Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. I just wanted to take this time to welcome Senator Van Hollen to the Senate. Senator Van Hollen gave his maiden speech from the desk that was held by Senator Mikulski. I know Senator Mikulski would be very proud of what he said here on the floor and very proud of Senator Van Hollen being here in the Senate. I look forward to working with him. I want to tell the people of Maryland and the people of this Nation that what you heard tonight, you heard a person who is committed to making our system work, who is committed to working with every Member of the Senate. But he will stand up for the principles and will stand up on behalf of the people of Maryland. Again, welcome. It is wonderful to have him here in the Senate.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it is with a renewed sense of purpose that I reintroduce my resolution on the Emoluments Clause. It is a resolution intended to uphold the values and strictures of one of our most sacred documents. I am referring, of course, to the Constitution, the instrument that, in but a short time, President-elect Donald Trump will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend. Our Founding Fathers could not have been clearer that any Federal office holder of the United States must never be put in a position where he or she could be influenced by a foreign governmental actor. It was a concern made explicit by Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist No. 22, in which he noted examples of republics that had been ruthlessly dismembered by their hostile neighbors who had paralyzed the victim republic by bribing its officers and officials. The Founding Fathers addressed this grave concern by placing the Emoluments Clause within the Constitution as an explicit bar on foreign corruption and interference. Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution declares that: No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Longstanding precedent has made it plain that the President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch of the government, clearly occupies an ``office of profit or trust''. As such, the Emoluments Clause clearly applies to and constrains whomever holds the office of the Presidency. Past American presidents have recognized the danger of foreign corruption and interference, or merely the perception of corruption and interference, and have accordingly taken great pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regard to their personal wealth and investments, ensuring that such investments never interfere with performing their duties as President of the United States. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all had their assets placed into blind trust while they were President. To fulfill his promises of greater government transparency, President Obama went even further and invested the vast majority of his funds in U.S. Treasury bonds. The President-elect has claimed he will ``absolutely sever'' his ties to the Trump Organization, which has financial interests around the world and negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states, as well as entities that are extensions of foreign states. We have a constitutional duty to ensure that he does. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a foreign government will want to give President Trump a personal gift through his businesses with the intent to curry favor with him and seek to influence his decisions in ways that benefit them, instead of the American people--precisely the danger our Founding Fathers sought to protect against with the Emoluments Clause. This is not an esoteric argument about rules that do not affect real people. Put simply, the American public has a right to know that the President of the United States is always acting in their best interest, and not take the risk that his actions are influenced by some benefit or gift from a foreign government like Russia or China. The citizens of this country need to know that when the President of the United States is making decisions about potential trade agreements, sending troops into war, or spending America's great resources, those actions are motivated by the public interest, and not because they might advance or harm the President's private pecuniary interests. We should be concerned when the President-elect is connected to an organization that has dealings with countries and entities that are not interested in distinguishing between doing business with President Trump and the profit-making organization that bears his name. The President-elect's failure thus far to dispose of his business interests in a comprehensive fashion has left this door wide open, and we are already seeing indications that foreign companies and businesses are beginning to take advantage. Kuwait's National Day event, which has traditionally been held at the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C., was moved to the Trump International Hotel, allegedly because of pressure-- or perhaps merely a suggestion--from the President-elect's associates. Similarly, Bahrain has chosen to schedule an event to take place at the Trump International Hotel. News reports suggest that one day after a phone call between President-elect Trump and the President of Argentina, permits under review for the Trump building in Buenos Aires were suddenly approved. In China, just days after the presidential election, Donald Trump scored a legal victory in a decade-long trademark dispute over the right to use the Trump name for real estate agent services in commercial and residential properties in China. The timing of these actions is interesting, to put it mildly. I sincerely regret the necessity of reintroducing this resolution. Just after Thanksgiving, when President-elect Trump held a press conference to state that on December 15, 2016, he would make an announcement about his future with the Trump Organization, I publicly said how encouraged I was to see the President-elect's positive response. When I first introduced this resolution, my intent was to create an opportunity for the President-elect to act and remove this as an issue, so that he could put aside any appearance of impropriety and devote himself to good work on behalf of the American people. That is why I was disappointed when Mr. Trump abruptly canceled his December 15 announcement--and, as of today, he has not yet rescheduled it. This issue is far too critical to kick the can down the road, or to ignore, before an incipient violation of the Constitution becomes an actual violation. Even before Mr. Trump's cancellation of his December 15 announcement, I was deeply concerned by statements he and his lawyers made with regard to the disposition of his numerous business interests. Mr. Trump's lawyers had initially announced that the Trump Organization would be placed into a ``blind trust'' managed by Donald Trump's older children. That arrangement is, unfortunately, by its terms the complete opposite of an actual blind trust. An actual blind trust is an arrangement which the official has no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets being held, and in which the trust's manager operates independently of the owner. Around the same time President-elect Trump cancelled his December 15th announcement, he tweeted another idea for disposition of his businesses, stating that ``[t]wo of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office''. Let me be absolutely clear: the arrangement tweeted by Mr. Trump is not sufficient and is hardly independent. Mr. Trump would be well-aware of the specific assets held, and he could receive communications about and take actions to affect the value of those assets. The idea that President-elect Trump's children, who are listed as members of his transition team and have already been present at meetings or phone calls with foreign leaders, can ever be truly ``independent managers'' is simply not a credible resolution of this concern. This inadequate suggested arrangement is not a blind trust and will not ensure compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution. Indeed, numerous legal and constitutional experts, including Richard Painter, a former adviser to George W. Bush, have made clear that such an arrangement will leave the President-elect with a personal financial interest in businesses that collect foreign government payments and benefits. The notion that the American people should be satisfied by an unbinding promise that no new deals will be pursued--a promise that does not define what constitutes a ``deal'' and which can be reneged on at any time--does not pass the laugh test. I must admit, I have also been quite disturbed and disappointed by the recent excuses and suggestions by surrogate speakers and supporters of the President-elect as to why no action need be taken and, indeed, by statements the President-elect has made himself. President-elect Trump has tweeted, [p]rior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.'' This is undoubtedly true. But the American people, in voting for a candidate, cannot--and, in fact, would not--want to excuse a potential future violation of the Constitution by that candidate. Indeed, I would say that President- elect Trump has this idea backwards. Prior to the election, he was well aware of the fact that he had interests in unique properties all over the world. Since the President-elect has referred to himself as ``a constitutionalist,'' he must have known of the importance of complying with the Constitution by severing his foreign business connections in advance of his inauguration, which makes his continued failure and delay on this front all the more inexplicable. On November 22nd, President-elect Trump stated, ``The law's totally on my side, meaning, the president can't have a conflict of interest.'' This regrettable statement selectively picks facts and shows a troubling disregard for the Constitution and for the duties owed to the American people. While the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal judges may be granted specific, limited exemptions from conflicts of interest so that they may act and carry out their duties, that law does not supersede the Constitution nor, frankly, have anything to do with the very specific provisions of the Emoluments Clause, which are intended to prevent foreign governmental financial influence over the President. Even as some of the President-elect's most trusted surrogates have acknowledged that the potential ethics challenges facing President- elect Trump are ``a very real problem,'' they have persisted in arguing that Mr. Trump is somehow exempt from constitutional strictures, and even from the temptation of corruption itself, by virtue of his great wealth. For example, former Speaker Gingrich has claimed ``that this is a new situation we've never seen before, and the rules [that] were written for people who were dramatically less successful literally do not work,'' while Mr. Trump's leading candidate to head the administration's Council of Economic Advisors has claimed that ``[w]ealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.'' Really? That is a transparently false idea that one does not have to look very far to disprove. We need only glance at the countries where the Trump Organization has done business--places like Russia, Azerbaijan, Argentina, and Nigeria--to find numerous examples of already-wealthy government officials who have used their positions to lie, cheat, extort, and further enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving. It was the enduring wisdom of our Founders to recognize that America is not magically immune from the corruption problems in other countries, and that not all men are angels. This is why we place our trust in the Constitution, not in individuals. A man with more wealth and extensive foreign holdings than prior presidents is, by an order of magnitude, more vulnerable to foreign corruption and interference than any president before him. The Emoluments Clause has greater bearing on Mr. Trump's presidency than his predecessors, not less. No man can gain such wealth and power that he outgrows the limits of our Constitution. John Adams said it best: ``We are a government of laws, and not of men.'' No matter our political or partisan sympathies, we all recognize that the Constitution is the law of the land, and that when the needs and ambitions of any man conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must win out. It has also been suggested by some of Donald Trump's supporters that the Emoluments Clause does not actually apply to the office of the Presidency. Not only does this conflict with longstanding understanding of the Emoluments Clause in the Executive Branch, it contravenes both the strict interpretation of the plain words of the Constitution, as well as the traditional values and practices adopted by previous presidents. To get around the ethics challenges facing Mr. Trump, it has been suggested by the President-elect's supporters that a panel of five ``experts'' regularly monitor the Trump Organization businesses and tell the President ``don't go over these bounds''. It has even been suggested that the President-elect can simply sidestep ethics issues that clearly violate the law by pardoning advisors ``if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules''. These 'ideas' are non- starters that cut dangerously against the plain intent of the Emoluments Clause. I am afraid they show a disregard for the values of our Constitution. The solution to this problem is simple, not complex, and is set forth by my resolution: President-elect Trump has only to follow the precedents established by prior presidents and convert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings; adopt blind trusts managed by truly independent trustees with no relationship to Mr. Trump or his businesses; or to take other, equivalent measures. This solution also has the benefit of having been successfully implemented by every modem president before Mr. Trump. This resolution and its aims should not be viewed through the distorting prism of politics. I want the Trump administration to have the support from Congress to succeed on behalf of the American people. Nevertheless, I believe that Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States, whoever that person may be, does not violate our Constitution, acts lawfully, and is discharging the obligations of the office based on the broad interests of the American people and not his or her own narrow, personal interests. Despite the late hour--just days before the inauguration--it is still possible for President-elect Trump to live up to the values of the Constitution, give the American people the transparency they deserve, and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization before he takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017. To do so would avoid a constitutional crisis that would not serve the best interests of the President, Congress, or the American people. Therefore, I ask for prompt, bipartisan support to advance this vital resolution.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we have been running the hotline on the accession of Montenegro as a member of the NATO alliance. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Presiding Officer knows we have held extensive discussions and hearings on NATO and the accession of Montenegro as a member into the NATO alliance. Quite frankly, this is a very important matter for us to try to complete before we adjourn this session of Congress, and let me say why. Montenegro has taken all of the necessary steps in order to be in full compliance for joining the alliance of NATO. We have very carefully reviewed their commitment in regard to their military, defense budgets, institutional changes they have made, their willingness to take on the responsibilities as a full NATO partner, and quite frankly, they have endured outside interference which has tried to compromise their ability to complete the process. What do I mean by that? Montenegro recently had parliamentary elections, and Russia tried to interfere with the parliamentary elections to try to instill some instability in that country as an effort to influence not only Montenegro but the international community's--the members of NATO--interest in completing the approval of NATO. Every member state of the alliance must approve any new member and requires votes in all states. Several have already voted to approve the accession of Montenegro into the alliance. The reason I say this is extremely important to get done now is because Russia does not hold a veto on the accession of new countries and new states into the NATO alliance. They have done everything they could to try to interfere with this process. I think the clear message is that the Senate is not going to be intimidated by Russia and that we are going to stand by this alliance. We have a chance to do that within the next, I hope, few hours before the Congress completes its work. I really wanted to underscore the importance of us taking action on the Montenegro issue. The Ambassador to Montenegro has attended our committee meetings frequently and kept us informed on everything that has taken place. I had a chance to meet with many of our partner states in regard to Montenegro. Many of these countries have already taken action, but quite frankly, it is U.S. action that will be the most significant. It is important that we speak with a very strong voice. If we don't get it done now, it will not be allowed to come up until the next Congress, and we have a new administration coming in on January 20. I think it is important that we complete this process now. It is strongly supported by the administration and by the Democrats and Republicans. The recommendation passed our committee with unanimous support. I thank Chairman Corker for handling this matter in a very expeditious and thorough way. We didn't shortcut anything. We have gone through the full process. It is now time for us to act. If we want to send a clear message that Russia cannot intimidate the actions of the Senate or our partners, then I think the clearest way we can send that message is to vote and make sure we complete action on the accession of Montenegro before Congress adjourns sine die. I think it is pretty much clear that both the Democratic and Republican hotlines--there have not been any specific objections I am aware of that have been raised by any Member of the U.S. Senate to taking final action on this issue. I know we have other issues interfering with the consideration of some bills. I urge everyone to resolve those issues so this very important matter can be completed. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and again working with Chairman Corker, I can tell you this is a very important step for us to take in this Congress, and I urge our colleagues to figure out a way that we can bring this to conclusion before Congress adjourns. As I said, I come to the floor to speak in support of the Senate providing its advice and consent to 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 may be a small country, but its inclusion in NATO will have positive repercussions across the continent and will send an important message of hope to other aspirant countries. Republicans need to take the modest steps my colleagues, including Senator Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Brown of Ohio, are asking for to take proper care of coal miners and their families in this country. And then we need to move on the Montenegro NATO resolution-- today. I am pleased to say that no one in the Democratic caucus has expressed any concern to me about this resolution, and they are ready to pass it once our coal miners are taken care of. 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 with Republican and Democratic support. And so even if Republicans don't take care of our miners today, and as a result we cannot pass this resolution, I fully expect my colleagues across the aisle, and the President, to fully support this effort in early January. We can get this done. We must get it done. So what is the case for Montenegro's membership? Admission of Montenegro would mark another important step towards fully integrating the Balkans into international institutions which 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 objectives since then, and I hope that Montenegro's admission will help to motivate the reforms necessary in 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 Resolute Support missions. It also contributed to the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo and other NATO missions. This small country has clearly made significant contributions to the alliance's efforts around the world and made necessary internal reforms to address governance, rule of law and corruption issues. I will continue to monitor these issues closely and expect Montenegro to continue with these reforms. Montenegro has been subject to a wave of anti-NATO and anti-western propaganda emanating from Russia. There are also allegations that a recent coup plan has Russian ties. Blocking Montenegro's ability to join NATO will have real implications for how NATO is perceived--Russia does not get a veto over the decisions of the alliance. We need to send a strong message of resolve. No country outside the alliance gets a veto over who gets to join-- epecially Russia, so we must send a strong signal. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution as soon as possible and get it to the President so the President can deposit the instrument of ratification at NATO in support for Montenegro's bid. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, much of the time here in the Senate, we are engaged in pretty fierce partisan battles. I would like to take a break from that for a moment and talk about the four Republican Senators who will not be back when the 115th Congress convenes next month. While we may have different political philosophies and policy prescriptions, I respect and admire each of them, and I will miss working with all of them. Kelly Ayotte Mr. President, Senator Ayotte and I serve together on the Small Business Committee. I have seen firsthand her commitment to helping small businesses in New Hampshire and across the Nation. She is like so many other Senators, past and present, from New England States: pragmatic and willing to reach across the aisle to get things done. Prior to her election to the Senate, Senator Ayotte served as the chief of New Hampshire's Homicide Unit and deputy attorney general before she became the State's first female attorney general in 2004. She was appointed to that position by a Republican Governor, but she was reappointed twice by a Democratic Governor. In the short span of one Senate term, Senator Ayotte has become a respected voice on national security issues while serving on the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. Foreign Policy magazine listed Senator Ayotte as one of the top 50 Republicans on international affairs. Senator Ayotte comes from a military family and is married to an Iraq War veteran--Lieutenent Colonel Joe Daley--so she has been a staunch supporter of our men and women in uniform and their families. Senator Ayotte has worked hard to give New Hampshire veterans more choices when it comes to health care since the State does not have a full-service Veterans Administration, VA, medical facility. To help veterans in New Hampshire's North Country access care closer to home, she successfully pushed for the opening of VA clinics in Colebrook and Berlin. Senator Ayotte has been a leader in the fight against opioid abuse and addiction, helping Congress to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA, to improve prevention and treatment, support those in recovery, and ensure first responders have the tools they need. She helped to pass legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, crack down on sexual assault in the military, make college campuses safer, and improve mental health first aid training and suicide prevention programs. Senator Ayotte has followed in the footsteps of other Republican Senators from New England, such as Robert Stafford of Vermont and John Chafee of Rhode Island, who are true conservatives when it comes to the environment. She crossed party lines to vote for Federal clean air rules that protect New Hampshire's air and water from cross-State pollution and to deploy the best available technology to reduce pollution from energy production. She helped pass the Better Buildings Act to encourage greater energy efficiency in commercial buildings, and she has been a strong supporter of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has helped protect thousands of acres in New Hampshire. I have enjoyed working with Senator Ayotte and send my best wishes to her and her husband, Joe, and their children Katherine and Jacob. Dan Coats Mr. President, there is a famous quote attributed to the American author F. Scott Fitzgerald: ``There are no second acts in American lives.'' We all know that to be untrue and, as it turns out, so did Fitzgerald, who was quintessentially American. What he actually wrote, in an essay called ``My Lost City,'' is this: ``I once thought that were no second acts in American lives.'' If we want to see a successful ``second act'' we need to look no further than to the senior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Coats. He is actually on about his fourth act. Senator Coats graduated from Wheaton College and then began his long service to our Nation by enlisting in the U.S. Army. Following his military service, he attended the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He excelled academically, becoming associate editor of the Indiana Law Review, and earned his juris doctor degree. Senator Coats served as a district representative to then- Representative Dan Quayle. When Dan Quayle was elected to the Senate in 1980, Dan Coats won his House seat and was reelected four times, never receiving less than 60 percent of the vote. When Dan Quayle was elected Vice President in 1988, Dan Coats was appointed to the Senate seat being vacated and then won elections in 1990 and 1992. During what I will call Senator Coats' ``first'' congressional career, he focused on cutting taxes and government spending and reforming entitlement programs. In 1998, he honored a term limit pledge he had made to his Hoosier constituents and did not run for reelection to the Senate. For many people, 18 years in Congress might be enough, but Senator Coats was just getting started. After he left the Senate, he joined the prestigious law firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand. In 2001, then-President Bush nominated Senator Coats to be Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany. He arrived in Germany just 3 days before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In the aftermath of 9/11, Ambassador Coats established excellent relations with then- opposition leader and future German Chancellor Angela Merkel--a crucial ally--and managed the construction of a new U.S. Embassy in the heart of Berlin, next to the Brandenburg Gate. Senator Coats served honorably as Ambassador for 3 and one-half years and then returned to practicing law at another ``blue chip'' law firm, King & Spalding. But he also served as president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and on the boards of many civic and volunteer organizations, including the Center for Jewish and Christian Values, which he cochaired with Senator Joe Lieberman. And Senator Coats and his wife, Marsha, formed the Foundation For American Renewal to continue their engagement in faith-based initiatives. Senator Coats began his ``second'' congressional career by running successfully for his old Senate seat in 2010. During Senator Coats' second stint, I have had the pleasure of serving with him on the Finance Committee, where we worked together to help charities receive timely notice on issues related to their tax-exempt status. I appreciate Senator Coats' calm and steady demeanor, the diligence he applies to his work, and the civility he extends to his colleagues. Senator Coats may be retiring from the Senate, but I have a hunch there will be yet another successful act in his long, distinguished career. While we may have policy disagreements, I have no doubt that Senator Coats is committed to the common good and will find new ways to serve. I anticipate, however, that he will also seek to spend more time with his wife, Marsha, whom he met in college, their three children, and their 10 grandchildren. Mark Kirk Mr. President, John Kennedy wrote ``Profiles in Courage'' nearly 50 years ago. But for the last 6 years, we have had yet another profile in courage here in the Senate: the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk. In 2012, he suffered a devastating ischemic stroke. He had to relearn how to do basic things, like walking. It took a year of intensive physical therapy at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago--physical therapy that has been likened to boot camp. When he returned on January 3, 2013, and climbed the 45 steps of the Capitol Building to reenter the Senate, it was a truly inspirational moment none of us will forget. Senator Kirk is an Illinois native, from Champaign. He received his B.A. in history from Cornell University, graduating cum laude. He went on to earn a master's degree from the London School of Economics and a law degree from Georgetown University. While he practiced law at the law firm of Baker & McKenzie, most of his adult life has been spent in public service. Senator Kirk joined the U.S. Navy Reserve as a direct commission officer in the intelligence career field in 1989. He was recalled to Active Duty for the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; participated in Operation Northern Watch in Iraq, which enforced the no-fly zone, in 2000; and later served three reserve deployments in Afghanistan. He retired from the Navy Reserve with the rank of commander. Senator Kirk worked for Representative John Porter and at the World Bank and the State Department. He came back to the Hill to serve as a counsel to the House International Relations Committee, as it was known at the time. When Representative Porter retired, he successfully ran for the seat of his former boss and went on to win reelection four times. I had the pleasure of serving with both Representative Porter and then-Representative Kirk while I was in the House. And then he was elected to the Senate in 2010, to the seat President Obama previously held. During Senator Kirk's 16-year congressional career, he has demonstrated that he puts country above party, most notably by supporting the commonsense assault weapon ban. More recently, he was the first Republican Senator to meet with President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. And he was the first Republican Senator to call for hearings and a vote on this superbly qualified individual, a position applauded by Crain's Chicago Business journal. Senator Kirk is a staunch supporter of Israel and has been at the forefront of efforts to ensure that a robust sanctions regime remains in place against Iran if it fails to comply with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Act, JCPOA. I have been pleased to work with Senator Kirk on S. 1882, the Nepal Recovery Act. That bill is on the legislative calendar; it would be a fitting tribute to Senator Kirk if the Senate can pass it before the end of the 114th Congress. I know that Senator Kirk is justifiably proud of chairing the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. Under his stewardship, Congress is poised to pass record health care funding for our veterans. He serves as the cochair of the bipartisan Senate Great Lakes Task Force, which promotes the economic vitality and environmental health of the Great Lakes, which provide drinking water to 40 million Americans and Canadians. He authored the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative authorization bill and helped to secure $300 million in funding to implement it. During the 112th and 113th Congresses, Senator Kirk had an awesome responsibility all Senators appreciate: his desk on the Senate Floor-- Desk No. 95--was the ``candy desk.'' He kept the desk stocked with sweets made in Illinois such as Mars, Milky Way, Jelly Belly, and Snickers, helping to support an industry that employs over 3,000 people in his home State. Senator Kirk suffered a life-threatening stroke. It temporarily slowed him down, but he returned to the Senate where his courage, grace, dignity, collegiality, and resolve will continue to inspire all of us long after he departs next month for his next great endeavor. I wish him well. David Vitter Mr. President, Senator Vitter is probably one of the most conservative Senators and yet has a long record of bipartisan accomplishments on behalf of his home State and the Nation. I have enjoyed serving on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, which he has chaired for the past 2 years. During that time, the committee has reported nearly 30 bills, 8 of which have been signed into law so far. One of those bills, Senator Vitter's Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act--the RISE After Disaster Act--will help small businesses recover from disasters more rapidly. Considering that small businesses are major employers and the lynchpins of their communities, helping them to recover is crucial. Senator Vitter is a Louisiana native, born in New Orleans. He was an excellent student and went on to earn his A.B. from Harvard. He attended Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar, earning a B.A., and then he earned his law degree from Tulane. He was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives in 1992; in 1999, he won a special election to succeed then-Representative Bob Livingston to represent the State's First Congressional District. He was reelected in 2000 and 2002 with more than 80 percent of the vote in each instance. In 2004, he won the Senate seat being vacated by John Breaux. That election was historic; he became the first Republican in Louisiana to be popularly elected as a U.S. Senator. The State's last Republican Senator, William Pitt Kellogg, was chosen by the State's legislature in 1876, back before the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Senator Vitter was reelected in 2010 with 57 percent of the vote. Senator Vitter has had a productive career as a legislator. On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, the Nation's primary chemicals management law. Senator Vitter was the lead Republican sponsor of this measure, working first with our beloved former colleague, Senator Lautenberg, and then with Senator Udall. The new law, which received bipartisan support in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, will make it easier for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to review the safety of chemicals already on the market and the new ones being developed, and it provides a stable source of funding for EPA to meet the law's requirements, a huge step forward with respect to chemical safety. Senator Vitter has been instrumental in developing and passing important public works bills, including the current Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, reauthorization. While he has been an architect of our Nation's infrastructure policies, he has also been sensitive to the concerns of his home State. Thanks to his involvement in the past several surface transportation bills, Louisiana is no longer a ``donor'' State with respect to the highway trust fund; the State receives $1.06 in spending for every $1.00 it sends to Washington in gasoline taxes. Senator Vitter was stalwart when one of the Nation's worst natural disasters--Hurricane Katrina--devastated Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast in 2005 and again in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. He coauthored the RESTORE Act, which directs 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines levied against BP--$5.5 billion--to the States whose fisheries, shorelines, and economies were decimated by the spill. Senator Vitter has numerous other legislative accomplishments. To mention just a few, he authored the Steve Gleason Act, which helps people afflicted with diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, by making it easier for them to acquire speech-generating devices. He reformed the Federal Reserve Board by putting in place the requirement that at least one sitting board member must have community banking experience. And he successfully elevated Barksdale Air Force Base's Global Strike Command to four-star general status. I mentioned a moment ago that Senator Vitter is a conservative. He and I have vast differences of opinion on many issues. But that is ok; that is the nature of the Senate. The genius of our system of government is that it allows--and encourages--people with different points of view to come together and agree on legislation that moves our country forward, and that is something Senator Vitter has been able to do over his career. I send my best wishes to Senator Vitter, his wife, Wendy, and their children Sophie, Lise, Airey, and Jack.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the passage of my legislation, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which was included in the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, conference report. I especially want to thank Senator McCain who partnered with me on this legislation and who has been a true champion in the Senate for human rights and the fight against corruption. I also thank Senator Bob Corker, Senator Jack Reed, Congressman Ed Royce, and Congressman Eliot Engel for their help getting this important bill over the finish line. Before I discuss the specifics of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, I want to discuss how we got here. In the 112th Congress, we passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. That act placed sanctions on Russian officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was arrested after he uncovered massive corruption in Russia. In 2009, Sergei Magnitsky died after suffering torturous conditions in pretrial detention. Those responsible for his torture and death were not brought to justice in Russia and some were even decorated and promoted. With enactment of the Magnitsky legislation in 2012, the United States sent an unambiguous warning to gross violators of human rights in Russia that we will not allow them to travel to our shores and to use our financial system. The Magnitsky Act resulted in dozens of Russians implicated in his death from receiving travel visas and from benefiting from our financial system--and represented an extraordinary victory for human rights defenders in Russia. As we know all too well, however, human rights violations against dissidents, journalists, whistleblowers, and rights advocates aren't unique to Russia. That is why Senator McCain and I introduced the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which gives the President the authority to deny human rights abusers and those engaged in significant acts of corruption entry into the United States and access to our financial institutions. Including significant acts of corruption as a sanctionable offense is an important addition to this legislation. The correlation between corruption, human rights abuses, and repressive governments is clear. Corruption destabilizes democracies, weakens a country's rule of law and can stall a nation's development. And those who call out these abuses are often threatened, physically or psychologically abused, or worse. As many of my colleagues know, the United States has long struggled with the best way to address human rights violations and corruption around the globe. With passage of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, I believe we now have the tools to hold accountable gross violators of human rights and those who engage in serious acts of corruption in a way that bolsters both our national security and foreign policy goals. Bad actors from South Sudan to Venezuela and Azerbaijan to Cambodia are on notice that they can no longer escape the consequences of their actions, even when their home country fails to act. But in my view, the most important message this legislation sends is that the United States stands in solidarity with all those who stand up against corruption and human rights violations--and we do so through both words and actions. I, again, thank my Senate colleagues for their support for this important bill and for joining me in standing up for all those who seek a more just world, even though doing so often puts their own lives in jeopardy.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to express my appreciation to the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, who spoke earlier on the floor. I was here with many of my colleagues and listened to his incredible story about his background from Searchlight, NV, to his ascension to the Senate and becoming the Democratic leader. When I first came to the Senate, Senator Reid asked to meet with me. I thought he was going to talk about my philosophy on different issues or what my interests would be or how I was going to try to move forward on particular bills, but what he really wanted to talk about was my family, what I thought was important in life. He was very interested in my family traditions and how that would be impacted by my life in the Senate. I must tell you, it was very personal. I think many of us have seen many sides of Harry Reid, but one side of him is clear. He treats the Senate as his family, and he treats each one of us as his family. I wish to express my appreciation for his service in the U.S. Senate and for his public service over so many years. Myrna and I are friends of Landra and Harry. We wish them only the best as he moves forward from his career in the Senate. It has really been a pleasure to serve with him in the Senate. This is an incredible place to serve. Senator Reid has certainly made this Senator's life in the Senate much more enjoyable and productive. Mr. President, part of American culture is to celebrate our small towns. There are few American towns smaller than Searchlight in Clark County, NV. That is the hometown of our beloved Democratic Leader, Senator Harry Reid. Senator Reid epitomizes the American Dream. He grew up without indoor plumbing, in a small cabin built out of scavenged railroad ties, and attended a two-room elementary school. His father was a hard-rock miner. As a young boy, Senator Reid would go deep into the mines with his father. Searchlight didn't have its own high school so Senator Reid had to hitchhike each week to Henderson, 40 miles away, where he attended Basic High School and boarded with relatives and other families. Local businessmen saw his potential and helped him attend Utah State University, a debt he repaid. He earned his law degree from George Washington University and supported his young family by working as a U.S. Capitol Police Officer. Senator Reid started his career in public service as Henderson's city attorney. He revised the city charter and extended the city's boundaries by acquiring Federal land. In 1968, when he was just 28, he was elected to the Nevada State Assembly. As an assemblyman, he introduced the first air pollution legislation in Nevada's history. Two years later, Senator Reid became the youngest lieutenant governor in Nevada history, winning election as Governor Mike O'Callaghan's running mate. Mike O'Callaghan had been Senator Reid's mentor in high school as a teacher, boxing coach, and friend. In 1977, Senator Reid was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. For 5 years, he was engaged in an unrelenting fight with organized crime syndicates to clean up Nevada's gaming industry. In 1981, his wife--high school sweetheart Landra--found a bomb attached to the family station wagon. In 1982, Senator Reid won the first of two elections to serve in the House of Representatives and then he was elected to the Senate in 1986. In 2005 he became the Democratic Leader, two years later, he became the majority leader, a post he held until the Republicans gained control of the Senate last year. As the Las Vegas Sun put it, he went from being the underdog to the top dog. I have talked about Senator Reid's hardscrabble upbringing because it has made him one of the toughest people I have ever known. Yet he is also one of the kindest, and most compassionate. Senator Reid may be the top dog, but he has always fought for the underdog. I think that quality is best exemplified by his advocacy on behalf of Native Americans, which includes helping to build the Nation's first utility-scal solar project on tribal land in Nevada. I know how much he is respected in Indian country. Senator Reid was instrumental in passing the Affordable Care Act, ACA, which--along with the Medicaid expansion--has provided health care to more than 20 million Americans. Senator Reid's efforts to choose qualified Federal jurists for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will be felt for decades after he leaves office. Senator Reid has recommended and helped confirm five of the six judges currently serving on the court. As a result of Senator Reid's commitment to diversity, there have been numerous ``firsts'' for the court. In 1998, Senator Reid recommended Johnnie Rawlinson to be the first woman to serve as a judge on the Nevada District Court. At his request, she was elevated to the Ninth Circuit in 2000. In 2010, Gloria Navarro became the first Hispanic woman to serve as a judge on the Nevada District Court. In 2012, Miranda Du became the first Asian-Pacific American to serve as a judge on the Nevada District Court. In 2014, Richard Boulware became the first African-American man to serve as a judge on the Nevada District Court. The Senate still has the opportunity to confirm Anne Traum, who would be the first Jewish person to serve on the Nevada District Court. Senator Reid has fought hard on behalf of his fellow Nevadans. He has prevented the Federal Government from building a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. He authored and passed legislation establishing Nevada's first national park, Great Basin National Park. He has led the fight to protect and restore Lake Tahoe. He prevented the removal of the Nevada Air National Guard's C-130 aircraft and the closure of the Hawthorne Army Depot, and he secured over $600 million for the Southern Nevada Veterans Administration Medical Complex. When it comes to combatting climate change and promoting the development and adoption of clean, sustainable, renewable energy, Senator Reid has been a visionary. He has incentivized $5.5 billion in investments in Nevada's clean energy resources through tax credits, grants, and loan guarantees. He helped to create a new fast-track permitting process for clean energy development on public lands. He facilitated the public-private partnership needed for the One Nevada Transmission Line, which connects northern and southern Nevada's electricity grids for the first time, helping to unlock the State's vast clean energy potential. While his interest in promoting clean energy--especially solar--may have a local origin, the benefits will accrue to all humanity for generations to come as we transition from our reliance on fossil fuels. Serving as the Leader, whether in the majority or the minority, is a tough job. The leader has to fight the most intense partisan battles. The Leader has to say ``no'' on many occasions. The leader has to stand up for other members of the party. Senator Reid has been tough enough to be an extraordinary leader. If I were in a foxhole, I would want Harry Reid by my side. I know every other Democratic Senator feels the same way--and surely most Republicans. We are going to miss Harry Reid. I wish him, his wife Landra, their five children, and 19 grandchildren all the best. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Progressive Consumption Tax Act of 2016. We need a tax code that is fair for American employers and fair for American families. We need a tax code that makes our U.S.-based businesses more competitive. Finally, we need a tax code that allows us to responsibly and reliably collect reasonable revenues. I introduced a version of this bill in the 113th Congress to provide an opening for discussion and a first opportunity to review legislative language for this type of comprehensive tax reform. Since the introduction of the Progressive Consumption Tax Act, many policymakers, including in Congress, have become increasingly interested in moving to a border-adjustable consumption tax base. As we move towards consideration of comprehensive tax reform in 2017, I wanted to reintroduce an updated version of this bill, which I think shows what progressive, fiscally responsible, pro-growth tax reform could look like. As many of my colleagues recognize, the extent to which we rely on income taxes is very out of step with the rest of the world. Compared to other countries that are in the OECD--developed countries with advanced economies, countries that we want to be competitive with--all taxes as a percentage of GDP in the United States are low. But, the U.S. is not a low income tax country. Our income tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are higher than the OECD countries. We have some of the highest statutory income tax rates in the world. What accounts for the difference is that all OECD countries except the U.S. have a consumption tax. In fact, about 150 countries now have a consumption tax, many of which were enacted decades ago. Unlike the U.S., these countries can tax imports and subsidize exports by rebating their consumption taxes for exports--without violating current World Trade Organization, WTO, rules. As important, these countries can sustain reductions in their corporate income tax rates, because they have an alternative and more pro-growth revenue source--a consumption tax. The Progressive Consumption Tax Act puts this country on a competitive playing field by providing for a broad-based progressive consumption tax, or PCT, at a rate of 10 percent. The PCT would generate revenue by taxing goods and services, rather than income. This is not simply an add-on tax. The revenues generated by the act would be used to eliminate an income tax liability for most households. This bears repeating: instead of paying an income tax, most Americans households, under this bill, would only pay a consumption tax. Those who do still have an income tax liability would see a much simplified income tax with their marginal rates reduced--the top marginal individual income tax rate, applying to taxable income over $500,000 for joint filers, would be 28 percent. The current top marginal rate, applying to taxable income over approximately $450,000 for joint filers, is 39.6 percent. Four important tax benefits remain: the charitable contribution deduction, the state and local tax deduction, health and retirement benefits, and the mortgage interest deduction. The act would also slice our corporate rate by more than half, to 17 percent. Finally, the act would provide rebates to lower- and moderate-income families to counteract their consumption tax burden and to replace essential support programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. Like the EITC and CTC, Individuals and families who do not have an income tax liability would still be able to receive these rebates. A key part of the act is progressivity. By eliminating an income tax liability for a significant number of households and providing rebates, the act is meant to be at least as progressive as the current system. The act is also meant to responsibly raise reasonable revenues. I know that some have concerns that the act would just provide a new lever for the government to raise funds. That is why the act contains a revenue ``circuit breaker'' mechanism that returns excess PCT revenues to taxpayers if a certain threshold is met. The PCT is not meant to be a means to quickly raise revenues while disregarding the effects of higher consumption taxes on U.S. families and employers. Overall, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act has many advantages compared to past reform efforts. First, it encourages saving. Under current law, families and individuals are taxed on income, which includes savings. Under the act, most households would be exempt from the income tax, and thus would be able to save tax free. The act enhances U.S. economic competitiveness. The U.S. corporate income tax rate would be lowered to 17 percent, encouraging multinational corporations to locate here, not abroad. OECD countries currently attracting U.S. multinationals often impose higher consumption or corporate tax rates than those envisioned by the act. In fact, if the Progressive Consumption Tax Act became law, every top statutory rate in the United States--our individual income tax rate, our corporate tax rate, our consumption tax rate--would be at least five percentage points lower than the OECD average. The act encourages economic growth. In a study that examined 35 years of data on 21 OECD countries, consumption taxes were found to be more growth-friendly than both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes, especially, appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. Growth-oriented tax reform should move away from income tax revenues and towards consumption tax revenues, as the act does. The act also enhances U.S. trade competitiveness. Countries with consumption taxes can adjust their taxes at the border by rebating exports. That means that these countries can agree to reduced tariffs under trade agreements, can still tax imports with their consumption taxes, and can export their own goods without a full tax load. Because the PCT is border-adjusted, the U.S. would be able to maintain export and import tax parity in the same way as these other countries. In addition, the PCT is designed to achieve these benefits while being compliant with WTO rules. The act reduces income tax compliance costs. Most households would not have an income tax liability under the act--although they would need to provide key pieces of information to the IRS in order to obtain their rebates. Finally, the act protects low- and middle-income families from an unfair tax burden. Through the income tax exemption and rebate feature, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act aims to ensure that this new tax system is at least as progressive as the current income tax system. When my colleagues and others talk to me about comprehensive, responsible, pro-growth tax reform, this to me is what we need to do. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the Progressive Consumption Tax Act in this Congress. This newest version of the act responds to input from stakeholders that we received last year. As important, the act shows exactly what serious, comprehensive consumption-based tax reform legislation looks like. As this Congress closes and the new Congress convenes, I hope we will stand for what is right in our tax code, and enact the type of reform that allows our country to have among the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, and the fairest system for all Americans.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Progressive Consumption Tax Act of 2016. We need a tax code that is fair for American employers and fair for American families. We need a tax code that makes our U.S.-based businesses more competitive. Finally, we need a tax code that allows us to responsibly and reliably collect reasonable revenues. I introduced a version of this bill in the 113th Congress to provide an opening for discussion and a first opportunity to review legislative language for this type of comprehensive tax reform. Since the introduction of the Progressive Consumption Tax Act, many policymakers, including in Congress, have become increasingly interested in moving to a border-adjustable consumption tax base. As we move towards consideration of comprehensive tax reform in 2017, I wanted to reintroduce an updated version of this bill, which I think shows what progressive, fiscally responsible, pro-growth tax reform could look like. As many of my colleagues recognize, the extent to which we rely on income taxes is very out of step with the rest of the world. Compared to other countries that are in the OECD--developed countries with advanced economies, countries that we want to be competitive with--all taxes as a percentage of GDP in the United States are low. But, the U.S. is not a low income tax country. Our income tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are higher than the OECD countries. We have some of the highest statutory income tax rates in the world. What accounts for the difference is that all OECD countries except the U.S. have a consumption tax. In fact, about 150 countries now have a consumption tax, many of which were enacted decades ago. Unlike the U.S., these countries can tax imports and subsidize exports by rebating their consumption taxes for exports--without violating current World Trade Organization, WTO, rules. As important, these countries can sustain reductions in their corporate income tax rates, because they have an alternative and more pro-growth revenue source--a consumption tax. The Progressive Consumption Tax Act puts this country on a competitive playing field by providing for a broad-based progressive consumption tax, or PCT, at a rate of 10 percent. The PCT would generate revenue by taxing goods and services, rather than income. This is not simply an add-on tax. The revenues generated by the act would be used to eliminate an income tax liability for most households. This bears repeating: instead of paying an income tax, most Americans households, under this bill, would only pay a consumption tax. Those who do still have an income tax liability would see a much simplified income tax with their marginal rates reduced--the top marginal individual income tax rate, applying to taxable income over $500,000 for joint filers, would be 28 percent. The current top marginal rate, applying to taxable income over approximately $450,000 for joint filers, is 39.6 percent. Four important tax benefits remain: the charitable contribution deduction, the state and local tax deduction, health and retirement benefits, and the mortgage interest deduction. The act would also slice our corporate rate by more than half, to 17 percent. Finally, the act would provide rebates to lower- and moderate-income families to counteract their consumption tax burden and to replace essential support programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. Like the EITC and CTC, Individuals and families who do not have an income tax liability would still be able to receive these rebates. A key part of the act is progressivity. By eliminating an income tax liability for a significant number of households and providing rebates, the act is meant to be at least as progressive as the current system. The act is also meant to responsibly raise reasonable revenues. I know that some have concerns that the act would just provide a new lever for the government to raise funds. That is why the act contains a revenue ``circuit breaker'' mechanism that returns excess PCT revenues to taxpayers if a certain threshold is met. The PCT is not meant to be a means to quickly raise revenues while disregarding the effects of higher consumption taxes on U.S. families and employers. Overall, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act has many advantages compared to past reform efforts. First, it encourages saving. Under current law, families and individuals are taxed on income, which includes savings. Under the act, most households would be exempt from the income tax, and thus would be able to save tax free. The act enhances U.S. economic competitiveness. The U.S. corporate income tax rate would be lowered to 17 percent, encouraging multinational corporations to locate here, not abroad. OECD countries currently attracting U.S. multinationals often impose higher consumption or corporate tax rates than those envisioned by the act. In fact, if the Progressive Consumption Tax Act became law, every top statutory rate in the United States--our individual income tax rate, our corporate tax rate, our consumption tax rate--would be at least five percentage points lower than the OECD average. The act encourages economic growth. In a study that examined 35 years of data on 21 OECD countries, consumption taxes were found to be more growth-friendly than both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. Corporate income taxes, especially, appear to have the most negative effect on GDP per capita. Growth-oriented tax reform should move away from income tax revenues and towards consumption tax revenues, as the act does. The act also enhances U.S. trade competitiveness. Countries with consumption taxes can adjust their taxes at the border by rebating exports. That means that these countries can agree to reduced tariffs under trade agreements, can still tax imports with their consumption taxes, and can export their own goods without a full tax load. Because the PCT is border-adjusted, the U.S. would be able to maintain export and import tax parity in the same way as these other countries. In addition, the PCT is designed to achieve these benefits while being compliant with WTO rules. The act reduces income tax compliance costs. Most households would not have an income tax liability under the act--although they would need to provide key pieces of information to the IRS in order to obtain their rebates. Finally, the act protects low- and middle-income families from an unfair tax burden. Through the income tax exemption and rebate feature, the Progressive Consumption Tax Act aims to ensure that this new tax system is at least as progressive as the current income tax system. When my colleagues and others talk to me about comprehensive, responsible, pro-growth tax reform, this to me is what we need to do. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the Progressive Consumption Tax Act in this Congress. This newest version of the act responds to input from stakeholders that we received last year. As important, the act shows exactly what serious, comprehensive consumption-based tax reform legislation looks like. As this Congress closes and the new Congress convenes, I hope we will stand for what is right in our tax code, and enact the type of reform that allows our country to have among the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, and the fairest system for all Americans.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity on the floor to talk about Senator Mikulski, but I just want to take 1 minute--because I know a lot of my colleagues want to speak--to thank her on behalf of the people of Maryland. Yesterday I was with Senator Mikulski at the inauguration of Catherine Pugh, our new mayor of Baltimore. As is the tradition on programs, the senior Senator speaks and then the junior Senator speaks, so I had the opportunity to speak after the dynamic remarks of Senator Mikulski. That has been a burden that I have had now for 10 years. As I pointed out to the people of Maryland, we are losing one of the great giants and advocates for our State, and that is going to be a great loss. The only benefit I can see is that I will not have to follow Senator Mikulski on the program in the future. We are living part of a legacy, and we know that. We know that what we do here in the U.S. Senate one day will be recorded in the history of our country. I know that Senator Mikulski will be mentioned frequently for her incredible accomplishments here in the U.S. Senate. On a personal basis, I just wanted to express that my life in the U.S. Senate has been special. For all of us, being in the Senate is special, but my enjoyment, productivity, and life in the Senate has been made so much greater because of my seatmate and friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I also wish to join in thanking you for your incredible service. Senator Mikulski talked about a lot of things you have done. The two of us represent the State of Maryland. Other than the two of us, there is no other Senator who has spent more time in Maryland than the Vice President. Admittedly, most of that time was spent on an Amtrak train, but we consider you to be a resident of Maryland. We have tried to find a way to tax you, but we will let you get by. We very much appreciate your interest in our entire region and in our entire country. When I was elected to the Senate in 2007, I talked to Senator Sarbanes--the person whom I was replacing in the Senate--about committee assignments, and we talked about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said: Get on the committee. Joe Biden is an incredible leader. Any time you can spend with him is going to be time well spent. I talked to Senator Mikulski, and she told me the same thing. I was honored to be able to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and saw firsthand your extraordinary leadership on behalf of our country. But bringing us together in that committee, you didn't know who the Democrats and who the Republicans were. We worked together in a unit in the best interests of our country. That really was a model for all of us in the service of the Senate and service on behalf of our people. A little over 8 years later, I became a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and we had some extremely challenging issues that could have divided us. You helped me through that period. I really wish to thank you for that. Your extraordinary leadership in helping us resolve some very difficult issues, your openness, your willingness to listen, and your ability to find a way to go forward were incredibly helpful. I think it allowed the Senate to do the right thing on that issue--as well as the oversight. I thank you very much. That wasn't your only opportunity to help us resolve issues. You have heard Members talk about the Violence Against Women Act and how important that was. The Cancer Moonshot is going to be incredibly valuable. Each one of our families has been affected by cancer. Through your efforts, we know we are going to find the answer to this dread disease. You have done this in so many different areas, law enforcement--the list goes on and on. Last year I was in Central America. I think there you could easily run for office and have no problems at all. They know what you have done to give them a hope, to give them a future. You take an interest in an area and find a way to be helpful that I think has made our country stronger. You have given hope to people all over the world. You have a love for people. You hear that. You hear that often. It was Will Rogers who famously said he never met a man he didn't like. That is true of Joe Biden. It is incredible. I remember when I was being sworn in, in the ceremony in the Old Senate Chamber, you not only talked to Members of the Senate, you talked to every member of our families. I don't know if you had the best staff work or not, but you knew every Member's family. To this day my grandchildren talk about the conversation they had with you during that swearing-in ceremony. You really care about people, and that really shows. This is a family here, and you have truly shown that to us. Myrna and I look at you and Jill as people who are part of our family. I think you are, perhaps, the most ebullient politician in America. Horrific family tragedies and life-threatening cranial aneurysms severely tested, but ultimately didn't diminish, your faith in God or your love for the ``retail'' aspect of politics--meeting and greeting people, making those human connections. Mr. President, for those who may not know your story, I would like to tell them part of it. Joe Biden was born in Scranton and raised there before his parents moved the family to Delaware. He was the first member of his family to attend college. He earned his B.A. from the University of Delaware and then went to law school at Syracuse University, during which time he married his college sweetheart, Neilia Hunter. They had three children--two sons and a daughter. In 1972, just four years after Joe graduated from law school and when he was just 29 years old--he ran a bare bones, longshot campaign for the U.S. Senate against the incumbent, Caleb ``Cale'' Boggs, who had previously been Delaware's Governor and had served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Joe's sister Valerie ran the campaign; most of the other ``staff'' were other family members. He demonstrated his extraordinary ability to connect with voters and won the election by 3,162 votes and became the sixth-youngest Senator in U.S. history. Just a few weeks after the election, Joe's wife and their infant daughter Naomi were killed in a traffic accident; their two young sons, Hunter and Beau, were seriously injured. Joe was sworn in to the U.S. Senate next to his sons' hospital beds and steadfastly began commuting to Washington from Wilmington every day by train, a practice he maintained throughout his career in the Senate. In 1977, Vice President Biden married Jill Jacobs. Jill has a Ph.D. in education and is a lifelong educator. Together, Joe and Jill had daughter, Ashley, who is a social worker. Joe's affinity for the people of Delaware was reciprocal: he was re- elected to the Senate six times, including in 2008 when he was also elected Vice President. In February of 1988, Joe was admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He had an intracranial aneurysm that had begun leaking. The situation was dire, a priest had actually administered last rites at the hospital. The surgery was successful but he suffered a pulmonary embolism and had to undergo another operation, which was successful, in May 1988. Two brain operations might slow down most people, but not Joe. Two years after he nearly died, he won re-election to a fourth Senate term. Joe's Senate career wasn't just long; it was distinguished. He became the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee in 1981. Three years later, he helped to steer the Comprehensive Crime Control Act to passage. It was the first of many major legislative accomplishments which included the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That bill contained the assault weapon ban and the Violence Against Women Act, and it established the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Joe's accomplishments on the domestic policy side are impressive, but he also became a foreign policy expert. When Congress refused to ratify the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) II Treaty Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and President Jimmy Carter signed in 1979, Joe met with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. He was able to secure changes to the Treaty to overcome the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's objections. He has played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy ever since. I was honored to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee for the last 2 years Joe served as Chairman. I have been honored to work with him in his current capacity as Vice President to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, to include the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern and Central Europe and support a sovereign, democratic Ukraine. He is a champion of Israel and has been one of the principal architects of administration's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. He has developed deep relationships with the world leaders by excelling at face-to-face diplomacy. Mr. President, we were all devastated when your beloved son Beau lost his battle with brain cancer last year. Beau was just 46. It was a poignant moment on Monday when you were in the Chair, presiding over the Senate as we voted to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House message to accompany H.R. 34, the 21st Century Cures Act. The bill contains provisions to implement the administration's ``Cancer Moonshot''--yet another one of your sparking accomplishments. I want to commend Senator McConnell and the majority for renaming that title of the bill the ``Beau Biden Cancer Moonshot and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Innovation Projects''. I know it means a lot to you and your family. I have made my lifetime serving in public life. You have made that profession an honorable profession through the manner in which you have conducted yourself, your integrity, who you are, and the way that you bring people together. I am proud to have served with you in this body. Mr. President, you have been an extraordinary public servant for nearly half a century. You have also been a dedicated family man and a good friend. I said at the beginning of my remarks that you never met a man you didn't like. I don't think anyone who has ever met you didn't like you, too. Congratulations.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, I notice that Senator Coats is still on the floor. I want to add my personal congratulations to Senator Coats for an incredible career of public service, not only here in the Senate but serving our country in a very important diplomatic role. Senator Coats has added such dignity to this body. He is a person of incredible integrity and a person who always listens and tries to do what is right not only for the people of his State but for our Nation. It has been a real honor to serve with Senator Coats in the U.S. Senate, and I wish him only the best going forward. I know he will continue to find ways to help our country. 21st century cures act Madam President, I rise today to comment on a provision in the 21st Century Cures Act that I have strong concerns about that would affect thousands of patients receiving home infusion therapy. As many of my colleagues know, home infusion therapy is important because it provides patients with a higher quality of life. Patients are able to receive this treatment in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by their family. Furthermore, home infusion therapy eliminates unnecessary emergency room visits and travel to and from hospitals. A provision in the Cures Act reduces the payment for infusion drugs without including a payment for home infusion services until January 1, 2021. As a result, home infusion suppliers will not be paid to administer infusion therapy until 4 years after the change in reimbursement. Without a service payment, it will be economically difficult for home infusion suppliers to provide patients with home infusion therapy. Many patients will be unable to receive care in the comfort of their home and will have to go to hospitals and long-term care facilities to receive treatment. This provision in 21st Century Cures Act could affect over 20,000 people with congestive heart failure, neurological disorders, and immune deficiency problems who receive home infusion therapy. Patients' lives are at stake. That is why I prepared an amendment to the 21st Century Cures Act that delays the reimbursement change for infusion drugs by 1 year. I hope that this amendment could be included in the 21st Century Cures Act or the end of session continuing resolution. Instead of going into effect on January 1, 2017, the overpayment reduction would go into effect on January 1, 2018, under my amendment. This is only a 1-year delay, but it would allow 20,000 patients to continue receiving infusion therapy at home. I think this is reasonable and fair and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The 21st Century Cures Act includes many very important provisions that should be enacted, so I hope this issue can be corrected. Tribute to Barbara A. Mikulski Madam President, this is a bittersweet moment as I rise to pay tribute to my esteemed colleague, dear friend, and fellow Senator, Barbara A. Mikulski, the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. Senator Barb has been more than a dedicated champion for the State of Maryland; she has fought tirelessly for the welfare of all Americans across the country but especially the disadvantaged--equal pay for equal work, funding for childcare for working families, quality health care for all Americans, an ambitious space exploration program, robust homeland security programs, and fire protection grants. These are but a few of the causes Senator Barb has worked on for more than four decades as an outstanding public servant and legislator. She is rooted in the city we both call home, Baltimore, where her father ran a grocery store in Highlandtown. She earned her bachelor of science degree in sociology from Mount Saint Agnes College and a master of social work degree from the University of Maryland School of Social Work. She became a social worker and then demonstrated her formidable organizational skills and resolve when she led the successful opposition to a 16-lane highway that was going to cut through the Fells Point neighborhood in Baltimore. Throughout her 40 years of congressional service, she has returned to Baltimore almost every night. She ran for the city council in 1971, where she served for 5 years before she was elected to the House of Representatives to represent Maryland's Third District--a seat she held for 10 years. I was proud to succeed her in the House when she was elected to the Senate in 1986 and became the first female Democratic Senator elected in her own right. Here in the Halls of the Senate, she opened doors that had previously been closed to women. She refused to accept second-class treatment because of her gender and fought to be recognized as an equal. Generations of young women who chose to participate in public life or who dreamed of joining the U.S. Senate have benefited from Senator Barb's trailblazing legacy. From affordable housing and education to childcare, health benefits, and pensions, she has left an indelible imprint on the Nation's social policies as a senior member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It is fitting that she authored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009--the first major bill to be signed into law by the first African-American President. I know one of her proudest accomplishments is strengthening the social safety net for seniors by passing the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act, which helps keep seniors from going into bankruptcy while paying for a spouse's nursing home care. Senator Barb said, ``We work on macro issues and macaroni and cheese issues. . . . Our national debate reflects the needs and dreams of American families.'' In 2012, she became the first woman and the first Marylander to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee. She has worked well with Senator Cochran and other Republicans on the committee to produce annual appropriations bills under difficult budget constraints. I think she has shown how the Senate can work in a productive, bipartisan fashion. Senator Mikulski has served as the dean of the women Senators from both parties, promoting collegiality, civility, and consensus-building. In this capacity, again, she has been one of the leaders of this institution with respect to making it work better. Senator Barb has always had her feet planted firmly on the ground, but she has reached for the stars. No one has been a stronger advocate for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA; the National Science Foundation, NSF; and for researching and understanding the universe to make life better here on Earth than Senator Barbara Mikulski. Not only has she reached for the stars, she is a star. NASA named a supernova after her in 2012--Supernova Mikulski--discovered, fittingly, by the Hubble Space Telescope on January 25, 2012. The supernova is 7.5 billion light-years away and the remnants of a star more than eight times as massive as our own Sun. Senator Mikulski has so much political energy per square inch of height that she has reached her own orbit in space. Even though her realm includes the entire universe, Senator Barb always kept the needs of Marylanders close to her heart during her tenure. Whether it is fighting for funding to restore the Chesapeake Bay, supporting mass transit improvements in Baltimore, standing up for Federal employees and retirees who work and live in our State, or posting the world's best recipe for crabcakes on her Web site, I know I speak on behalf of each and every Marylander when I say how much we will miss her outstanding leadership and unwavering commitment to our State. I am privileged to have worked with Senator Barb for 10 years in the Senate and for 20 years before that when I was in the House of Representatives. I am proud to have stood alongside her as two members of Team Maryland. On a personal basis, I have a very close friend and my service in the Senate is much more productive, much more enjoyable, and much more rewarding because of Senator Barbara Mikulski. The United States Congress, the State of Maryland, the United States, and, indeed, the world are better places because of Senator Mikulski's public service. She may not be the tallest Senator, but she certainly leaves the biggest shoes to fill. I will miss her, but I will remain internally inspired by her shining example of public service at its best. Tribute to Barbara Boxer Madam President, for the 10 years I have been in the Senate, I have been privileged and have had the pleasure to serve alongside the Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and on the Committee on Foreign Relations. She is the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and previously chaired the committee, the first woman to do so. Senator Boxer has spent the last 40 years in elective office--24 years here in the Senate, 10 years before in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 6 years on the Marin County Board of Supervisors. She was the board's first woman president. Earlier, she worked as a stockbroker while her husband Stewart, whom she met at Brooklyn College, attended law school. Senator Boxer has been a journalist and is the author of two books. The first time Senator Boxer ran for the Sixth Congressional District seat, in 1982, her campaign slogan was ``Barbara Boxer gives a damn.'' Her constituents have agreed. She ran for reelection four times and never received less than 67 percent of the vote. In 2004, when she was running for a third term in the Senate, she received 6.96 million votes--the most votes any candidate has ever received in the history of the U.S. Senate. Oscar Madison and Felix Unger may have been the original odd couple, but Senator Boxer and the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, have been the Senate's odd couple. An unabashed liberal and unabashed conservative working together to pass some of the most important legislation of the last quarter century--our periodic surface transportation bills and the Water Resources Development Act reauthorizations. These bills have put millions of Americans to work and made our economy more efficient. Senator Boxer understands the importance of building, and she also understands the importance of preserving. She has helped to set aside more than 1 million acres of Federal land in California as wilderness. The omnibus public lands package, which became law in 2009, includes three Boxer bills to protect 57,000 acres in Big Sur and the Los Padres Forest and another 273,000 acres of California coast as wilderness. She wrote the Senate bill that elevated Pinnacles National Monument into America's 59th national park. She helped champion the creation of the Fort Ord National Monument and Cesar Chavez National Monument and was instrumental in expanding the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries. She also authored the California Missions Preservation Act to protect and restore California's 21 historic missions and led the effort in the Senate to create the Manzanar National Historic Site. Senator Boxer's concern for the environment hasn't been just a parochial interest; no one has fought harder to defend and improve our Nation's landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. She fought to remove arsenic from drinking water. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are better because of Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer's environmental bona fides are well known, but she has been a superbly effective legislator on so many other issues. She is a champion for women. In 1991, she led a group of women Members to the Judiciary Committee to demand that the committee, which was all-male and all-White at the time, take Anita Hill's charges seriously. Senator Boxer has defended women's reproductive health choices and privacy. She was involved in passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the Violence Against Women's Act. She is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, where she chairs the first committee to focus on global women's issues. In a business meeting earlier today, the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a resolution honoring Senator Boxer's work on that committee and her work in the U.S. Senate. At that time, we noted that she was the ranking member on the subcommittee that provided help for women and girls globally, and her work in Afghanistan was most notable. She has made a difference around the world for young women. Senator Boxer authored the first ever specific authorization for afterschool programs, a bipartisan bill that then-President George W. Bush signed into law in 2002. Today's afterschool programs are funded at $1.15 billion, allowing them to serve 1.6 million children. She was the author of another bipartisan bill to accelerate America's contribution to combat global HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis. Senator Boxer wrote two laws to enhance economic and security cooperation with Israel. In 2012, she worked with the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, on the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which extended loan guarantees to Israel, increased the U.S. military stockpile in Israel, and encouraged NATO-Israel cooperation. In 2014, she worked with the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, further strengthening economic and security cooperation between the two countries. Senator Boxer has strong principles. She can be outspoken when the need arises, but she is also a consummate legislator, able to work across the aisle and across the Hill to get important things done. We are going to miss her skills and her leadership. I know we will continue to hear from her because she is not the retiring type, but she certainly has earned the right to spend more time with her husband Stewart, their children Doug and Nicole, and four grandchildren. We wish her well, and we will miss her in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss World AIDS Day. Thirty years ago, the National Academy of Sciences's Institute of Medicine issued a report calling for a ``massive media, educational and public health campaign to curb the spread of the HIV infection.'' The global community heeded that call and today, on World AIDS Day, we celebrate progress that we have made in treating and preventing HIV/ AIDS both at home and abroad and recommit ourselves to creating an AIDS-free generation. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit an HIV/AIDS clinic in Namibia supported by the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, and the Global Fund. While there, I met a 30-year-old man named Simon who said he would not be alive without the international community's HIV/AIDS assistance. While the individual stories of people like Simon are a testament to the hard-fought progress this global response has achieved, the aggregate impact of our efforts cannot be understated. PEPFAR has been a bipartisan success story that began with a strong commitment by President George W. Bush and grew under President Obama. It must continue to have broad-based support in a Trump administration and in the 115th Congress, so we can keep making inroads against this pernicious disease. Since 2005, AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 45 percent globally. In Africa, new HIV infections have declined 14 percent since 2010, including a 66 percent reduction in new infections in children in the region. And today, 18.2 million men, women, and children worldwide are on antiretroviral therapy, double the number of people who had access just 5 years ago. Nevertheless, there remains more work to be done. In my home State of Maryland, there were 1,334 new HIV diagnoses in 2015, ranking it the third highest adult HIV diagnosis rate per capita in the country. And globally, we are seeing data that indicates that AIDS-related deaths are actually increasing among adolescents. At home and abroad, such trends are troubling. We therefore cannot rest on our laurels. The United States must continue to lead this global fight. Through strong funding for PEPFAR and multilateral organizations like the Global Fund, we will ensure the continued commitment and leadership of partner countries reinforced with support from donor nations, civil society, and people living with HIV, faith-based organizations, the private sector, and foundations. And at here at home, we must ensure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, and our State, local, and community partners have the resources they need to continue making significant progress to prevent, treat, and eventually cure this disease. With our work cut out for us and the memories of far too many loved ones in our hearts, we strive on this World AIDS Day as an international community toward a world free of HIV/AIDS and recommit to mobilize the resources needed for treatment, to summon the compassion and understanding to prevent stigma, and to unleash our collective ingenuity and persistence in search of a cure.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I noticed the majority leader has given us all notice that, after consultation with the Democratic leader, he intends to bring up the Iran Sanctions Act, H.R. 6297. I point out that this legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 419 to 1. It is legislation that would extend the Iran Sanctions Act that was passed by this Congress that is set to expire at the end of this year. Let me repeat that. The Iran Sanctions Act, which was enacted originally in 1996--if no action is taken before the end of December, that sanction authorization legislation would expire. This is our last opportunity to extend the Iran Sanctions Act before it is scheduled to expire at the end of December. It was passed in 1996 by a unanimous vote of this body. Its goal was to deny Iran the ability to be able to have financial support for its nuclear proliferation. Congress had passed several bills that provided sanction opportunities by the administration to impose sanctions in order to get Iran to change its behavior, its illegal activities in pursuing a nuclear weapon, which was against U.S. security interests, destabilizing for the entire region, threatened Israel, threatened the neighboring states. It was, I think, the unanimous view of our body that we had to take whatever steps were possible to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. The legislation we passed, including the Iran Sanctions Act, allowed the Obama administration to move forward with sanctions against Iran, and they rigorously enforced the sanctions they imposed. I want to acknowledge the work done by the Obama administration in enforcing those sanctions that we gave our authorization to impose. But the Obama administration went further than that. They then garnered international support to also impose and support the sanctions that we had imposed in the United States, which was strong enough to get Iran to recognize that they had to come to the negotiating table. Clearly, the sanctions were the motivating factor that allowed for the negotiations of the nuclear agreement that was agreed to 2 years ago. This legislation is pretty simple. It extends for 10 years the Iran Sanctions Act that was used by the administration and in which we have a temporary--we have relief granted under that law as long as Iran is in compliance with the nuclear agreement. The nuclear agreement, JCPOA, specifically provides for the snapback of sanctions in the event that Iran violates the provisions of the agreement. In order to have snapbacks, you have to have the sanction regime in place. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to extend the sanction authorization. This does not impose any new sanctions on Iran. That it does not. It is not in violation of the JCPOA. It just allows us to have effective enforcement to make sure Iran complies with their commitments. I want to underscore that point. During the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, I had a chance to ask the administration's witness, Secretary Lew, that specific question. I asked Secretary Lew-- this question was asked July 23, 2015. I said to the witness: The Iran Sanctions Act expires at the end of 2016. We will still be in the JCPOA a period of time where snapback of sanctions is a viable hedge against Iran's cheating. Congress may well want to extend that law so that power is available immediately if Iran were to violate the agreement. Is that permitted under the JCPOA? The answer from Secretary Lew: I think that if it is on expiration, it is one thing. If it is well in advance, it is another. I think the idea of coming out of the box right now is very different from what you would do when it expires. Well, we are doing exactly what the administration asked us to do. We have held off for over--now it has been over 15 months, 16 months that we have held off before we have taken action to extend the Iran Sanctions Act. If we don't take action now, the authority given by Congress in the 1996 act, which would empower the snapbacks if needed, would not be available. So it is timely for us to act. It is totally consistent with the JCPOA and is not at all inconsistent with our responsibilities under that legislation. I think, though, that we should have a little bit of a discussion as to what we do moving forward. I should point out that the Iran Sanctions Act, H.R. 6297, is identical to S. 3281, legislation I filed with 19 of my colleagues earlier this year. So I think this enjoys strong bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Now, looking forward--I did not support the JCPOA. I did not support that agreement for various reasons, but it went into effect. I must tell my colleagues, I think it would be tragic if the United States unilaterally walked away from the Iran nuclear agreement. What that would do is give the ability to Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program without inspectors on the ground to let us know what they were doing. They would be able to pursue that, knowing full well that the international community would not be unified in regard to sanctions against Iran. Yes, we would impose sanctions, but our allies around the world would no longer be obligated to follow that, since it was the United States pulling out of the agreement. Many of those countries already have arrangements, and it would be very difficult to see that they would follow U.S. leadership. In fact, one of the adverse impacts of the United States walking away from the Iran agreement would be that we would lose our standing as an international leader, bringing the international community together to isolate Iran. Instead, we would be isolating the United States. That is not in our national security interest. So what should we do? Well, as I said earlier, the first step is to pass H.R. 6297 so that we have all of the tools in place. Secondly, let us all join together to rigorously enforce the Iran agreement, the JCPOA. We need to do that. We need to make sure that every part of that agreement is adhered to, including making sure Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state. We need to continue the use of sanctions on Iran's nonnuclear nefarious activities. They are still a sponsor of terrorism. We all know that. I was recently in the Middle East. I had a chance to talk to a lot of our strategic partners. They tell me about Iran's activities in their region, how they are supporting efforts to destabilize other sovereign states in the Middle East. They are supporting terrorism. We also know that they have expanded their ballistic program. That is in contravention to their international obligations. We can impose sanctions and continue to strengthen sanctions against Iran in regard to those activities. They are violating the human rights of the citizens of their own country. We can take actions there. There are areas where we can continue to work with the international community to deal with Iran's nefarious activities. We should do that. I would just call to my colleagues' attention that several--actually in October of 2015, I introduced S. 2119, along with several of my colleagues, so that the Congress would be in a better position to carry out rigorous enforcement of the JCPOA and to take on Iran, working with our partners, in regard to their other activities. It provides more information to the Congress on how the sanction relief resources are being used by Iran so that we can track the money. If they use it to support terrorism against the United States or they use it against our interests, we would be able to know about that and take action. It provides for expedited considerations if Iran commits these types of violations. It makes it very clear that we will continue to work on a regional security strategy so that our partners in the region know that the United States will continue to be on their side against the aggression that we have seen from the Iran regime. To me, that is the responsible action for us to take in order to carry out what should be U.S. leadership in isolating Iran, getting it to change its behavior, recognizing that it has been a major problem for the security of the United States in the region, and we must continue to be actively engaged. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on behalf of a resolution I will submit today on the enrollment clause, which seems to uphold the values and strictures of one of our Nation's most sacred documents--the Constitution itself. The Founding Fathers were clear in their belief that any Federal officeholder in the United States must never be put in a position where he or she could be influenced by a foreign governmental actor. Article 1, section 9, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the emolument clause, declares that ``no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.'' Longstanding precedent has made it plain the President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch of government, clearly occupies an office of profit or trust. As such, the emolument clause clearly applies to and constrains whoever holds the Oval Office of the Presidency. For those who claim to value a strict interpretation of the Constitution and who place upholding the Constitution above partisan politics, the unambiguous reading and meaning are clear and evident. Put simply, the American public has a right to know the President of the United States is acting in their best interest and not because he or she has received some benefit or gift from a foreign government, such as Russia or China or any foreign entity. They need to know the President of the United States is making decisions about potential trade agreements, sending troops into war, or where we spend America's great resources is based upon what is in the public interest and not because it would advance the President's private pecuniary interests. The Founding Fathers' concerns on this subject were neither abstract nor baseless. Alexander Hamilton made specific references to these dangers in the Federalist Papers. While the Constitution was being debated in America, the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was in the process of being ruthlessly dismembered by her neighbors--Prussia, the Austrian Empire and Russia. Poland's neighbors bribed Polish Government officials and succeeded in paralyzing the state for decades. The Founding Fathers placed the emoluments clause, an explicit bar on foreign corruption and interference, within the Constitution so we may avoid Poland's fate. Happily, the emoluments clause has not been a section of the Constitution that has had to be of concern to this body, nor is there voluminous case history detailing its legal interpretation with regard to the highest offices of the executive branch. This is because every President, from George Washington to Barack Obama, has taken great pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regard to their personal wealth and investments, ensuring that such investments never interfere with performing their duties as President of the United States. That is why, over the past four decades, Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all had their assets placed into blind trusts while they were President. President Obama went even further because he wanted to fulfill his promises of greater transparency. He invested the vast majority of his funds into U.S. Treasury bonds. I wish the well-established precedent and practice would make it unnecessary to introduce and seek to move this resolution today. I wish President-Elect Trump would be inclined to continue the longstanding and bipartisan tradition of Presidential traditions. In September, Mr. Trump said, if he were elected, he would absolutely sever ties to The Trump Organization. Despite that pledge, it has since become clear that absent intervention by this body, the President-elect may not follow the precedents established by his predecessors. In so doing, he may well--for whatever reason and whatever motive--place himself and our Constitution in jeopardy. As a separate and coequal branch of government, the Senate has a duty and obligation to safeguard our Constitution. It is to the Constitution, after all, not the person or position, that we swear our oath of office and to nourish the republican virtues that have allowed our Nation and government to flourish. We must do so because following the election, it appears that President-Elect Trump may have changed his mind about the promises he made as he sought office. Mr. Trump's lawyers announced The Trump Organization would be placed into a ``blind trust,'' managed by Don Trump's older children, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump. Let me be clear, as the gravity of this issue demands absolute clarity. The financial arrangement described by Mr. Trump and his lawyers is not a blind trust. It just isn't. We can't allow Mr. Trump or his lawyers to trick us or the American people into thinking it is just because they use that term. A true blind trust, including the ones established by past Presidents, is an arrangement where the official has no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets held in the trust, and the trust's managers operate independently of the owner. The arrangement described by Mr. Trump and his lawyers is not independent. Mr. Trump is well aware of the specific assets held, and he can receive communications about and take actions to affect the values of such assets. The idea that President-Elect Trump's children are or will be truly independent managers is not credible. This is not a blind trust, and this is not an arrangement that will ensure compliance with the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Trump has said there is no one like him who has ever become President of the United States. On that point, he may well be correct. I am very concerned Mr. Trump may violate the U.S. Constitution on the day he takes office and, even if it is not his intent, place himself and our Nation at risk. The purpose of my resolution is to convey to the President-elect there is still time for him to avoid this constitutional conflict. Some might ask: Why should anyone care? It is not hard to imagine circumstances in which a foreign governmental actor will want to give President Trump gifts so they can curry favor with him and hope to influence his decisions in ways that benefit them when the President's decisions should benefit the American people--precisely the danger our Founding Fathers sought to protect against with the emoluments clause. This is not an esoteric argument about rules that do not affect real people. The American public has the right to know if President Trump will put our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in harm's way to protect America's national security or to protect the latest Trump Tower in some far-off country. They have the right to know if the trade agreements negotiated by the new administration will benefit American businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers or whether they will benefit some Trump company or hotel. Donald Trump's business network, The Trump Organization, has financial interests around the world and negotiates and includes transactions with foreign states and entities that are extensions of foreign states. To give but one example of how bad things can get if Mr. Trump is allowed to stay connected to his businesses: In Azerbaijan, The Trump Organization partnered with billionaire Anar Mammadov to build a 33- story Trump Tower in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Mammadov's father is Azerbaijan's long-time Transportation Minister and a confidant of the President of Azerbaijan. There have been allegations this billionaire's company and the companies he is connected to have profited from more than $1 billion worth of transportation contracts related to his father's position in the Transportation Ministry. A former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan in the 1990s and an adviser to the Director of National Intelligence under George W. Bush has said of this deal: ``These are not business people acting on their own--you're dealing with daddy.'' There are a great many nations, none of which we should emulate, where the lines between officials of the foreign government and business entities controlled by that foreign government are blurred or obliterated. For that reason, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has stated that corporations owned or controlled by foreign governments are presumptively foreign states under the emoluments clause. We should all be concerned when the President-elect is connected to an organization that has dealings with countries and entities that aren't interested in distinguishing between doing business with President Trump and the profitmaking portion that bears his name. We run the risk of turning the United States of America, our legal system, our immigration system, our financial system, our trade agreements, and our military into subsidiaries of The Trump Organization. It has already been reported that the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, has been patronized by an increasing number of foreign dignitaries and diplomats because of Mr. Trump's election. One diplomat was recorded as saying: Why wouldn't I stay at his hotel, blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ``I love your new hotel''? Isn't it rude to come to his city and say, ``I am staying at your competitor''? Likewise, news reports suggest that one day after a phone call between President-Elect Trump and the President of Argentina, permits under review for a Trump building in Buenos Aires were suddenly approved. In China, just days after the Presidential election, Donald Trump scored a legal victory in a decade-long trademark dispute over the right to use the Trump name for real estate agent services in commercial and residential properties in China. The timing of these actions is interesting, to put it mildly. The appearance of intermingling between the business of The Trump Organization and the work of government has already begun. Despite Mr. Trump's campaign promises to sever ties to The Trump Organization, where he stated that ``I'll have my children and my executives run the company and I won't discuss it with them,'' the Trump Presidential transition team has named Mr. Trump's children, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, to the transition team's executive committee--the same children who are supposedly managing The Trump Organization without discussing it with him. In those positions, they have the ability to offer counsel as to which personnel are selected to critical posts in the new Trump administration. Ivanka Trump reportedly has been present during Mr. Trump's congratulatory calls with Japan's Prime Minister and the President of Argentina. Donald Trump, Jr., reportedly met in secret prior to the election with pro-Russia politicians to discuss Syrian policy. After the election, President-Elect Trump met with Indian real estate executives--his partners in developing Trump Towers in India--in which they allegedly discussed with the Trump family about possible additional real estate deals. The list goes on and on. The totality of these engagements and the potential implications are deeply, deeply disturbing. Yet President- Elect Trump has done nothing to assure the American people he will put their interests above the enrichment of himself and his children, and he will assure, as the Founding Fathers intended, that the President is not placed in a position where he might be vulnerable to foreign influence or even the appearance of foreign influence. While Mr. Trump or his advisers say ``Trust us,'' let us remember what John Adams said: ``We are a government of laws and not of men.'' It was the enduring wisdom of our Founders to recognize that not all men are angels, so we place our trust in the Constitution itself, not in individuals. Mr. Trump's wealth and business interests must yield to the U.S. Constitution. Those wide-ranging interests make us realize just how critical the Constitution's prohibition of foreign gifts is. The business that the Trump Organization does overseas in places like Scotland, Argentina, India, and Azerbaijan cannot help but not be far from Mr. Trump's mind when he discusses matters of policy with foreign heads of state. This is not because President-Elect Trump is any more susceptible to these temptations than anyone else but simply because, as the Founding Fathers recognized, we are humans, not angels. This insight into human conditions elicited the precise fear articulated by our Founding Fathers: Leaders who receive gifts and payments from foreign governments, being human, may not act in the best interests of the American people. To quote Richard Painter, an expert in ethics and an adviser to George W. Bush: ``Imagine where we'd be today if President Franklin Roosevelt had owned apartment buildings in Frankfurt and Berlin. . . . some of us might be speaking German.'' I am extremely troubled by Mr. Trump's recent remarks on this subject. On November 22, President-Elect Trump stated, ``The law's totally on my side, meaning, the president can't have a conflict of interest.'' In typical Trump sleight of hand, he selectively picks his own facts as he shows a troubling and callous disregard for our Constitution and for the duty he owes to the American people. While the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal judges may be granted specific, limited exemptions from conflicts of interest so that they may act and carry out their duties, that law does not supersede the Constitution nor, frankly, have anything to do with the very specific provisions of the emoluments clause preventing foreign governmental financial influence over the President. That the President-elect is not doing enough to avoid such conflicts is what brings me to the floor today and, overall, according to one new poll, is troubling to nearly 60 percent of the people of this country. The limited exception to the conflict of interest statute recognizes that there are certain public officials whose authority to act should not be held in question. That ability to act does not cure the restrictions in the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the President. Mr. Trump apparently does not appreciate the reason that the law on this issue is untested because previous Presidents have had the wisdom and personal forbearance not to seek to put this question to the test. But we have tested the unfortunate proposition that ``when the president does it, that means it is not illegal'' before, and Congress, in service of the Constitution and the American people, has found that not to be the case. No one is above the law; no one is above the Constitution, including the President of the United States. President-Elect Trump has also tweeted: ``Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties around the world.'' That is undoubtedly true. But the American people, in voting for a candidate, cannot--indeed, would not want to--excuse a potential future violation of the Constitution by that candidate. President-Elect Trump's attempt to imply that because he won the election, the Constitution somehow does not apply to him is irresponsible and disrespectful. It would be disrespectful to the Constitution; it is truly disrespectful to the American people, who are trusting their future, their children, their livelihood, and their safety to decisions Mr. Trump will make once he becomes President. We must do everything we can to protect our Constitution, our democracy, and the American people from such recklessness. The aim of my resolution is straightforward. It takes a strict interpretation of the plain words of the Constitution and supports the traditional values and practices adopted by previous Presidents. It simply calls on President-Elect Trump to follow the precedent established by prior Presidents and convert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings, adopt blind trusts managed by truly independent trustees with no relationship to Mr. Trump or his businesses, or to take other, equivalent measures. It calls upon the President-elect to refrain from using the powers or opportunities of his position for any purpose related to The Trump Organization. It makes it clear that if Mr. Trump does not take appropriate actions to sever his ties to his businesses, Congress will have no choice, given the oath to protect and defend the Constitution that each and every Member has taken, but to view any dealings Mr. Trump has through his companies with foreign governments or entities owned or controlled by foreign governments as a potential violation of the emoluments clause. As Mr. Painter observed, ``It should send a clear message to [Mr. Trump] that he should divest his assets and that [Congress] will regard dealings with his companies that he owns abroad and any entities owned by foreign governments as a potential violation of the Emoluments Clause unless he can prove it was an arm's-length transaction.'' It makes it clear to President-Elect Trump that we care about the Constitution and our democracy, that the American people really are watching, and that we will not be distracted from caring about these things. I want to close by observing that because of strong feelings and passions generated by the recent election, some might be tempted to view this resolution and its aims through a distorted prism of politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I strongly support a smooth transition between the Obama administration and the Trump administration. I want the Trump administration to have support from Congress to succeed on behalf of the American people. But when Mr. Trump deviates from his constitutional responsibilities or recommends policies that are contrary to the core values of our Nation, Members of Congress have an obligation to speak out and to act. I stand here today because I believe Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States, whosoever that is, does not violate our Constitution, acts lawfully, and is discharging the obligations of the office based on the broad interests of the American people, not his or her own narrow personal interests. My resolution is not intended to create a misunderstanding or crisis, but to avoid one, so that President-Elect Trump can put aside any appearance of impropriety and devote himself to the good work on behalf of the American people. We owe it to President-Elect Trump to make very clear what our expectations are ahead of inauguration day. Why? So that we can avoid a Constitutional crisis. Such a crisis would not serve in the best interests of the President, Congress, and the American people.

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, today I wish to pay tribute and reflect on the legacy of Israeli leader, two-time Prime Minister, and ninth President of Israel Shimon Peres. I extend my condolences to the family of Shimon Peres and to the people of Israel. Today you have lost a towering leader who leaves behind a legacy of moral clarity and hope. I had the opportunity to meet Shimon Peres on numerous occasions. After each meeting, I walked away inspired and hopeful, having benefited immensely from his insight and perspective on a number of difficult global issues. Shimon Peres was not only one of the world's greatest statesmen but an ardent and committed advocate for peace. Given Shimon Peres's personal history and journey, it is truly remarkable that in his final years he refused to give in to cynicism and acrimony. As an immigrant to Israel, he was part of the grand project that cultivated a thriving country and society. As a warrior, he made sure that Israel was always ready and able to defend itself. As a politician, he contributed to the lively and robust democracy that the Israelis enjoy today, but he never shied away from reaching out across lines if he thought that was in Israel's interest. As a friend to the United States, his legacy is the unshakeable bond between our two countries, our governments, and our people. As a leader, he showed the world that extending a hand and daring to work for peace is worthy and just. He shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. The legacy of the Oslo Accords remains active today. We must continue to work toward a two-state solution, a Jewish and Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. Shimon Peres's legacy is the patient, difficult, taxing, and necessary work of negotiations. It is only through direct negotiations and direct contact between the two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, that we can achieve this objective. Shimon Peres leaves behind incredibly important initiatives, such as the Peres Center for Peace. This is a peace- building organization that seeks to foster personal and professional interactions between Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs and Jews. I want to pay tribute to Shimon Peres's morality and courage. He called for reconciliation in times of strife. We can fill his legacy by turning this sober and sad occasion to a call for direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, for boldness and courage to return to the negotiating table to fulfill the dream and meet the expectations of so many living in this part of the world who are so desperately seeking peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to speak about the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, better known as JASTA. I am going to support the veto override, but it is not without concern for the potential unintended consequences. I have come to the conclusion that the risk of shielding the perpetrators of terrorism from justice outweighs the risks on how other countries might respond to and perhaps compromise U.S. interests. Fifteen years have passed since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but in my home State of Maryland and across the country, the pain caused by the events of that terrible day is still very real. The 9/11 attacks were a national tragedy for the United States, but we were personally devastated for fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, and children in Maryland and throughout the country. The 9/11 victims and their families deserve meaningful relief, and I cannot support putting obstacles in the way of victims of terrorism seeking justice. I understand that this legislation may have an effect on long-held sovereign immunity principles, and I share some of those concerns that the President has articulated in his veto message. I share the President's view about the importance of upholding sovereign immunity to the extent that we can and to the extent that it makes sense, but the principles of sovereign immunity were put in place at a time when acts of international terrorism were not as common. Exceptions to sovereign immunity have grown over time as times have changed. In today's world, it is my view that we must make sure that the international community understands that there is a clear distinction between those who oppose terrorism and those who sponsor terrorism. Those who commit or support terrorist acts in the United States should face the full weight of our justice system. JASTA's intended purpose is to create a tort exception that allows victims and their families to seek justice for acts of international terrorism in the United States that are caused by terrorist torts of a foreign state or its officials. Terrorism victims and their families in the United States should be able to have their day in court. We cannot, in good conscience, close the courthouse door to those families who suffered unimaginable losses. I have confidence in the American jurisprudence system and that we will get this right in order to respect the lawful acts of governments but also to hold those who sponsor terrorism accountable under our system of justice. The legislation restricts the application of this exception. It only applies to acts of terrorism on U.S. soil. It establishes a standard that is greater than negligence in order to be able to have an actionable claim. There is an ability for the government to stay the proceedings to negotiate a settlement. So the U.S. Government can intercede. I think these exceptions were put in and negotiated in order to try to deal with some of the legitimate concerns that were initially raised. As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I recognize that there are risk factors in terms of how other countries may respond to the enactment of JASTA. As a nation with hundreds of thousands of troops that serve abroad, not to mention multiple foreign bases and facilities, the United States of America is a country that benefits from sovereign immunity principles that protect our country and our country's interests, its Armed Forces, government officials, and litigation in foreign courts. Therefore, there is a concern of unintended consequences, including irresponsible applications to U.S. international activities by other countries. While I have faith and confidence in the American legal system, the same faith does not necessarily extend to the fairness of legal systems of other countries that may claim they are taking similar actions against America when they are not. So we need to follow closely how other countries respond and try to mitigate the risks of the United States abroad. In my role as the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I intend to do just that. I will seek to work with my colleagues to try to mitigate these risks, and I similarly support the efforts of the State Department and Department of Defense to mitigate any risks to our diplomacy, assets, and troops abroad that may be caused by the enactment of JASTA. I intend to explore with my colleagues the possibility of whether we need or will need additional legislative action. Such additional legislation would allow justice for family members of the victims of the 9/11 attack while ameliorating some of the potential adverse consequences of JASTA. Near my Baltimore office in the Inner Harbor of Maryland, there has been created a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Inspired by an artifact of the New York World Trade Center, the memorial consists of three 22-foot-long twisted and torn amalgamated steel columns from the Twin Towers. The memorial provides a place for contemplation and a site to remember and reflect upon the events of September 11, 2001, while paying tribute to the 69 Marylanders who lost their lives that day. Each year on September 11, Baltimore's World Trade Center will act as a sundial to mark the chronological inscriptions of the events of that tragic day. Today we hold close in our hearts and prayers those Marylanders who died on that day, as well as the families and friends whose lives have been altered forever. There are no actions we can take to sufficiently heal the pain and suffering so many thousands of Americans carry with them 15 years after that fateful September day, but our constituents and fellow citizens are asking for a path to justice. This legislation creates that path, and having weighed both sides carefully, I am compelled to uphold it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to express my support for a successful 28th meeting of parties to the 1989 Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, scheduled to take place next month in Kigali, Rwanda. The 28th meeting of parties, commonly referred to as MOP28, is undertaking the incredibly important task of reaching an agreement on an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the worldwide production and application of hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, which are incredibly potent, short-lived, greenhouse gases most commonly used as refrigerants in air conditioners and for cold storage. Phasing down HFCs is a critically important step towards realizing the enhanced ambition goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius. I fully support MOP28's aims of reaching an agreement that is high on ambition and expeditious in its timeline. There is no time to lose if we, as a global community, are to act successfully to stem the causes of the Earth's rapidly changing climate system. Prior to the Montreal Protocol's implementation, the Earth's ozone, O3, the thin layer of concentrated O3 in our atmosphere responsible for regulating the intensity of the Sun's penetrating ultraviolet, UV, light, had developed massive holes near the Earth's poles and had worn dangerously thin around most of the world. A diminished ozone layer poses serious threats to human health by proliferating skin diseases from overexposure to UV light, seriously harms global crop yields and agricultural production, and hastens the useful life of a variety of plastic materials utilized in a variety of outdoor applications. The Montreal Protocol's incremental approach to phasing out harmful ozone depleting substances, ODSs, is a testament to how inclusive and transparent approaches to multilateral environmental agreements that incorporate constructive inputs from affected industries and the scientific community can achieve positive environmental results. Starting with the phase out of chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, the worst-of- the-worst ozone depleting substances, followed by the phase out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, these agreements have the Earth's ozone on track to be fully recovered by 2065. Hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, are the chemical refrigerant alternative that replaced HCFCs and CFCs. Unfortunately, HFCs are extreme greenhouse gases. Some HFCs are 4,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. The fairly recent expansion of mass production and worldwide use of HFCs, post-HCFC and CFC elimination, are believed to have significantly contributed to the recent worsening of the global climate crisis. While the Montreal Protocol is designed to address ODSs, not climate change, the decision was made at the Montreal Protocol's 27th meeting of parties in Dubai that the Montreal Protocol provides an effective mechanism to address this family of chemicals effectively. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, ``HFC use and emissions are rapidly increasing as a result of the phase out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and growing global demand for air conditioning and refrigeration. The continued emissions of HFCs-- primarily as alternatives to ODS and as byproduct emissions of HFC-23-- are having an immediate and significant effect on the Earth's climate system. Without further controls, HFC emissions could largely negate the climate benefits achieved under the Montreal Protocol.'' The United States has demonstrated exceptional leadership with respect to phasing down HFCs on all fronts. U.S. chemical producers and the refrigeration manufacturing sector have led the world in developing safe, effective, and commercially viable refrigeration chemical alternatives, namely hydrofluoroolefin, HFO, and hydrocarbon, HC; refrigerants, that neither pose significant threats to the ozone nor the climate crisis. In addition to making these technological advances, the industry has helped bring countries to the table and fully supports adopting an ambitious HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol in Kigali. The U.S. is taking bold domestic political action to promote a significant reduction in the use of HFCs in the marketplace by promulgating some of the world's most ambitious domestic HFC abatement policies. This action provides the U.S.'s delegation to the Montreal Protocol with a strong footing to lead by example when it comes to advancing an ambitious agreement to phase down HFCs globally as quickly as possible. The United States and our North American neighbors Mexico and Canada have put forward one of the most ambitious HFC amendment proposals for consideration at MOP28. Moreover, our amendment has broad support from developing and developed countries on every continent. According to the State Department, more than 120 parties to the Montreal Protocol have expressed support for the policy concepts in the North American amendment proposal. I want to congratulate the hardworking diplomats, negotiators, and policy experts at the U.S. State Department, the Commerce Department, and the EPA who have masterfully developed and rallied support for an ambitious proposal. While I am confident a deal on a new and effective HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol is within reach, there is certainly still some diplomacy necessary with some very important parties to the Montreal Protocol, and I encourage our delegation to continue working with these parties in Kigali. Phasing down the global presence of HFCs is the low-hanging fruit in the global effort to combat climate change. If we are going to be successful in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, we need to do the easy things first. So let's act fast and effectively to get potent HFC greenhouse gas reductions as soon as possible. These are noncontroversial steps we can take to abate climate change that should absolutely have bipartisan support from Congress. Thank you.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to observe the second anniversary of the forced disappearance of 43 students in the Mexican state of Guerrero, a tragedy that continues to haunt the students' families and friends. I also rise to speak to the endemic challenges posed by cases of missing and disappeared persons across Mexico and to appeal to President Pena Nieto and Mexico's political leaders to be more responsive and transparent on this critical issue. On the evening of September 26, 2014, in a series of events that the New York Times has characterized as a ``night of terror,'' local police from the town of Iguala turned their weapons on the civilian population and colluded with the criminal organization known as the Guerreros Unidos to target and terrorize students from the Escuela Normal Rural Raul Isidro Burgos, which is a teachers' college. By the end of that night, 6 people were killed, 25 were injured, and 43 students were forcibly ``disappeared'' in a tragic story that has echoed around the globe. As links between the U.S. and Mexico abound and given the more than 33 million Mexican-Americans and Mexicans residing in the United States, the disappearance of the 43 students has been felt deeply throughout our country. Whether it is in California, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, New York or Maryland, almost all of our States are home to large, dynamic Mexican- American communities that remain in contact with friends and families throughout Mexico. Many of our constituents have direct and personal ties to the tragedy that took place in Iguala and the broader crisis of unresolved disappearances in Mexico. In the 2 years since the disappearance of the 43 students, it is important to recognize that there have been critical advances in the investigations. Moreover, I want to recognize the Government of Mexico's decision to work with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR, to create an Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts, GIEI--by its initials in Spanish--which has provided invaluable technical assistance for the investigation, as well as key recommendations to strengthen ongoing investigative efforts. It is imperative to note, however, that the GIEI faced repeated obstacles such as restricted access to key documents and individuals and found significant inconsistencies in the Mexican Government's investigation, including incidents of mishandled evidence. It is also important to note that the experts found evidence which indicates that members of the federal and state police may have joined the local police in colluding with the criminal organizations involved in the disappearance of the students. In addition, members of the Mexican Army's 27th Battalion were discovered to have been at the scene of the crime and closely involved in the fatal events of that night. And we cannot overlook the fact that 2 full years after the students' disappearance, there has not been a single criminal conviction in the case. For these reasons, I urge President Pena Nieto and his administration to take all necessary steps to make operational a special follow-up mechanism for the investigation the IACHR established in July. This follow-up mechanism will include two IACHR-appointed advisors responsible for working with Mexican authorities and monitoring further action on the group of experts' recommendations. Continued progress on this case is critical. My staff has met directly with the families of the 43 students, and we cannot let their call for justice end in impunity. So whether it includes pursuing new leads, discarding flawed theories, granting broader access to case files, or removing officials who have obstructed the investigation, I appeal to President Pena Nieto and his administration to ensure that the investigation has the full political backing and sufficient resources to achieve the needed results. I also want to speak to how the case of the 43 students is representative of the endemic challenge of missing and disappeared peoples across Mexico. According to its own statistics, since 2007, the Mexican Government has documented more than 28,000 cases of missing and disappeared people. In fact, in the months after the students' disappearance, as investigators and families of disappeared persons fanned out across Guerrero state, they encountered numerous mass graves of victims of unknown crimes and carnage. So the resolution of this case is particularly symbolic as it would give hope to the thousands of Mexican families who have relatives who have disappeared. I want to recognize President Pena Nieto's decision to submit draft legislation last December for a general law to prevent and punish the crime of disappearances, which would establish obligations for federal, state, and local authorities and improve coordination across jurisdictions. I appeal to members of the Mexican Senate and Chamber of Deputies to pass this important legislation. By prioritizing this issue and providing increased budgetary, forensic, and technological resources, Mexican authorities can ensure justice for the tens of thousands of Mexican families who have suffered the disappearance of a friend or loved one. Finally, I want to call upon the State Department and our Embassy in Mexico City to use their diplomatic discussions with the Mexican Government to offer all relevant assistance and to underscore the importance of learning the truth about the disappearance of the 43 students and the broader issue of missing and disappeared people. We must stand ready to support our Mexican partners as they pursue justice in these critical cases, which have touched the lives of too many Mexicans and, in turn, our constituents here in the United States.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it gives me great joy to congratulate a dear friend, Stanley S. Fine, who is being rightfully honored next month by the Baltimore District Council of the Urban Land Institute, ULI, with its 2016 Lifetime Achievement Award. The Lifetime Achievement Award is given to an individual who has been a recognized leader in the development community; who has touched all aspects of development including acquisition, design, finance, and implementation; who has volunteered his or her time and/or resources to help advance the industry; and who commands the admiration and respect of his or her peers for lifetime accomplishments. I doubt there is any other individual as deserving as Stanley, a native Baltimorean, to receive this recognition. My wife, Myrna, and I have known Stanley since we were all in junior high school. One of the most important things to know about Stanley is that he is always ready to offer a helping hand. I doubt any of us know just how many people Stanley has helped over the years; because of his inherent modesty, he never seeks acknowledgment or recognition or accolades. In 1982, Stanley's wife, Bailey--a dedicated and accomplished public servant--ran my reelection campaign to the Maryland House of Delegates and then served as my campaign aide during my first congressional race in 1986; as my district director for 20 years; and, finally, as my State director during my first term in the Senate before she retired at the end of 2012. Stanley and Bailey will be celebrating their 45th wedding anniversary on November 28. They have two lovely adult children, Michael and Laura, and three grandchildren. Michael and his wife, Whitney, have two daughters, Riley and Blakely; Laura and her husband, Ben Liebman, have a son, Eli. Stanley is a partner in the law firm of Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP. He has been representing developers and businessowners in high- profile Baltimore city land use and zoning matters for 35 years. The city's skyline and neighborhoods, from office buildings to shopping centers and local businesses, from industrial buildings and office parks to neighborhood restaurants, reflect Stanley's tremendous impact on Baltimore. Over the years, Stanley has cultivated long-term relationships with developers, engineers, architects, attorneys, planners, city and State officials, preservationists, conservationists, and others engaged in real estate development. These relationships, coupled with Stanley's legal acumen and personal commitment to the city of Baltimore, have helped him to bring prominent and challenging commercial, industrial, and residential projects to realization. Stanley is a consensus-seeker and always finds creative solutions for each project--solutions that serve the interests of his clients, the government agencies involved, the community, and other stakeholders. As ULI Baltimore District Council coordinator Lisa Norris stated, ``Throughout Stanley's career his priority has been to make the City of Baltimore a better place in which to live and work.'' Stanley is a cofounder of the Baltimore Development Workgroup and previously served as the director of the Maryland State Lottery Agency and chairman of the Maryland State Lottery Commission. He is a former member of the Baltimore City Planning Commission and president of a community association. Best Lawyers in America magazine has recognized Stanley as ``Land Use & Zoning Lawyer of the Year'' for 2011 through 2014 and as one of Maryland's top land use and zoning attorneys in the 2007 through 2017 editions. And he has made the list as one of ``Maryland's Super Lawyers'' in the 2007 through 2013 and 2015 through 2016 editions of Baltimore Magazine. Stanley received his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University in 1965 and his J.D. from the University Of Maryland School of Law in 1969. In addition to being a superb lawyer, Stanley is an exceptional athlete. While he was a freshman at Johns Hopkins, he played in the first game of Baltimore's box lacrosse league, televised live in 1962, and scored a game-high four goals for his club team, which won the game. At the university, he was the backbone of a tenacious midfield for the Blue Jays varsity lacrosse team and joined the Phi Sigma Delta fraternity. I think Stanley's colleague Benjamin Rosenberg, the founder and chairman of Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, summed it up best, saying: . . . this award is long overdue recognition of the major role Stanley has played in the life of our City. Over the past several decades there have been very few significant real estate developments in Baltimore that Stanley has not had an important hand in. He has also been a behind the scenes confidante and sounding board for virtually every public official at the State and local level. They rely on Stanley for practical, discreet advice and counsel. Take a walk over to City Hall or a trip to the State House with Stanley and you'll see what I mean. While some people may think of Stanley as Bailey's sidekick or Michael and Laura's dad or one of the greatest left-handed shooters who ever played lacrosse, wherever you look at bright spots in Baltimore, chances are you'll see something that Stanley has helped bring about. The epitaph in St. Paul's Cathedral for Sir Christopher Wren reads, in part, ``si monumentum requiris, circumspice,'' which means ``if you seek his monument, look around you.'' What is true for Christopher Wren in London is true for my friend Stanley Fine in Baltimore. I ask my fellow Senators to join my wife, Myrna, and me and Stanley's colleagues, peers, family members, and his legions of friends and admirers in congratulating him on receiving such a richly deserved Lifetime Achievement Award from ULI Baltimore.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I thank my friend from Vermont for his raising this important issue and appreciate the opportunity to join him today. The relationship between the United States and the Philippines is tremendously important for both our nations and both of our people; yet I fear that today, because of the way in which the new government of President Duterte is approaching this issue, we may find ourselves at something of a crossroads. If the current trends continue, we can expect that over 6,000 people will be dead as a result of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines by the end of this year--6,000 people. This is not a situation in which there is occasional error or the overzealous application of force. This is systematic, widespread, brutal, and beyond the bounds for a constitutional democracy. And as my colleague from Vermont pointed out, these dead are not just drug dealers--although that would be troubling enough given the lack of due process--but also include addicts, who need help, as well as innocent bystanders. I understand President Duterte's desire to stop the devastation caused by illegal narcotics. I believe that most of my colleagues do. We, too, have seen what drug trafficking and addiction can do in our communities. We also have a long history of both successful and unsuccessful efforts to combat narcotics, but we have learned that there is a right way to approach this issue--with law enforcement, due process and rule of law, with treatment--and a wrong way. President Duterte, in advocating and endorsing what amounts to mass murder, has chosen the wrong way. Senator Leahy is absolutely right when he said that a lack of respect for rule of law and democratic governance breeds instability, distrust, and sometimes violence. Filipino police have attributed most of the killings to suspects who ``resisted arrest and shot at police officers.'' Yet it has been impossible to assess police claims that the killings were all lawful, since President Duterte has rejected calls to investigate these deaths. He has instead declared the killings as proof of the ``success'' of his antidrug campaign and, along with other more forceful and ``colorful'' statements which appear to endorse vigilante killings, urged police to ``seize the momentum.'' Human rights groups, the United Nations, the U.S. Government, and a Philippine Senate panel have expressed concerns about the killings, which allegedly have been carried out without legal proceedings as provided for under Philippine law and international obligations. As the distinguished gentleman from Vermont knows, I have been a strong supporter of the Philippines' law enforcement institutions, including recently introducing legislation which would increase law enforcement cooperation between our two countries. But these recent reports of thousands of extrajudicial killings, as well as detentions and a lack of respect for international human rights commitments, are profoundly troubling. They undermine our mutual goals of upholding liberal democratic values in the region and to strengthening international law. Indeed, as the Senator from Vermont knows, just this past week, President Duterte said that he intends to reconstitute the constabulary, the most abusive parapolice under the Marcos regime. For any historian of human rights abuses in the Philippines, this is a deeply troubling development. I would ask my friend and colleague if he shares my concerns with the direction that the Philippines appears to be going and the implications for the US-Filipino relationship.

Mr. CARDIN. Indeed, as we celebrate the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our two countries, we should underscore that our alliance is needed now more than ever. With a more assertive China in the maritime domain, a changing global economic landscape, and an increase of transnational challenges confronting the region, the U.S.-Philippines alliance is critical to both our nations. But this alliance is about more than just interests narrowly construed. The relationship between our nations is more than an alliance. It is a genuine friendship. This is a deep relationship built on shared values and a deep appreciation, both here and in the Philippines, of the importance of democracy, of rule of law, of due process, of the proper application of justice, and of constitutional order. It is because these extrajudicial killings shake the very foundation of that shared vision of shared values that I find these developments so deeply troubling. So I would also ask my colleague his opinion, as the author of the ``Leahy Law,'' whether he thinks that the application of ordinary U.S. policy and law, and the Leahy Law in particular, is sufficient to meet the challenges that we see in the Philippines. Given the nature of these extrajudicial killings, how would unit-level vetting apply? And if the United States is unable to use the normal tools available, what are the other options that we might need to consider?

Mr. CARDIN. I thank my colleague for his thoughtful response. I, too, am greatly concerned that, unless we are able to see a more constructive approach on these issues from the government of President Duterte--an approach that is just as serious about combatting the scourge of narcotics, but approaches the issue in a legal framework-- that we may need to consider taking these steps. This is an important relationship. I have many Filipino-American citizens in Maryland, and I care deeply about strengthening the US-Philippines Alliance, especially given the challenges that the regional order faces from a rising China, but this issue is critical as well.