEA law in that there are protections for disabled students in our school system. Judge Gorsuch would turn back the progress that we have made on civil rights and on constitutional protection. As I mentioned earlier, I am very concerned about whether Judge Gorsuch can keep his political views separate from what he says--how he acts as a potential Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I go to a 2005 National Review article in which he wrote: American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box as the primary means of effecting their social agenda. . . . This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. I mention that particular case and quote Judge Gorsuch because we do not want a judge to side with either being a liberal or a conservative. We do not want a judge to say: I have a responsibility to promote an agenda as a judge. We do not want a judge to be able to take a political view and take that onto the bench. Whether it is a person whom we agree with politically or disagree with politically, we want to have an independent judiciary. This National Review article causes me grave concern as to whether Judge Gorsuch can, in fact, be that neutral person on the Court. Judge Gorsuch appears to be an activist judge and will become an activist judge and will turn back progress to protect individual constitutional rights. That is something that gives me grave concern. It is the reason I cannot support this nominee to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Let me turn to process for one moment, because it looks as though, sometime tomorrow, we are going to be called upon to vote on a cloture motion. I want to comment on that if I might. As I said earlier, to me, Judge Gorsuch is not mainstream. He will put corporate interests above individual interests. He shows a hostility toward the environment and women, health, women's health, et cetera. He has political views that, I think, he would not be able to differentiate, and he would not be an independent check and balance in our political system. For all of those reasons, it seems appropriate to me that this is why we have a 60-vote threshold--to make sure that we do not take extreme nominees and allow them to be confirmed by a partisan vote. We want to have a broader consensus, and Judge Gorsuch did not earn that broader consensus. There are additional considerations here, and this goes back a few years with the Republican leadership. What they did to President Obama's judicial nominations must be underscored because this is not in a vacuum. We did not get to this place in a vacuum from what has happened already but in our going back to President Obama when his district court nominees were delayed--in some cases, totally blocked-- and required a record number of cloture motions to have been filed and acted upon--a record number. We had, as I understand, more clotures and more filibusters of President Obama's nominees by Republicans than we did in the entire history of the U.S. Senate. There has been a direct effort by the Republican leadership to filibuster judicial nominees. That is wrong. It should not have been done. Yes, there are reasons for some but not for the record numbers that were done. You should be able to allow for the comity. Quite frankly, in 2013, the Republican leader told President Obama: No more DC Circuit Court judges. Let me repeat that. In 2013--this was the first year of the President's term--the Republican leader said: No more DC Circuit Court judges. We had 3 vacancies in the DC Circuit Court; 8 of the 11 had been filled, and 3 were vacant, and it had nothing to do with the nominees. They just said that they were not going to consider any of them, and they used a filibuster to block any filling of these positions. First, I quote from Chief Judge Henry Edwards when he talked about the DC Circuit: The review of a large, multi-party, difficult administrative appeal is the stable judicial work of the DC Circuit. This long distinguishes the work of the DC Circuit from the work of other circuits. It also explains why it is impossible to compare the work of the DC Circuit with other circuits by simply referring to the raw data of case filings. Chief Justice Roberts noted that about two-thirds of the cases before the DC Circuit involve the Federal Government in some civil capacity. That figure is less than 25 percent nationwide. He also described the DC Circuit's unique character as a court with the special responsibility to review legal challenges of the conduct of the national government. My point is clear. This is the second most important court in our land, and in the first year of President Obama's term, the Republicans announced that they would filibuster any attempt to put any judge on this circuit. Then we had the ultimate filibuster by the Republicans, and that was Merrick Garland. In February 2016, after Justice Scalia's death, a nominee was submitted to us by President Obama who was acknowledged to be mainstream, acknowledged to be well qualified, acknowledged to be a consensus nominee, and he got the ultimate filibuster. Most of the Republicans in the Senate would not meet with him. He did not have a committee hearing or a committee vote, and he did not have a floor vote. That was the ultimate filibuster. It was wrong, particularly when we know that he would have received 60 votes. So you cannot compare Judge Gorsuch with Judge Garland because, unlike Judge Garland, Judge Gorsuch does not share the same evaluation of being able to be a consensus, mainstream candidate who would receive a 60-vote threshold. For all of these reasons, if the majority leader is going to pursue the cloture vote on the Gorsuch nomination, I will not vote in favor of cloture. I would hope that we would be able to return to the comity that is important in the U.S. Senate, but we recognize there are times in which you should have a 60-vote threshold. When the President of the United States goes outside of the norms and the process has already been employed by the Republicans, I urge my colleagues to rethink the course that we are on. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week, I introduced, along with Senators Perdue, Feinstein, Rubio, Blumenthal, Collins, Merkley, Booker, and Leahy, the Combating Global Corruption Act of 2017. Global corruption is a fundamental obstacle to peace, prosperity, and human rights. It is fueling transnational criminal networks and violent extremism, and combatting it should be elevated and prioritized across our foreign policy efforts. I know my colleagues understand the crucial importance of addressing corruption because it undermines public confidence in government institutions and fosters resentment and instability. There is growing recognition across the United States and around the world that corruption is a serious threat to international security and stability. The countries and names might be different, but the characteristics and the impact on innocent people are the same. The bribery scandal surrounding the huge Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht has tarnished politicians and governments from Peru to Columbia to Mexico. Rampant corruption in oil-rich Angola is depriving children of a quality education and contributing to the highest child mortality rate in the world. While progress is now being made, extensive corruption in Afghanistan resulted in billions of dollars of assistance winding up in the pockets of crooked elites. The connections are clear: Where there are high levels of corruption, we find fragile states, political instability, and people suffering from hunger and violence. Corruption is a global problem, but its consequences take the harshest toll at the local level, and it is very tough to fight. The problem of corruption, and the disruption and suffering it causes, involves many corrupt actors, from government officials to businessmen, from law enforcement and military personnel to street gangs. Corruption is a system that operates via extensive, entrenched networks in both the public and private sectors. We know that corruption is the lifeblood of Vladimir Putin's Russia, and it is the glue for his regime's survival. Parasitic at home, deeply corrupt regimes like Putin's seek to enrich themselves, hollow out their own countries' institutions, and subvert rules-based democratic states abroad. An anticorruption platform run by opposition activist and aspiring, Presidential candidate Alexei Navalny recently released information uncovering four mansions, an Italian vineyard, yachts, and other high-value assets reportedly held by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Anticorruption demonstrations, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and across the country in recent weeks reflect the ongoing resistance of the Russian people to government corruption. Hundreds were arrested. Prominent anticorruption activist Ildar Dadin, who has already spent over a year in prison for earlier protests, was among those arrested. Corruption feeds the destructive fire of criminal networks and transnational crime. Citizens lose faith in the social compact between governments and the people. In Venezuela, we have seen how rampant corruption has collapsed the country's economy, sparked a humanitarian crisis, and produced chains of money laundering that span several continents. The ongoing crisis there now threatens to collapse the last few remnants of the rule of law. Corruption also fuels violence by security forces. South Sudan's kleptocrats have either failed to pay or delayed salary payments to their soldiers who have in turn taken out their rage on innocent civilians, attacking them, looting and burning their homes, and engaging in other violent criminality. We should take heart that in just the past 2 years, popular protests against corruption have broken out in Iraq, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Lebanon, Malaysia, Moldova, and Venezuela. In Romania, efforts to weaken anticorruption laws there prompted an estimated 500,000 protesters to take to the streets last month, even after the government repealed its decree, showing the degree to which citizens are fed up with graft and determined to push back. These were the largest demonstrations since the fall of communism. Some victims express their frustration through peaceful protest, but not all. The revolutions of the Arab Spring and Ukraine began, in part, as determined anticorruption protests. In every country where protests erupted in 2011, demonstrators condemned the corruption of detested ruling elites and demanded accountability and the return of looted assets. These revolutions have degenerated into some of the chief security challenges we confront now--Russian aggression in Ukraine, 6 years of slaughter in Syria, the implosion of Libya, a brutal war in Yemen, the fraying of Iraq, and an expanding insurgency in Egypt. Official corruption fuels radical extremism and terrorism, too; it gives credibility to militant religious extremists and helps them gain recruits and increasing footholds in Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan, Central Asia, the Sahel, and West Africa. It may seem like a spurious example, but it can be persuasive to a young Nigerian man whose sister was molested by a teacher as the cost for attending school. Let's be clear-eye. Any fight against corruption will be long-term and difficult. It is a fight against powerful people, powerful companies, and powerful interests. It is about changing a mindset and a culture as much as it is about establishing and enforcing laws. As my colleagues and constituents know, my attention has long been focused on fighting corruption. I introduced the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act to target human rights abusers and corrupt individuals around the globe who threaten the rule of law and deny fundamental freedoms, but the problem is so big--we simply have to do more. This is why this week I introduced with bipartisan support the Combating Global Corruption Act of 2017 in the U.S. Senate. We must meet the scale of entrenched corruption with greater resolve and commitment. To do that, I believe we must focus on three things which I will lay out in my legislation. First, we must institutionalize the fight against corruption as a national security priority. In my bill, the State Department will produce an annual report, similar to the Trafficking in Persons Report, which takes a close look at each country's efforts to combat corruption. That model, which has effectively advanced the effort to combat modern day slavery, will similarly embed the issue of corruption in our collective work, so that we hold governments to account. The bill establishes minimum standards for combating corruption-- standards that should be every government's duty to its citizens. These include whether a country has laws that recognize corrupt acts for the crimes they are--violations of the people's trust--and that come with serious penalties for breaking that trust; whether an independent judiciary decides corruption cases, free from influence and abuse; whether there is support for civil society organizations that are the watchdogs of integrity against would-be thieves of the state. This bill aims to build anticorruption DNA into the basic functions of government. Second, the bill would improve the way we look at our own foreign and security assistance, and promote more transparency--let in some daylight. For countries that fall short on their corruption efforts, the bill calls for an assessment of the risk of corruption for our foreign assistance and steps to combat corruption, including the ability to claw back any funds diverted from their intended purpose and terminate compromised programs. American taxpayers should know how our foreign assistance is spent, and they should feel confident that we are doing the kind of risk assessments, analysis, and oversight that ensure our assistance to other countries is having the effect we want it to have. Third, the bill consolidates information about anticorruption efforts abroad and puts it online, where citizens can see the numbers and the programs. That kind of transparency is essential to open government, but in my experience, it also has the effect of making us better at self-policing our work. We can use the data to capture redundancies and analyze trends, improving our decisionmaking. I urge my colleagues to join me and the bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation in this effort. The success of our diplomacy, and the ultimate impact of our international security efforts depend on it. Thank you.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to express my opposition to S. 89 because it exempts certain vessels--actually one specific vessel called the Delta Queen--from current fire retardant construction standards and, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, represents ``an unacceptable degree of fire safety risk. . . . '' Maritime history has numerous examples of catastrophic on-board fires followed by the passage--or attempted passage--of laws designed to improve safety and protect passengers and crew. In response to the sinking of the RMS Titanic, in 1914, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, prescribed emergency equipment and safety procedures IMO-flagged ships were required to have in place. The 1934 fire on the SS Morro Castle prompted the adoption of multiple Federal safety regulations, including the use of fire retardant construction materials. A series of fires aboard international passenger ships in the early 1960s prompted the U.S. to enact the Safety of Life at Sea Act, SOLAS, which mandated that ``no passenger vessel of the United States shall be granted a certificate of inspection [. . .] unless the vessel is constructed of fire-retardant materials.'' Congress delayed the implementation of the SOLAS mandate first until 1968, then until 1970, then again until 1973, but only for U.S. passenger vessels operating on inland rivers. In 1973, Congress again delayed the effect of the mandate, but this time EXPRESSLY for one ship--the Delta Queen--and only for one 5-year period ``while a new [overnight passenger] riverboat is being constructed.'' Despite the clear intent of Congress in 1973, the various owners of the Delta Queen successfully secured exemptions from SOLAS for the Delta Queen in 1986, 1991, and 1996. Their attempts to seek a 10-year extension in 2007 and a 15-year extension in 2013 were unsuccessful, so they made another run in the 114th Congress and now in the 115th Congress with S. 89. Current law requires passenger vessels with overnight accommodations for 50 or more passengers to be constructed of fire-retardant materials, unless an exemption is made, but in the case of the Delta Queen, the U.S. Coast Guard has consistently opposed legislation to provide the Delta Queen an exemption to remain in service as an overnight passenger cruise vessel. A Coast Guard Special Inspection Report on the Delta Queen in 2008 found ``an unnecessary and unacceptable accumulation of combustible fire load.'' In a January 8, 2016, letter to Senator Bill Nelson, the Coast Guard's then-Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs wrote ``the Department of Homeland Security is resigned to oppose continuously any legislation that would provide any form of statutory relief for the steamer Delta Queen.'' S. 89 is contrary to public safety. It is contrary to the Safety of Life at Sea Act regulations which have been in full force in the U.S. since 1966, and it is contrary to the guidance of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Delta Queen is an old ship made of wood. The boilers are original and open to the wood superstructure. There are no structural boundaries to contain a fire and only one means of egress. I understand that supporters of S. 89 are concerned about the historic preservation of this ship and the economic opportunities that operation of the ship could bring to its homeport. We should first and foremost be concerned with the safety of the people who will work on the ship and vacation on the ship and that they can have the same opportunities and experiences on a ship that is compliant with the reasonable safety standards that have been in place in this country for more than 50 years.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval with respect to the title X regulation--a resolution which effectively endorses discriminatory practices toward family planning and safety net providers. Title X is the Nation's only Federal grant program that is dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. Last year, title X funding made it possible for nearly 4,000 health centers to provide basic primary and preventive healthcare services to over 4 million low-income women and their families. I am talking about critical services, such as Pap tests, cervical cancer screenings, contraception, breast exams, and HIV testing. In Maryland, there are 55 title X funded health centers that span the State. These include federally qualified health centers, local health departments, Planned Parenthood clinics, and school-based health centers. In fiscal year 2015, Maryland received over $3.8 million in title X funding and provided health services to over 64,000 patients. These are low-income, underinsured, and uninsured individuals who would otherwise lack access to such basic healthcare. As many of my colleagues know, Planned Parenthood, a high-quality health provider, has been under constant attack by the Republicans, who want to eliminate the organization's Federal funding. Just last week, the Republicans' Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace bill threatened to defund Planned Parenthood, which is a trusted healthcare provider, by eliminating clinics' Medicaid reimbursements. This week, Republicans want to roll back protections that were put in place for family planning clinics and allow for discrimination against our Nation's family planning providers. What I find even more disappointing is that this is a major policy shift for our Nation, and we are using a procedure known as the Congressional Review Act to make that decision. Yet those who support this are not even taking to the floor to defend it. This is outrageous that one would use a procedure to repeal this type of funding and not even be on the floor to defend those actions. In December of 2016, the Obama administration finalized the regulation before us today to protect family planning providers from such discrimination. The regulation was intended to protect access to care in States that have issued their own regulations and legislation that block family planning providers from receiving title X funds. By overriding this regulation, Republicans will empower States to pick and choose who provides these services, but it will be based on arbitrary criteria that will have nothing to do with the quality of services the patients will receive. Republicans are actively condoning discrimination against providers, which will, ultimately, deny women and their families access to family planning and preventive health services. It is not just Democrats who are concerned. Multiple healthcare providers have come out against this resolution because discrimination against any healthcare provider is wrong. Let me name just a few of the groups that oppose this action: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They are all alarmed because they know low-income, underinsured, and uninsured patients will be unable to access needed health services if it passes. In Maryland, for example, 84 percent of the 64,000-plus patients served with title X funds have incomes at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty line. That means that they earn $11,770 a year or less--under $12,000 a year. How do you expect these families to be able to get their healthcare needs met if this resolution of disapproval is passed? Ninety-four percent of title X patients in Maryland earn less than $29,425 a year. Overturning this regulation will hurt our most vulnerable communities. Let's be clear about this. This is not about abortion. There is no Federal funding for abortion. This is about low-income men and women not having access to pregnancy testing, contraceptive services, pelvic exams, high blood pressure and diabetes screenings, STD and HIV/AIDS screenings, infertility services, and health education. It is a war on the poor, and it is a war on access to preventive healthcare. The American people deserve better from their elected officials. I am committed to fighting these reckless attempts to repeal a reasonable regulation that has been promulgated to prevent discriminatory practices that will harm thousands of low-income women and their families in Maryland and across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject this procedural resolution, which will allow discrimination and deny adequate care to low-income families. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote against two of the resolutions that are on the floor, H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67--both under the Congressional Review Act--which would not allow two regulations under the Obama administration to go forward that would allow for increased retirement security for American workers and families. Throughout my time in office, I have fought hard for measures that increase the retirement security for American workers and families. One of the most prominent examples is the private retirement improvements that I championed with my friend Senator Portman when we were both in the House of Representatives. More recently, Senator Portman and I have joined together to support other changes to our pension laws that enhance retirement security. For instance, the Cardin-Portman Church Plan Clarification Act, which became law in 2015, clarified the application of certain tax laws and regulations to the unique structures of church pension plans. The Cardin-Portman Retirement Security Preservation Act, which was reported out of the Finance Committee unanimously last September, amends nondiscrimination regulations to protect older workers in pension plans that have been closed or frozen. I hope the bill will be taken up again in this Congress. I mention these efforts over the years with Senator Portman because I think they show two things: First, they show that ensuring all Americans can retire with dignity is an ongoing effort. We need to work continually with workers, retirees, and other stakeholders to make sure retirement security is achievable, especially as our economy changes. Second, they show that this ongoing work has been and hopefully will continue to be strongly bipartisan. That is why I need to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67. These resolutions are an unnecessary step backward in our ongoing retirement security work. As my colleagues are aware, H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 eliminate the ERISA safe harbor that was created by the Department of Labor for IRA plans that are administered by State and local governments. We are considering the local government resolution today, but I want to stress the importance of both types of plans. The provisions of this safe harbor are very similar to an existing safe harbor that is already in ERISA that allows employers to establish payroll deductions to IRAs. So long as the State- and municipal-run plans meet the requirements of the safe harbor, the businesses--usually small businesses--that offer State-run retirement plans to their workers will not inadvertently be subject to liability under Federal law. The Department of Labor rules were meant to provide legal certainty to the increasing number of States that have decided, in the absence of any action by the Congress, to address the retirement coverage gap in their communities. Maryland is one of those States. Our State is active. Last year, Republican Governor Larry Hogan signed legislation creating a Maryland-run automatic IRA program. The legislation was backed by the Democratic leaders in the general assembly. In fact, it passed unanimously out of our Senate. The reason for this bipartisanship was, in part, in recognition of the stakes. At the time the law went into effect, which was last July, an estimated 1 million Marylanders worked for businesses that did not offer retirement savings plans. Without the rule, the businesses that choose to use the Maryland-run option to provide retirement plans for their workers may face legal liability. At the very least, the repeal of the safe harbor will slow the entire implementation process. I understand that my colleagues who oppose the Department of Labor rule want to be sure that strong ERISA protections apply to retirees; however, under current law, most IRAs do not have ERISA protection. For these IRAs, the only chance for any kind of consumer protection is for States to do it. H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 are seeking to undo that. I am also confused by claims that the adoption of these resolutions would necessarily lead to the complete ERISA preemption of State programs. The Department of Labor does not take that position. To claim that these resolutions alone would have such a broad effect on the interaction of ERISA with State law is troubling, to say the least. Let me be clear. I would prefer Federal action in this space. Retirement security is one of a seemingly dwindling number of bipartisan issues we can tackle in Congress, and the concerns raised by many of the stakeholders I have worked with in the past on retirement reform are understandable. I am concerned that a lack of Federal action will lead to a State-level patchwork that will be hard for employers and more mobile workers to navigate. I would much rather build on the efforts of the States to create a uniform Federal system under which employers would adopt high-quality, well-managed plans. I am also concerned that providing a State-run option could diminish robust competition with the private sector. The point of these State-run programs is to decrease our coverage gap. However, we must not also create a race to the bottom whereby employers opt for a one-size-fits-all minimum and do not consider other plans that may be better tailored to their workforces. This is not, in my view, the case in Maryland. The answer to these problems is not H.J. Res. 66 or H.J. Res. 67; it is for Congress to continue its ongoing bipartisan work on retirement security, not to undermine what our States have chosen to do to help our mutual constituents. This is federalism the way federalism is supposed to work. The States adopt policies and hopefully give us some guidance as to how we can develop uniform national policies. I am, frankly, surprised that my Republican colleagues have chosen to take up these resolutions. It is hard to see what the disapproval of the Department of Labor rules achieves other than notching the repeal of another Obama-era rule, but at what cost? To me, the resolutions take a fairly clear, anti-States'-rights stance, all to create potential liability for small employers who will take advantage of the new State laws. Essentially, supporting this resolution means sowing unnecessary legal confusion in an area in which States have already acted in a bipartisan way. We can do better. We can work together on this issue. Instead of focusing on haphazard repeal measures, I am confident that we can produce thoughtful, substantive, bipartisan solutions. I urge my colleagues to oppose these resolutions. As I have in the past, I stand ready to work with them to ensure all Americans can save with dignity for their financially secure retirement. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to join the American people in celebrating Women's History Month. I would like to begin that celebration by paying homage to several women whose ingenuity and inventions have shaped modern society, but who, like innumerable women throughout history, have not received the credit or recognition they are due. Katherine Blodgett is a good place to start. In 1935, she invented the first transparent glass that eliminated distortion and glare. Before her, glass contained small bubbles and inclusions that was suitable for windows, but little else. Her method of producing and cutting glass revolutionized the material and is the reason we have camera lenses, microscopes, and eyeglasses today. Without her pioneering work, our ability to see and our ability to look into the universe would be degraded. In 1942, the actress Hedy Lamarr and a partner were granted a U.S. patent for a secret communication system that involved manipulating radio frequencies to form an unbreakable code to prevent classified messages from being intercepted. The significance of her invention was not fully realized until the 1960s, when it was used by naval ships during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were able to navigate that perilous nuclear threat successfully in part because of her self-taught inventiveness and skill. Lamarr's coded communications system has been used by numerous military agencies since. Just 2 years later, in 1944, Grace Hopper made her own kind of history, becoming what many consider to be one of the world's first computer scientists. She invented the compiler that translated written language into computer code and coined the terms ``bug'' and ``debugging.'' Fifteen years later, she led the team that developed COBOL, one of the very first programming languages. More recently, in 1965, Stephanie Kwolek invented Kevlar. We know Kevlar best as the material used to manufacture bulletproof vests, protecting our police officers and first responders in their greatest moments of crisis, but Kevlar is widely considered to be one of the strongest, most durable materials ever invented and has become a critical component in the manufacturing of airplanes, boats, cars, and bridge cables. I pause to honor these great inventors and scientists because their names should be familiar, but they aren't. As long as toxic, gender- role stereotypes persist, these women serve as important examples that such stereotypes are hollow and wrong. Women have been serving on the frontlines of war, science, and invention since long before men ``allowed'' them. These women and others are part of our untold history. You will rarely hear them discussed in American classrooms, and you will seldom find their stories printed in textbooks. Most people wouldn't even recognize their names; yet our lives and fortunes have been shaped by them. Every day, men go to work protected by Kevlar vests, live their daily lives with the benefit of eyeglasses, or boot up their laptop computer using the devices and tools women gave them. That is both the majesty and tragedy of women's history: it is inextricable and powerful and entirely undervalued. This Women's History Month should not pass without each and every one of us at the very least taking the time to acknowledge and appreciate the women of history who helped to invent modern society, who fought alongside men in every war, who gave us more complete rights and equality, who endured the habitual and everyday scorn of sexism--and who did so generation after generation without accolade or recognition. Perhaps the best way to honor the past is to secure the future. The denizens of women's history didn't endure systemic misogyny or work so hard to change our world so that we would peer backward and applaud. They did so with the hope we would look forward and make progress. We still have a long way to go, but we have made progress. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, being a woman is no longer considered a ``preexisting condition'' that warrants higher premiums and deductibles. Also thanks to the Affordable Care Act, preventative services for women--like mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and prenatal care--are covered by insurance companies. Today more than 48 million American women take advantage of that. Thanks to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, women have extended protection in cases of wage discrimination. The Lilly Ledbetter Act finally recognized that, when pay discrimination occurs, it is not a single event, but a chronic and repeated offense that inflicts ongoing damage with each and every substandard paycheck. This simple and commonsense recognition has allowed women to seek justice against the kind of economic disenfranchisement that has plagued generations. Progress, however, does not have its own autopilot button. We must be its stewards and its champions. We must be its agents. We must protect it actively, each and every day, or else we will be complicit in its loss. I am talking about women's reproductive rights. A woman's right to make her own decisions is under threat today. Her body is her body. It is not ours, and it certainly is not the government's. Roe v. Wade decided that in 1973, yet 44 years later, the Federal Government is run by a party that uses every tool at its disposal to chip away at reproductive rights. Whether it is State policies to limit the types of buildings abortions can be performed in or the threat to defund Planned Parenthood, women's rights are under attack. Let's be clear that Federal funding for abortion services is already banned under the Hyde Amendment. Today's witch hunt against Planned Parenthood is not substantive in nature; it is a thinly-veiled attempt to prolong a culture war with the hope of assuaging far-right voters. Women's reproductive rights deserve more than to be treated as a political punchline. Reproductive rights were hard-won by centuries of activism and pain, and we--all Members of this Chamber--must vow this month and every month to honor that with our votes and with our voices. We must vow not to let women's reproductive rights be diminished on our watch. It is 2017, and still, women are expected to be everything simultaneously, all while they are refused the tools and the freedom to balance such difficult demands. It is 2017, and still, families-- mothers most of all--are too often forced to choose between parenthood and economic security, between recovering from childbirth and their career. No woman, no matter what her line of work or Zip Code may be, should be forced to make such an impossible decision. It is our job to pass legislation to ensure no woman has to. Even with the Lilly Ledbetter legislation, women today are paid, on average, just 77 cents for every dollar men receive for performing the same work. That gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women only earn 64 cents to the dollar, while Latina women earn only 55 cents. That is a problem begging to be solved by Congress. That is a problem for all of us. Women are powerful economic engines in this country, and if we continue to stand idly by while their work is underpaid and undervalued, we will all suffer. We will all have to explain to our daughters and granddaughters why we didn't fight harder for them. Critically, there is also the issue of violence against women. It is a moral outrage that women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical and sexual assaults every single year. When women stand up and tell us the stories behind this number, we must sit down and listen. We must stop speaking over them with advice on how to protect themselves or avoid certain social situations. They shouldn't have to. It is insulting to presume they require lectures on personal safety, but that men don't require lectures on consent. This problem demands a cultural shift, and we must be its purveyors. There is the issue of college affordability. A related issue is access to and participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, programs and--of equal importance--encouragement to join them. Women need to be better represented in positions of power. These and other issues are what is at stake. These and other issues are why we recognize Women's History Month: to remind ourselves and each other that women helped build this Nation and this world. We need to remind ourselves that women are therefore entitled to equal representation in it and equal access to its opportunities. We need to remind ourselves that women deserve equal respect and equal protection under the law and that women's rights are human rights. We all prosper when we fight to protect them. Toward these ends, I have led the charge in Congress to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Many Americans would be shocked to learn that the Constitution still lacks a provision ensuring gender equality. That is wrong, but it is fixable. I have introduced S.J. Res. 5, legislation to remove the deadline for States to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which would pave the way for its formal adoption. Nevada recently passed the Equal Rights Amendment, leaving us just two States shy of success. The Equal Rights Amendment is only slightly longer than two tweets, but its ratification would finally give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. It reads as follows: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. It is that simple, and it is both necessary and past time to adopt it. When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. The original deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress. Ultimately, 35 States ratified the ERA by the time the revised deadline expired, leaving advocates a little short. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments. In fact, in 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. The Senate could pass my legislation removing the 10-year deadline right now. I strongly encourage the majority leader to bring S.J. Res. 5 up for a vote as soon as possible. American women deserve to know that their most fundamental rights are explicitly protected by our nation's most venerated document. I have often said that how a nation treats its women is a good barometer of that nation's potential for success as a whole. I hold the United States of America to that standard. Every day, I weigh the successes and failures we have had along the path toward fair treatment and gender equality, and I assess ways Congress can facilitate more successes. Every day, I reevaluate how best to fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, how best to protect reproductive rights, how best to fight for paid family leave and affordable higher education and greater representation in this very Chamber. I invite every Senator to do the same, both because those are the right battles and because fighting them protects gender equality progress that has been so hard-won by the women of this Nation. We must not allow those victories to be reversed. We must keep progressing. This Women's History Month, I am reminded of what the poet G.D. Anderson once said: ``Feminism is not about making women strong. Women are already strong. It's about changing the way the world perceives that strength.'' Let us remember it is precisely that strength that has propelled our world forward. It is precisely that strength that serves as the foundation of so many of this country's successes, and it is precisely that strength we must remember and meet with our own, when women's rights are under siege.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes prior to the vote.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Corker for the manner in which this resolution of ratification has been handled in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It has been handled in a nonpartisan way. We have had hearings, we have had votes, we have had a lot of conversations about it, and at last we are going to get a chance to vote on the ratification. So I come to the floor to speak in support of this resolution of ratification regarding the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Montenegro. I have been a strong supporter of Montenegro's bid to join NATO. It will enhance our security, it will strengthen the alliance, and it will send a strong message of resolve to Russia as it invades its neighbors and seeks to upend the international order. Montenegro's inclusion in NATO will have positive repercussions across the continent and will send an important message of hope to aspirant countries. Last week, I met with Montenegro's Foreign Minister, and he described Russia's persistent efforts to weaken support for NATO membership in Montenegro. Last October, Russia interfered in the Montenegrin elections. There was a plot to assassinate the former Prime Minister of Montenegro and take over the Montenegrin Parliament. The suspects in that case scurried back to Moscow, and the Russian authorities refused to turn them over to the Montenegrins or even make them available for questioning in Moscow. To this day, Russian-supported NGOs and media propaganda continue to rail against Montenegro's NATO membership. Russia does not get a veto over decisions of the alliance. We need to send a strong message of resolve. This is not an isolated circumstance with Russia. We have seen how they interfered in our elections. We have seen what they are doing in Europe today. We see all these different activities by Russia, and we have to protect ourselves. One way we protect ourselves is by making our own decisions as to who should be admitted into NATO. Another is that we should have an independent commission take a look at what Russia was doing in their interference with our elections and what they are trying to do in trying to compromise our democratic system of government. I think the events that occurred in recent weeks of additional contacts that Russia made with members of the Trump administration just underscore the importance for that independent commission to take a look at what happened. I stand here today in support of NATO enlargement. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently voted by voice vote in support of this bid--unanimously, Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan issue. We have had a request from the President to take up this issue. Nearly all NATO members have approved Montenegro's bid. We are among the last to ratify, and we must get the job done. Tonight, we can take a major step forward in that regard. What is the case for Montenegro's membership? Admission of Montenegro would mark another important step forward, fully integrating the Balkans into international institutions that have helped to contribute to peace and stability over the years in Europe. Croatia and Albania joined the alliance in 2009 and have been valuable contributors to accomplishing NATO's objectives since then. I hope that Montenegro's admission will help them motivate the reforms necessary for other Balkan countries to join. Montenegro has made outsized contributions to NATO missions, despite not being a full member. I understand that in Afghanistan, Montenegro has rotated 20 percent of its armed forces through the ISAF and the resolute support missions. Twenty percent of their force--that is a substantial contribution. It also contributed to the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo and other NATO missions. No country outside the alliance gets a veto over who gets to join, especially Russia. So we must send a strong signal. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and get it to the President so the President can deposit the instrument of ratification at NATO in support of Montenegro's bid. I urge my colleagues to support the mission. I yield back the remainder of my time.