Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the death of Freddie Gray was a national tragedy deserving of a national conversation. A year after the death of Freddie Gray, the glare of television cameras covering the ensuing unrest has faded in Baltimore but the hurt and the continuing effort to heal remain. In the 12 months since Freddie Gray's death, Americans have had long overdue conversations about racially biased policing, poverty in cities across America, the lack of access to quality education, and the scarcity of safe and affordable housing. These conversations have been translated into meaningful actions by Baltimore City residents, community leaders, and lawmakers at every level. Faith groups, community organizations, the business community, and many other groups who love and understand the limitless potential of our city have stood up and articulated their vision on how to build a stronger Baltimore. The death of Freddie Gray was yet another painful reminder of the problems we have in our criminal justice system. I am a strong supporter of the independence of our judicial branch of government and the grand jury system, but I think all of us understand the frustration when there were no criminal indictments brought in the Trayvon Martin case, the Michael Brown case, the Eric Garner case, and far too many examples across America. I have been working for years to address problems in our criminal justice system. In the days following the death of Freddie Gray and the ensuing unrest, I called on the Justice Department to open Federal criminal and civil rights investigations into Freddie Gray's death. On April 21, 2015, I was joined by Representative John Conyers in reintroducing legislation, the End Racial Profiling Act, which I originally introduced before the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. As Baltimore emerged from the unrest, I met with community leaders to discuss legislative responses to help heal Baltimore's physical wounds and how to address many of the core problems that underpinned the unrest. I met with a pharmacy owner whose store had been looted. I visited a senior center that was damaged. I spoke with residents in east and west Baltimore. I visited Freddie Gray's elementary school to hear from teachers and community leaders about what tools they required for the Federal Government to better meet the needs of students. In the weeks following the unrest, I went back and forth from Baltimore City to the Senate and the White House, relaying the needs of Baltimoreans to my colleagues and to top Obama administration officials. I was joined by the Maryland congressional delegation, my colleague and friend Senator Mikulski--one of the great leaders on this issue--and members of our city delegation--Congressman Cummings, Congressman Ruppersberger, and Congressman Sarbanes. Congress and the Federal Government responded and continues to respond. I welcomed the announcement that the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division will open a Federal ``pattern or practice'' investigation of the Baltimore Police Department. This was just one way to help restore the eroded trust between communities and police. To further this effort, I introduced the BALTIMORE Act. The BALTIMORE Act is comprised of four titles. Title I deals with law enforcement reform. The BALTIMORE Act places bans on racial profiling by State and local law enforcement, mandatory data collection and reporting, and available grants. It requires local law enforcement officials receiving funds from the Byrne/JAG and COPS Hiring Programs to submit officer training information to the Department of Justice, including how their officers are trained in the use of force, countering racial and ethnic bias, deescalating conflicts, and constructive engagement with the public. It requires the Department of Justice to report on a plan to assist State and local law enforcement agencies to improve training in the use of force, identifying racial and ethnic bias, and conflict resolution through the course of officers' careers. The Department of Justice shall develop Field Training Program policies and examine ways to partner with national law enforcement organizations to promote consistent standards for high quality training and assessment. The Department shall also provide a report that contains best practices, model policies, and training toolkits. The Department of Justice will derive action plans for helping law enforcement agencies upgrade their IT systems to submit arrest and officer-involved shooting data. Lastly, Title I establishes a pilot program to assist local law enforcement in purchasing or leasing body-worn cameras, which requires privacy study. We have a comprehensive section that deals with law enforcement. Title II deals with voting rights and civil rights restoration. The BALTIMORE Act restores the right to vote for all citizens after a prison sentence is served, returning citizens the right to vote. It also restores eligibility to sit on Federal juries after a prison sentence has been served. Title III deals with sentencing law reform, which many colleagues in this Chamber have been championing. It reclassifies specific low-level, nonviolent drug possession felonies as misdemeanors, eliminating the distinction between crack and powder cocaine for sentencing, and requires fair weight for food products. Title IV deals with reentry and employment law reform. It is critically important that people have an opportunity once they come out of incarceration. I don't think there is a Member of this Chamber who hasn't had a second chance. This allows nonprofits to apply for Second Chance Act grants. It authorizes $200 million annually for the Labor Department's Reentry Employment Opportunities Program. It is a sense of the Congress that the administration should ``ban the box'' for hiring of Federal contractors. Baltimore's congressional delegation has been fighting to ensure Federal resources are made available to help the city residents prosper. In the days following the unrest, the Small Business Administration established disaster loan outreach centers in Baltimore to help local owners who have been impacted by the unrest. The Justice Department has also provided assistance in the form of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants to help defray the cost of policing during the unrest and to help local law enforcement better safeguard communities from violent crime. The Department of Education's Project SERV, or School Emergency Response to Violence, has given resources to Baltimore City Public Schools to help students recover from trauma associated with the unrest. The Environmental Protection Agency pledged funding to help convert vacant lots into gardens that foster a sense of community and increase public and environmental health. Other Obama administration initiatives such as My Brother's Keeper continue to give communities the tools they need to foster long-term positive change. These are only a small portion of the Federal Government's ongoing commitment to the people of Baltimore City. I am proud of the Federal Government stepping up to help Baltimore so that Baltimore can reach its full potential. Baltimore is my home. Following the death of Freddie Gray was one of the most difficult days in the city's history. One year later, Baltimore is transforming with the help of ordinary citizens, the business community, and a slew of nonprofits making a measurable impact. I have always been honored to represent the people of Baltimore. As long as I still have that honor, I will continue to make sure the Federal Government is an active partner in empowering Baltimore City to reach its full potential. In the year since the death of Freddie Gray, we have made progress in building a more just America by investing in Baltimore. Let us continue to build upon that progress.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will continue to try here, and I thank the Senate majority leader for his patience. This is really not a matter of fairness to the President but fairness to the American people. As my colleague Senator Hirono pointed out, this is a matter of justice delayed is justice denied. We have judicial emergencies--many on our list--that have not been filled. As Senator Schumer pointed out, this is about comparing what has been done on the workload of this Congress to any previous Congress on the confirmation of judges, and we are dead last as far as action that has been taken. I think the critical number is the number of vacancies. Compare the number of vacancies. When the Republicans took the majority, there were 43 vacancies in our courts. That number has almost doubled to 79 vacancies. When we take a look at the pace of confirmation--because we could say maybe there were a lot that had to be taken up over a President's term. But, as Senator Schumer pointed out, there have been only 17 judges confirmed to date. That is one of the lowest numbers in the modern history of our country. In the last year of President Bush's administration, in the same period of time of that 2-year cycle, 68 judges had been confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate. What makes matters more difficult for the American people to understand is that 20 judicial nominations have currently passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe every one has been passed by unanimous voice vote, so they are not controversial. It is just a matter of getting them up for confirmation--20 of them that have yet to be acted on the floor of the Senate. I will make two unanimous consent requests that will deal with 4 of these 20 currently pending. All passed the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice votes. Two are from States that have Democratic Senators and two are from States that have Republican Senators. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar No. 307, Xinis of Maryland; Calendar No. 357, Martinotti of New Jersey; Calendar No. 358, Rossiter of Nebraska; and Calendar No. 359, Stanton of Tennessee; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to make one further request in the series with Senator Hirono and Senator Schumer, and that is to deal with the next nominee who would be up, considering the length of time she has been on the calendar. It is the nomination of Paula Xinis of Maryland made in March 2015--over 1 year ago--by President Obama. She was recommended by Senator Mikulski and me after an exhaustive vetting process that we go through before making recommendations to the President of the United States. She was nominated over 1 year ago. She had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee in July of 2015. As I said earlier, she was reported out of the committee by unanimous voice vote in September of last year, and she has been waiting all this time for action on the Senate floor. We need this vacancy filled. We now have two vacancies in the Maryland District. The chief judge has related to us several times that this position is critical for the administration of justice for the people of Maryland and our Nation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 307, Xinis of Maryland; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to share in the frustration of my colleague from Wyoming. This should not be a partisan issue. I agree, it is wrong to hold people's lives in abeyance. We are trying to get the very best people to serve on our courts. If they have to put their lives on hold for a year or two, will they come forward and seek to serve as a judge? We know that for the ones we are trying to get on the bench, it is going to be a financial sacrifice. They can make more money in the private sector. We want the very best on our courts. If someone is put on hold for 2 years or for 1 year, it compromises their ability if they are in the private practice of law, and it is not the right thing to do--whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. We have to act on these appointments a lot faster. The point I raised is that during this term of Congress, during this year and a half, we have seen the number of judicial vacancies go up from 43 to 79. At this particular moment, there are 20 nominees on the Executive Calendar who have cleared the committee by voice vote and who are not controversial. Some have been waiting over a year since their nomination. We can do something about it right now, and we should do something about it right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I recognize the tragic death of a Marylander. John E. Ulmschneider of the Prince George's Fire/EMS Department was killed in the line of duty on Friday, April 15, 2016. John Ulmschneider is survived by his wife and daughter. He was known to his friends and colleagues as ``Skillet,'' a nickname he received after sustaining an injury in high school. It was while he was attending Surrattsville High School in Clinton, MD, that John decided to dedicate his life to serving others as firefighter. Before graduating high school, John Ulmschneider worked on the farm of a family friend. It was on that farm that he met Dawn, and the two would later get married. A colleague fondly remembered him as ``a hard- working country boy.'' He enjoyed helping people. Personally and professionally, he was selfless and generous. This altruism made him not only a good person, but an ideal public servant. John Ulmschneider worked out of the Landover Hills Fire/EMS Station 830. He was a 13-year veteran of the Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department and was described as dedicated, humble, and funny. The Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department is composed of nearly 2,000 volunteers, career professionals, and support personnel covering approximately 580 square miles and protecting almost 900,000 people. Marylanders should take solace in knowing that John was able to leave his mark on a department with such immense responsibilities. Maryland's first responders are some of the best in the country. Their dedication, bravery, and skill are worthy of the highest praise. John Ulmschneider had all of these traits in abundance. I thank the Ulmschneider family for sharing John with the people of Prince George's County. I also thank John's fellow first responders and staff at Med Star Southern Maryland Hospital Center in Clinton, MD, for doing their utmost to save John. His legacy will never be forgotten, and I join the people of Prince George's County in mourning his loss.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Minnesota, Senator Franken, for his comments concerning an important day tomorrow. It is important for many reasons. We have worked a long time to get the global community engaged on climate change. As Senator Franken pointed out, tomorrow is Earth Day. It will be the 46th anniversary of Earth Day, which was started by our former colleague Senator Gaylord Nelson. He did that because he recognized it is important for this country to recognize our global responsibilities to our environment and to our future. There is no greater challenge that we face than climate change because climate change has been caused, in part, by our own activities here on Earth, by the emission of greenhouse gases. We have a responsibility to reverse the current trends. We can do that. Tomorrow in New York City, many leaders will come to sign the COP21 agreement that was negotiated in Paris earlier this year by 16 nations representing 98 percent of the global greenhouse emissions. This is a historic moment. I want to reflect for a moment about the U.S. leadership that has brought us to this moment in which we now have an agreement among so many countries of the world. We have been trying to do this now for a long time. We have not been successful. At last, the global community has come together with meaningful commitments that will put us on the right path, and the U.S. leadership made this possible. I want to congratulate President Obama for his leadership on this. I was with Secretary Moniz in Paris. Ten members of the U.S. Senate went to Paris during the COP21 negotiations. We were there less than 48 hours, but I think we were able to broadcast the united support for U.S. leadership for a global commitment. Secretary of Energy Moniz took us to the exhibit where we saw firsthand U.S. technology that will help us meet the challenges of climate change--how we can produce energy more efficiently and how we can use energy more efficiently. It was U.S. technology, and that technology will be used around the world. I mention that because U.S. global leadership is critically important to help save our planet from the adverse impacts of climate change, yes, but it also will help our economy. It will help our economy, obviously, in dealing with the effects of climate change but also in U.S. technology being used around the world, creating jobs here in the United States. This is an urgent issue. If I might, let me first quote from Pope Francis. He said: The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change. . . . I urgently appeal, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all. . . . Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political, and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. I couldn't agree with him more. This is a global challenge with global, grave consequences if we don't get it right. I see that in my own State of Maryland's Smith Island, which is disappearing into the Chesapeake Bay. I see it in the Chesapeake Bay with the loss of sea grasses because of warmer water temperatures. Sea grasses are critically important to the survival of the Maryland blue crab. I see it in our coastal safety, as we see more and more storms with more consequences. Recently I traveled to the southern part of Africa, and I had a chance to see from a helicopter the impact of climate change. In the southern part of Africa, they have only two seasons: the rainy season and the dry season. They are now at about one season: the dry season. We were there during the rainy season, and by helicopter we flew over land that should have been part of a pond. Instead, it was dry, no water. We saw the carcasses of animals that couldn't survive because of the drought. Climate change is real and is affecting our planet. There are vulnerable nations--from the Marshall Islands to Bangladesh and so many others--whose very existence is at risk because of climate change. This is an urgent issue that requires an urgent response. But here we can make a difference. We can make a difference through conserving and using less energy and producing our energy in a more environmentally friendly way in a carbon-free environment. I am joined by Congressman Delaney and many Members of both the House and Senate in saying that the United States should make a commitment to produce at least 50 percent of our electricity through a carbon-free source by the year 2030. We can do that. Here is the good news. It will not only be good for our environment, it will be good for our economy and good for our national security. Renewable energy sources can be produced here in America. You don't have to depend on the fossil fuels from countries who disagree with our way of life. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of our national economy, there are more jobs in clean energy than there are in fossil fuel industry. For all those reasons--for our economy, for our security, and for our environment--U.S. leadership in dealing with these solutions can help America's security. Yes, U.S. leadership is absolutely vital. We saw that in COP21. Without U.S. leadership, it could not be done. Here is where I really call upon our colleagues. I have said this many times on the floor of the Senate. It is a great honor to serve in the Senate; it is a great honor to represent the people of Maryland. Every Congress has tried to add to its record to protect the future generations as it relates to our environment. The protection of our environment has never been a partisan issue. I would urge our colleagues to find ways that we can work together to build the legacy of this Congress to further protect our environment for future generations. We should be part of the solution. Tomorrow is Earth Day. Let's make a difference. With what we see happening in New York and by our actions, let us protect future generations. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand that shortly we are going to be voting on the Hoeven amendment. The Hoeven amendment would prevent the clean water rule from going into effect. In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act in response to what was happening around this country. We saw rivers literally catch on fire as a result of polluted waterways. We had Lake Erie, which was considered dead. The Chesapeake Bay was one of the world's first marine dead zones. That is nothing to be proud of. The environment and status of our water was a national disgrace, and through congressional leadership, we passed the Clean Water Act. We did that because we understood that the status of upstream water affects the status of downstream water--that we are all in this together. We understood that having clean water was a public health issue, from swimming in the water to the source of our drinking water supplies. One third of our drinking water supplies come from regulated waters. We also understood it was important for our economy. The status of tourism very much depended upon the quality of our water. Literally, people were concerned about going close to some of our inner harbor water areas. The Baltimore Inner Harbor is a tourist attraction, as are the inner harbors of many of our cities. It is important for our economy for agriculture. Agriculture depends upon clean water. We understood that when we passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. And we also understood it was a matter of quality of life for the people in our country. From those who hike and do bird watching to those who enjoy fishing and hunting, the status of clean water very much affects the way we enjoy life. As Senators from Maryland, Senator Mikulski and I both understand the importance of clean water for the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It was at great risk because of waters coming in from other States into the Chesapeake Bay watershed, affecting the quality of water of the Chesapeake Bay. It was for all those reasons that we passed the 1972 Clean Water Act. We understood the enforcement of the waters that were regulated under the 1972 Clean Water Act. It was based upon best science. Science told us what we needed to do in order to have clean water-- clean water for our environment, clean water for safe drinking water-- and it was well understood until a Supreme Court decision. That decision in 2006, known as the Rapanos decision, was a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court, which remanded the case, but it was a 4-to-4 decision on the merits of the case. Since that time, there has been uncertainty as to what bodies of water can be regulated under the Clean Water Act. So this was a situation caused by the ambiguity of the Supreme Court case. It is interesting that the decision on the merits was 4-to-4, as we are now debating whether we are going to have a full Supreme Court in order to make decisions that affect the clarity of law in this country. The Rapanos decision sent back to the lower courts a decision on how to decide this. Since that time, there has been uncertainty as to what bodies are legally regulated under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Remember, this was 2006. The easiest way to resolve this was for Congress to pass a law clarifying the Clean Water Act, but Congress has chosen not to do that. So the Obama administration has done what it should do, using its power to promulgate a regulation that would provide clarity as to which bodies of water are regulated. Guess what. They have done that in a way that is consistent with how the law was enforced prior to the Rapanos decision--without much complaint before the Rapanos decision. It basically goes back to best science and tells us logically what needs to be regulated. That is what this rule would do: Protect our clean water. There is a lot of misinformation that has been given about the clean water rule. Quite frankly, normal farming activities don't require any permits under the Clean Water Act. If we listen to some of the arguments against the Clean Water Act, we would have a hard time comparing that to what, in fact, is in the bill. The Clean Water Act would reestablish the well-thought regulatory framework for protecting our clean water so that we don't return to the days of jeopardizing the Chesapeake Bay or jeopardizing our rivers or jeopardizing our clean water supplies or our environment. Tomorrow is Earth Day. Forty-six years ago, our colleague Senator Gaylord Nelson established Earth Day. What will this Congress's legacy be? What will we be remembered for in regards to protecting this planet, protecting our country, and protecting our environment for future generations? I hope we will work together to build on the proud accomplishments of our predecessors for clean air and clean water. The first thing we can do is to make sure we reject the Hoeven amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to convene a roundtable at the University of Baltimore School of Law entitled: ``Why Nine? A Discussion on the Importance of a Fully Functioning Supreme Court.'' I want to particularly thank the dean of the University of Baltimore Law School, Ronald Weich, for moderating this roundtable and bringing his extensive experience to this discussion. Ron Weich is well known here. He is the former chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Reid and former Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Justice Department. I want to share with my colleagues some of the comments that were made by the people who were at that roundtable discussion. Caroline Frederickson, the president of the American Constitution Society, discussed the lengthy delays for trial and appellate court decisions. Lengthy delays in filling vacancies mean that justice delayed is justice denied. We have seen a growing number of judicial emergencies as a result of the Senate leadership's slow-walking of the consideration of judicial nominations, as I discussed recently on the floor of the Senate. One of these is my own State of Maryland's district court vacancy, in which Paula Xinis has been waiting for floor action now since she was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously in September of 2015. She has waited over 7 months for action on the floor of the Senate. Ms. Frederickson also noted the increasing number of 4-to-4 decisions being issued by the Supreme Court. She warned that a Court that is split on a tough 4-to-4 decision might be tempted to ``legislate'' a solution by asking the parties to reshape the legal questions before the Court and go beyond the narrow case or controversy that is properly before the Court. That is something all of us want to avoid. We don't want the Court legislating. John Greenbaum, chief counsel and senior deputy director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the group that if Republicans hold to their pledge to block the filling of the Supreme Court vacancy until a new President takes office, this vacancy would span and negatively impact two terms of the Court and could last more than a year. The Presidential election occurs in November of 2016, but the new President is not sworn into office until late January 2017. Allowing for several months, which is the standard time for consideration of a Supreme Court nominee, it could be next spring of 2017, more than a year after Justice Scalia's death before the vacancy is filled. Mr. Greenbaum noted that the Court issued a number of 5-to-4 decisions in the current term, many of which drew a wide range of amicus briefs from all sides on the issue, and that the Court was trying to resolve circuit splits in a number of these cases. It cannot resolve circuit splits with a 4-to-4 vote, leaving us with different laws in different parts of the country. Michele Jawando, vice president of legal progress at the Center for American Progress, discussed focusing the American people's attention on the third branch of government--the judiciary--which often does not receive the same level of focus as the executive and legislative branches. Professor Charles Tiefer, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, previously served as deputy general counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives and served as assistant legal counsel for the U.S. Senate. He formerly clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the court that Chief Judge Garland currently sits. Professor Tiefer cited two interesting precedents we should keep in mind as the Senate considers--or, frankly, fails to consider--Chief Judge Garland's nomination. In 1988, the Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court, even though the Senate was controlled by a Democratic majority and President Reagan was in his final year of office--very similar to the circumstances we have today. In 1991, when Democrats controlled the Senate, they allowed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to reach the Senate floor even though the Judiciary Committee had not favorably recommended him. The Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Biden, believed the full Senate should debate a nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States and that each Senator should cast their vote either for or against the nomination. Ultimately, the Senate narrowly confirmed Justice Thomas by a 52-to-48 vote. Indeed, turning to Judge Garland, no nominee--and, really, no President--has ever been treated this way by the Senate. Since public confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominations began a century ago in the Judiciary Committee, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote. This would be the first. By refusing to follow this practice, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate leadership are abrogating their constitutional duties. This is an affront to the Constitution. It is not a political assault. This is an assault on the Constitution. Turning to article II, the Executive power in the Constitution, the Senate Republican leadership is trying to unilaterally alter the term of the President from 4 years to 3 years and somehow argue that the President in his or her final year of office cannot do his or her job, which includes nominating Supreme Court Justices if a vacancy occurs. This flies in the face of the plain text of the Constitution. The Constitution commands that the President ``shall'' nominate Supreme Court Justices in the event of a vacancy. The Senate is failing to exercise its constitutional duty to advise and consent. Turning to article III, the judicial power of the Constitution, the Senate leadership is trying to unilaterally shrink the Supreme Court from nine justices to eight by creating an artificial vacancy for an indefinite period of time. Congress, by enacting a statute, has already set the size of the Supreme Court as consisting of nine justices. There is an odd number for a reason--to enable the Court to break tie votes. The Senate Republican leadership is pursuing a strategy that will hobble the Court for two terms. This results in an increasing number of circuit splits and a nonuniform application of Federal law across the country, with no resolution in sight, meaning that an individual's rights and responsibilities under Federal law would depend on what circuit they happen to live in or do business in. Article VI of the Constitution provides that ``the Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath of Affirmation, to support this Constitution.'' And I will say that what we are doing right now is abrogating that right. Professor Michael Higginbotham is the Dean Joseph Curtis Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, and he was a former law clerk to a U.S. circuit judge. Professor Higginbotham agreed it is unprecedented for the Senate not even to consider or vote on a nomination for a Supreme Corporate Justice. He cited the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, decided by the Supreme Court in 1803. The case held that a constitutional right without a remedy is no right at all, and that a right must have a remedy. But what happens when the Supreme Court cannot issue a final decision on a complex or controversial case in the law? What is the remedy that follows that right? What happens when one branch of government refuses to do its job, endangering the operation of another equal and independent branch of government? A Supreme Court that divides by a vote of 4 to 4 in major decisions leads to uncertainty and lack of specificity in the law, due to splits in the various circuit courts of appeal around the Nation. Amy Matsui is the senior counsel and director of government relations at the National Women's Law Center. She reminded us that women's lives are affected every day by the decisions of the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts. Lawyers have an innate respect for the rule of law and legal process. If lawyers report to work and do their job every day, why can't the Senate? She asked a good question. Thiru Vignarajah is the Deputy Attorney General of Maryland, serving under the leadership of Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. He discussed the importance of the judiciary being able to function independently and efficiently. Out of the thousands of petitions for certiorari, the Supreme Court grants about 1 percent of the cases, ultimately deciding about 150 cases a year. Dozens of these cases were 5-to-4 decisions of a divided Supreme Court. These are hard cases where reasonable jurists can disagree, and indeed a number of these cases have split circuit courts around the Nation, with judges issuing conflicting decisions on differing interpretations of Federal law. This uncertainty is bad for the marketplace, bad for business, bad for lawyers, bad for judges, bad for litigants, and ultimately bad for the American people. Quite frankly, in some cases, businesses would prefer any ruling because it at least gives certainty about what the law is. Businesses do not want Federal law to become a patchwork and vary from circuit to circuit and State to State because a divided Supreme Court cannot resolve the issue. Kyle Barry, the director of justice programs at the Alliance of Justice, discussed the importance of judicial independence. While the President has the power of the sword and controls government agencies and the Congress has the power of the purse and the ability to enact or change laws, the judiciary relies on the other branches of government and the American people to carry out its decisions. The Framers of our Constitution gave the Justices lifetime tenure because it insulates them from the political pressures under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution, so that they would not have to worry about losing their job through congressional impeachment if they reached an unpopular decision. Note that these are the only lifetime positions in the Federal Government. The Framers forbade Congress from cutting the salaries of the Justices while in office under Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution, to avoid retribution from Congress for unpopular decisions of the Court. By undermining the independence of the Supreme Court and by making the Court appear to be a political entity, Republican Senate leadership is undermining the public's confidence in the Court and ultimately the very legitimacy of the Court. Our Framers intended with these very specific constitutional provisions to protect the Court and the Federal judiciary from politics. The Senate should do its job and carry out its mission to fill vacancies of the Supreme Court, so that Americans will have confidence that the Supreme Court decides cases based on the law, Constitution, and facts of the case and so that politics does not play a role. The American public supports Congress doing its job and giving Judge Garland the hearing he deserves. The stakes at the Supreme Court can involve matters of life and death. In death penalty cases, if the Court splits 4 to 4, a defendant would be put to death even though the Court decision did not definitively resolve the legal issue in the case. Chief Judge Garland is a nominee for the Supreme Court and should be dealt with in this term of Congress. It is not a matter for the next President or the next Congress. There are 9 months left in this year, and to suggest that we don't have the time and the President doesn't have the authority to appoint a nominee is absolutely outrageous. It is an affront to the Constitution. We need to go through the process and give Chief Judge Garland a chance. I have met with Chief Judge Garland and believe he is eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. But before the Senate makes a final decision, we need to do our job and vet the nominee, hold a hearing, and hold a vote that puts all Senators on the record. How can Senators in good conscience reject this Supreme Court nominee without a fair vetting and hearing or process? I think it is hard to understand how you can be excused from doing your job for 9 months by not having a confirmation hearing and vote. The President did his job, and it is now time for the Senate to do its job. The American people want to see nine justices on the Supreme Court when it convenes its new term in October. The Senate now has the responsibility and duty to respect the independence of the Federal judiciary, the authority of the President to nominate Justices, and the powers of the Senate to advise and consent on nominations. Let's remember our oaths to support the Constitution. Let's do our job. Let's take up the Garland nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand that it is likely that we will shortly be considering Ernst amendment No. 3803, eliminating funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, the Denali Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission. I want to talk about the Appalachian Regional Commission. I know a little bit about this. The western part of my State, known as Mountain Maryland, is a beautiful part of Maryland. I visit there frequently. There are not a lot of people, and it is certainly a hearty life. It is not easy. It is not easy to attract business to the western rural part of Maryland. These people work hard, and they are preserving a way of life in an economy that is critically important to the State of Maryland. The Appalachian Regional Commission is absolutely essential for the economic growth of western Maryland. The Appalachian region is a region of a proud history, and we have given them a future. The Ernst amendment would take away one of the most important tools towards their future. Let me just mention a few things about the Appalachian Regional Commission and the projects they fund on an annual basis.

Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am glad to see we have the ability to vote on a couple of amendments. I am glad I was able to accommodate and yield the floor. If I might, let me continue. Amendment No. 3803 Now that the Ernst amendment is going to be voted on in a few moments, I urge my colleagues to reject that amendment. The Appalachian Regional Commission approves funding for more than 400 projects annually throughout this 13-State region. As I was saying, the western part of our State--in order for them to be able to have a viable economy, to have a valuable future, they need help on economic opportunities. They need help in improving health care. The Appalachian Regional Commission has helped the communities of Western Maryland improve health care. The ARC funding was used for the Garrett County Hospital telehealth initiative to enhance community health care. Just by happenstance, the CEO of Garrett County Hospital was in my office yesterday. That is a hospital located in Oakland, MD. For those who are not familiar with where Oakland, MD, is, it is on the border with West Virginia. It is not too far from Pennsylvania in the western part of Maryland. People who use the Garrett County Hospital come from West Virginia and they come from Maryland. It provides hospital service in a rural area that otherwise would not be there. But for the type of help they get through the Appalachian Regional Commission, it is difficult to see how they could perform the quality access to affordable health care that is absolutely essential for the economic growth of Mountain Maryland, for the Appalachian region. Appalachian Regional Commission funding was used for phase III of the last-mile wireless broadband network so that they could have high-speed broadband access in the western part of Maryland. I know the Presiding Officer and my colleagues know that if you don't have broadband, it is difficult to see how you can attract industry. The Appalachian Regional Commission has been critically important in making sure we can effectively provide high-speed access to the western part of our State. ARC grants have also been used to assess the impacts of energy production and consumption on our economy and the environment. ARC funding was used for the ``Garrett County Marcellus Shale Impact Study,'' which assessed the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the economy and environment of Western Maryland. ARC has been essential for the development in the Appalachian region. It has worked, and it is continuing to work. I urge my colleagues to make sure this tool continues for the benefit of the people in the Appalachian region--a commitment that we made. Lastly, let me remind my colleagues of what my friends who are actively engaged in the Appalachian Regional Commission in all of the 13 States tell me. Since 1978, this program--every dollar that has been invested by the Appalachian Regional Commission has leveraged an average of $6.40 from the private sector. It leverages private sector investment in the Appalachian region, which is critically important to the economic growth of the Appalachian region. Otherwise, this is a tough area. If we are committed to economic growth in this country, I would urge my colleagues to reject the Ernst amendment.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree with much of what the Senator from New Hampshire said, and that is that our veterans deserve to have the highest quality care by the Veterans Administration. Those employees at the Veterans Administration who have not carried out their responsibility should be disciplined, and when there are adverse findings, there should be consequences to them. So I agree with much of what she has said. However, let us be mindful that the overwhelming number of Federal workers, including those at the Veterans Administration, are hard- working public servants, asked to do more with less resources. They have been through freezes, furloughs, government shutdowns, sequestration--you name it. I understand that the Veterans' Affairs Committee is considering more comprehensive legislation, as they should. As my colleague from New Hampshire has mentioned, this deals with one aspect of those who have adverse findings in regard to their ability to get bonuses or the reprimand on their record. Here is my problem. If we use a unanimous consent request, there is no opportunity for amendment, and there is no opportunity for debate. When I finish my comments, I am going to ask that the Senator amend her unanimous consent request to include an amendment that I wish to offer. Let me explain what it does. Yes, we want to hold the employee accountable--those who have not carried out the public trust in which there are adverse findings. But there also has to be accountability for the supervisors, for those who should be managing the agency so that we don't have employees doing what they did. Managers need to have tools. They need to be able to manage their employees. They need to be able to determine how their employees are handled if we are going to hold them accountable, and I want to hold the supervisors accountable. So my amendment would allow the supervisor to determine the length of the suspension of the bonus that the individual could receive.

Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate that, and I thank the Presiding Officer very much. I thought I was getting an agreement here. So to continue, it could be longer than the 5 years that is in the bill of the Senator from New Hampshire, but it would be the manager or supervisor who would determine the length of the suspension of the right to receive the bonus, so that the manager has the tools in order to manage the workforce and we can hold the supervisor accountable. The second amendment is similar, as it relates to the reprimand being retained in the records. It allows the manager to have the discretion as to the length of time. The bill that the Senator from New Hampshire is recommending is a hard 5-year period, and it doesn't give the manager the ability to use these tools as ways to advance service to our veterans. The bottom line here is service to our veterans. That is the bottom line--that they get the services they deserve. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 240, S. 627; that in lieu of the committee-reported substitute and title amendments, that the Cardin substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the Cardin title amendment be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. That would carry out the modifications that I said, giving the manager the ability to impose either a shorter or longer period of time than the bill of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CARDIN. I object.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work Senator Ayotte has put into her bill and her willingness to work across the aisle with the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown. Since I objected to her unanimous consent request and she objected to my counteroffer, I would like to take a few moments to outline my concerns about her bill and explain why I offered a complete substitute amendment that reflects those concerns and an amendment to change the title. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I do not condone malfeasance by any Federal executive or employee. The well-documented problems at the Veterans Administration, VA, are particularly troubling because they harmed the men and women who have defended our Nation--and their families. That is unacceptable. There is an old proverb, ``You can fix the blame or you can fix the problem.'' Actually, VA Secretary Robert McDonald, his leadership team, and the VA rank-and-file are doing both. To that end, I would encourage my colleagues to read the December 9, 2015, testimony of Sloan D. Gibson, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In the context of patient access and scheduling data manipulation concerns that came to light at the Phoenix VA Medical Center, Deputy Secretary Gibson reported that, as of October 2015, VA completed 97 percent of appointments within 30 days of the clinically indicated or veteran's preferred date; 91 percent within 14 days; 87 percent within 7 days; and 24 percent on the same day. VA's average wait time for completed primary care appointments is 4 days; specialty care is 5 days; and mental health care is 3 days. The Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA, completed 1.4 million claims in fiscal year 2015, nearly 67,000 more than the previous year and the highest completion rate in VA history. Fiscal year 2015 marked the 6th year in a row of more than 1 million claims. VBA reduced its claims backlog 88 percent from a peak of 610,000 in March 2013 to a historic low of 75,122 and reduced inventory 58 percent from a peak of 884,000 in July 2012 to 369,328, 28 percent lower than fiscal year 2014. The average number of days a veteran is waiting for a claims decision, pending, is 91 days, a 191-day reduction from a peak of 282 days in March 2013 and the lowest average number of days pending in the 21st century. VBA's average days to complete is now 129 days--a 60-day reduction from fiscal year 2014. So VA is improving its services to veterans. That is fixing the problem. Now, what about VA supervisors and employees who engaged in misbehavior or wrongdoing? There is a popular misconception that you can't get rid of Federal workers. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, 2,348 VA employees were removed, terminated during probation, or retired or resigned with a removal action pending. Over 1,800 of these individuals--or more than 75 percent--were fired. To be clear, these numbers pertain to the entire Department for all infractions and are not limited to the wait list problem. It is a mistake just to focus on those numbers. As Secretary McDonald and Deputy Secretary Gibson wrote in the January 21, 2016, Wall Street Journal, ``You can't fire your way to excellence.'' But the point here is that punishments have been and are being meted out; people have had their careers ended. That is fixing the blame. I will briefly outline my concerns with S. 627, even as reported and as it would be modified by the Ayotte and Brown amendments. First, the bill deprives the Secretary of the discretionary authority needed to manage and discipline the VA workforce appropriately. Second, the bill establishes new precedents for punishing Federal workers that haven't been thoroughly vetted and may have harmful unintended consequences. Third the bill has two major components. The first deals with bonuses; the second deals with employees' personnel records and reprimands and admonishments. The second component was added at mark-up and was not a subject considered when the Veterans Affairs Committee held its hearing on bonuses on May 13, 2015. The Republican leader talks about the need to restore regular order. There ought to be a hearing regarding the second component. And fairness dictates that a witness from a Federal employee union, such as the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents many VA workers, should be invited to testify. As Senators Blumenthal, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono stated in their Minority Views in Senate Report 114-148: Besides the substantive issues with the provision that we have identified, section 2 of S. 627 was derived from S. 1496, a bill that has not been considered in a legislative hearing. For a significant and controversial provision like section 2 of S. 627, the Committee should have held a legislative hearing to give all Members the opportunity to hear from witnesses and fully understand the consequences of this provision. I am not objecting simply to object. I would like to work with the junior Senator from New Hampshire to see if we can find common ground, and that is why I sent a substitute amendment and title change amendment, which needs to be done separately, to the desk, and asked her to modify her consent request to reflect these two amendments. Let me explain exactly what I am proposing. The unanimous consent that has been hot-lined consists of three elements. The first is S. 627 as reported. The second is an Ayotte amendment modifying provisions of that bill dealing with bonuses. The third is a Brown amendment modifying provisions of that bill dealing with reprimands and admonishments. What I have done is to combine all three elements into a single substitute and modify it to restore to the Secretary some managerial discretion, which I feel is essential for someone charged with running a department the size of a Fortune Six company. As reported, the title of the bill is ``To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list manipulations, and for other purposes''. While the wait list problem may have spawned this bill, that title is inaccurate. The bill has no such limitations implied by that title; it applies Department-wide for any offense. So I propose a simple amendment changing the title to read: ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recoup inappropriate bonuses paid to or on behalf of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.'' Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and as further modified by the Ayotte amendment prohibits the Secretary from awarding bonuses for 5 years to any employee who is the subject of an ``adverse finding.'' My substitute amendment changes that provision to give the Secretary discretion to withhold future bonuses ``until such date as the Secretary considers appropriate.'' Now, my language theoretically empowers the Secretary to withhold bonuses for more than 5 years. The point here is to provide the Secretary with the flexibility needed to manage, discipline, and incentivize 340,000 people in an appropriate fashion. I wonder if there is any Senator who has managed a workforce as large as the VA's and, if so, would have preferred surrendering his or her discretion to make personnel decisions as he or she thought necessary. Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte amendment of the bill states in part that: The Secretary may base an adverse finding . . . on an investigation by, determination of, or information provided by the Inspector General of the Department or another senior ethics official of the Department or the Comptroller General of the United States . . . I believe the Secretary must base an adverse finding on an independent determination. As I have stated, I fully support increasing accountability at the VA--and that includes making sure that a VA employee does not receive a bonus while engaging in misconduct. Senator Ayotte's bill, however, does not require the Secretary to base an adverse finding on the determination of an independent decisionmaker. My amendment would cure this defect and set appropriate limits by requiring the Secretary to base an adverse finding on an independent determination. By doing so, it would ensure that bonus bans are not arbitrary. Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte amendment requires the Secretary to recoup bonuses paid to employees if they are subsequently subject to an adverse finding with respect to the years during which the bonuses were awarded. Furthermore, section 1 requires VA employees to certify that they will repay any bonus received during a year in which an adverse finding may subsequently be made. These provisions raise many unanswered questions, including how such actions would be treated with respect to determining Federal and State tax liabilities. But I have left these provisions unchanged. Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte amendment states that ``The Secretary may promulgate such rules as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out this section.'' Considering the unprecedented nature of the sanctions in section 1, I believe it is imperative that the Secretary engage in a formal rulemaking to allow all interested parties the opportunity to weigh in with their concerns and suggestions. S. 627 is characterized as a legislative response to a specific management crisis at the VA. Yet it sets several new precedents and penalties that will be applied in a much broader context. As such, I believe it would be appropriate to sunset the bill after 3 years to encourage Congress to revisit whether it is an appropriate legislative remedy to the ``wait list'' problem at the VA and whether the bill is causing any adverse unintended consequences. My original proposal to the junior Senator from New Hampshire included two sunset provisions, for section 1 and for section 2, which I will discuss momentarily. Senator Ayotte objected to the sunset provisions, so I have removed them from my substitute amendment at the desk. Section 2 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Brown amendment requires the Secretary to retain reprimands and/or admonishments in the personnel records of affected employees for a minimum of 5 years. While this is a significant improvement over the original provision, which was to retain such actions permanently, it is still problematic. First, as I mentioned previously, this provision was added after the Veterans Affairs Committee conducted its hearing and, consequently, hasn't been sufficiently considered. Furthermore, Active-Duty personnel can request that reprimands be removed from their military personnel records jackets, MPRJs, at any time, and reprimands can only remain in the MPRJ for a maximum of 3 years. One in three VA employees is a veteran. Should someone have fewer rights to clear his or her personnel record as a civilian than he or she had while serving on Active Duty? Section 2 of the bill is unlikely to increase accountability at the VA. However well intentioned the provision may be, it is much more likely to cause significant increases in taxpayer-funded litigation costs because the VA will no longer be able to resolve routine personnel disputes through Clear Record Settlement Agreements, CRAs. The Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, reported in 2013 that 95 percent of agency representatives resolved disputes using Negotiated Settlement Agreements, NSAs, and 89 percent of these agreements involved CRAs. Quoting again from the Minority Views I referred to previously: In testimony before the House Committee of Veterans' Affairs, VA noted that it is the standard practice across the Federal government, including the Department of Defense, for letters of reprimand and/or admonishment to be retained on a time-limited basis. According to VA, making letters of reprimand or admonishment permanent would prevent VA managers from ``settling workplace grievances with employees with terms that would limit the amount of time these documents remain in the employee's permanent record,'' and it would restrict VA managers from removing these documents as a ``term of settlement.'' Both of these tools are frequently used by VA managers to ``resolve complaints before they go into costly and high-risk'' litigation. These tools also allow VA managers to promote good performance of employees ``because they are usually conditioned upon no further misconduct of the type that initially led to the reprimand or admonishment.'' Given all of these problems with section 2, even as it has been significantly improved by the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Ohio, I come back to the basic proposition that the Secretary must have sufficient discretion when it comes to managing the VA workforce. My amendment gives the Secretary that discretion by allowing, not mandating, that reprimands and/or admonishments may be retained for 5 years. Note that this still represents a significant departure from current practices government-wide. And, as I mentioned a moment ago, I originally proposed sunsetting section 2 after 3 years, but I removed that provision from the current version of the substitute amendment. I sincerely believe these changes are reasonable and improve S. 627, and I hope the junior Senator from New Hampshire will ultimately agree. To reiterate, no one condones what happened at the VA. But it is important to acknowledge that accountability is being restored and the miscreants are being punished. As Secretary McDonald and Deputy Secretary Gibson wrote in the Wall Street Journal: You can't fire your way to excellence. You have to inspire the people you keep to do better, and you have to recruit and inspire new talent. You can't do either by capriciously punishing people on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors, complaints or media reports . . . Neither we nor anyone else can accomplish the VA's mission of caring for veterans by depriving VA employees of basic fairness. To do right by veterans, we must do right by VA employees. We will do right by both, whatever the consequences. I am privileged to represent 130,000 civilian federal workers, including members of the Senior Executive Service, SES; other senior managers; and rank-and-file employees who work in Maryland. Tens of thousands more live in Maryland or live and work in Maryland. Nearly 20 percent of these individuals have already served our Nation in uniform. Overwhelmingly, these individuals are hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic Americans who perform critical missions under difficult circumstances. In the last 5 years, civilian Federal workers have ``contributed'' $182 billion to deficit reduction. They have endured a 3-year pay freeze. They lost $1 billion in pay due to furloughs related to sequestration. They have been forced during government shutdowns to stay home against their will or to work without being paid on time. And they have been victimized by data breaches that have compromised their most sensitive personal information--some of which the Washington Post reported on January 31, 2016, has literally been provided to the Islamic State terrorist group. While we can and will disagree on the proper size and scope of the Federal Government, I would hope we can all agree that we want the ``best and brightest'' to perform critical missions such as providing our veterans with the care they have earned so valiantly. This is especially true with regard to the senior executives entrusted with managing large workforces and multibillion dollar budgets. Depriving or diminishing due process rights at the VA already has caused the number of applicants over the past 3 years for both title 5 SES positions and title 38 equivalent positions to decline significantly. With respect to VA title 5 SES positions, in fiscal year 2013, there were 8,721 applicants. In fiscal year 2014, that number dropped to 6,908. In fiscal year 2015, it dropped even further to 6,317. With respect to VA title 38 SES equivalent employees, in fiscal year 2013, there were 1,020 applicants. In fiscal year 2014, that number dropped to 432. In fiscal year 2015, it dropped even further to 228. One might argue that these declines represent the ``winnowing out'' of unqualified or underqualified applicants. I would argue it is just as likely, if not more so, that these declines represent the winnowing out of highly qualified applicants who could have helped to restore greater accountability and better service at the VA, but were discouraged from applying because the deck is being stacked against them. We all want our veterans to receive the best care possible. So I reiterate my sincere desire to work with the junior Senator from New Hampshire. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I appreciate the hard work Senator Ayotte has put into her bill and her willingness to work across the aisle with the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown. Rather than simply leaving the matter here, I would note that the Department of Veterans Affairs has identified several Senate bills that provide the agency with the authority and tools it needs to address what the VA calls ``breakthrough priorities'' such as: improving the veterans' experience; improving access to health care; improving community care; developing a simplified appeals process; and reducing homelessness among veterans. As I understand it, there is an effort underway in the Veterans' Affairs Committee to develop comprehensive legislation that helps the VA to meet these priorities while also addressing accountability and internal staffing issues. I think it makes sense to work on a comprehensive reform and accountability package bill rather than trying to pass individual bills in a piecemeal fashion, and I look forward to working with the junior Senator from New Hampshire and every other Senator concerned about our veterans to accomplish this objective in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Baldwin for her comments. I agree with her statement, and I am also grateful for the leadership of the senior Senator from Maryland and the leadership Senator Mikulski has shown on gender issues. The paycheck fairness legislation is just a recent example of her extraordinary leadership throughout her career on gender equity issues. I particularly wanted to be here not only to say how proud I am of Senator Mikulski but also to state that the Paycheck Fairness Act is not about women. It is about families, about our economy, and about fairness. It is about American values. It affects everyone in America. We all should be personally engaged in making sure paycheck fairness becomes law. To this Senator, it is outrageous that a woman has to work 5 days at the same work that a man works in 4 days for the same pay. That is inherently unfair and needs to be corrected. The Paycheck Fairness Act would do that. I note that today is Equal Pay Day, which basically reflects how long a woman has to work--basically without getting a paycheck--in order to get paid for the same amount of work as a man does in a year. As the Presiding Officer knows, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this Senator has the privilege of being the ranking member on the committee. One thing we look at is how other countries deal with basic rights. One of those rights is how they treat their women. One of the barometers for determining how well a country does is how well they are treating women. If they treat women well, they are generally doing much better. The truth of the matter is, in many cases women do better in investments than men. They invest in children, families, and economic growth, whereas men are more likely to invest in war. We see much more economic growth where women are treated fairly in other countries. It is an important value for America. We have promoted gender equity issues in our foreign policy, our development assistance, and in our diplomacy. But for us to be effective globally, we first need to take care of our issues at home. The Paycheck Fairness Act would do exactly that. It would deal with the issue of fairness in the workplace in America. We are not where we need to be. Everybody talks about the fact that women aren't paid as much; and that is true. But if you happen to be a minority, it is even worse. We need to take care of this for the sake of the American economy, for our values, et cetera. This Senator has introduced legislation that would allow us to pick up the ratification of the equal rights amendment so that we could have in the Constitution of the United States fairness with no gender discrimination. This would be a lot easier. We only need three States in order to ratify it and to become a part of our Constitution. The late Justice Scalia noted accurately that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires discrimination against women; but there is nothing in the Constitution that protects discrimination based upon gender. We can do a better job with fundamental changes. What we can do in this Congress now is to take on paycheck fairness. That can get done in this Congress and can be effective this year and can be the legacy of this Congress. I would urge my colleagues: Let's do this. We all talk about gender equity issues. With the bill that is pending on paycheck fairness, we can act and we can act now. We can make a major change in American policy that will not only be fair to women but will be fair to all Americans and allow our economy to grow. With that, Mr. President, 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 ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, during the recess last week, I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, President Obama's nominee to fill the existing vacancy of an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. During our meeting, we discussed the role of the Supreme Court and protecting the civil rights of Americans. We discussed a number of national security challenges, including those relating to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We discussed the Citizens United case and campaign finance law. We talked about the respect for each branch of government and our constitutional system of checks and balances. We spoke about the important role of precedent in our judicial decisions and the need to build consensus on decisions. We discussed the value of promoting pro bono work in the legal profession and the need to address the growing access-to-justice gap. I was pleased to hear that as an attorney at the Justice Department, Chief Justice Garland worked to clarify ethics rules to allow government lawyers to engage in additional pro bono work. What I was doing is what I hope every Member in the Senate will do, and that is finding out more about Judge Garland, his judicial philosophy, the way he has conducted his life, his respect for the Constitution and the precedents of the judicial branch of government, looking at current issues and seeing how Judge Garland views those current issues. That is all part of a confirmation process. The President, under the Constitution, has done his job; that is, he has made the nomination of who he believes should fill Justice Scalia's vacancy. It is now up to the Senate to do our job, and our job starts with Members of the Senate meeting with Judge Garland to be able to see one-on-one, without cameras glaring, how Judge Garland responds to our individual issues. We obviously have his record, his background, his public service, what he has done as a lawyer, what he has done as a prosecutor, and what he has done as a judge on the circuit court. We also should have a confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, which will give us more information. Under the Constitution, the responsibility of the President is to make the nomination. It is now up to the Senate to do our job, and our job is to consider that nominee, for each Senator to learn as much as they possibly can--this is a critically important position, obviously, the Supreme Court of the United States--and for the institution to hold hearings and to vote. Each Senator will have to make his or her own judgment on whether we should vote for or against confirmation, but we have a responsibility to consider that nomination and a responsibility to vote. I must say that I was very impressed by the nominee during the course of our meeting. He has impeccable qualifications as a prosecutor, judge, and now chief judge of what many call the second highest court in the land. The Senate confirmed Judge Garland on a bipartisan basis for his current judgeship, which he has held for nearly two decades. Chief Judge Garland strikes me as a thoughtful and deliberate person who has dedicated his life to public service. And I am proud to say that the nominee is a Marylander and lives in Bethesda in Montgomery County, MD. Chief Judge Garland is the nominee for the Supreme Court and should be dealt with in this term of Congress. It is not a matter for the next President and the next Congress; it is a matter for this President and this Congress. There are 9 months left in this year, and to suggest that we don't have the time and the President doesn't have the authority to appoint a nominee is outrageous, and it is an affront to the Constitution. This nomination is not about popularity or politics; it is about finding the next Justice who will advance the rule of law in this country, who will recognize the responsibility of the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter on constitutional issues, and having a person who can bring about greater consensus among his colleagues. As more of my colleagues meet Judge Garland, they will see that this is one of his many strengths. We need to go through the process and give Chief Judge Garland a chance. I think it is hard to understand how you are excused from doing your job for 9 months by not having a confirmation hearing or vote. I don't think the American people understand that. Quite frankly, I don't understand that. I don't understand why we are not going through the regular order. Regular order would be for us individually to meet with Judge Garland and for the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing and to schedule a timely vote on the floor of the Senate. I think more and more Senators will come to that conclusion. The President did his job, and it is now time for the Senate to do its job. The American people want to see nine Justices on the Supreme Court when it convenes its new term in October. We have a new term beginning in October of this year. We expect to see nine Justices on the Court to make decisions. You don't resolve issues on a 4-to-4 vote. We hopefully will have greater consensus. We shouldn't have a divided Court. We should be able to get more collegiality on the Supreme Court, but we also should be able to make a decision. The Supreme Court needs to be able to make a decision. With eight Justices, in too many cases they are not going to be able to make a decision. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' The President has no alternative under the Constitution but to make a nomination when there is a vacancy. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court due to Justice Scalia's untimely death. The President did his job. The Constitution says very clearly that we--the Senate--have to advise and consent. That is our requirement. That is not optional; we have that as a requirement. Never have we denied an opportunity to consider a Supreme Court nominee. It is now up to us to consider that nominee, and we should consider that nominee by doing our job--interviewing Judge Garland, scheduling a committee hearing, and voting on that nominee. The American people twice elected President Obama to a 4-year term in office. Their voice has been heard very clearly. Elections have consequences, and President Obama has carried out the constitutional responsibilities and duties of his office by nominating Judge Garland as the successor to Justice Scalia. The President is simply doing the job the American people elected him to do. The President doesn't stop working simply because it is an election year. He has more than 9 months left in office, as do Senators who will face the voters in November. Congress should not stop working, either, in this election year. Of course, every Senator has the right to make his or her own judgment on whether they will vote for or against confirmation. Senators were elected for 6-year terms by the citizens of their States and have the right and obligation to vote as they see fit. President Obama was elected by the people of the United States for two 4-year terms and has the right and obligation to nominate judges. History has shown that when the roles were reversed and Democrats held the majority in the Senate, Supreme Court and judicial nominees for Republican Presidents were given hearings and up-or-down votes regardless of when the vacancies occurred. While I might have picked different judges, as a Senator, I voted to confirm the vast majority of President Bush's judicial nominations in his final year in office. I will continue to carry out my constitutional responsibilities that I undertook when I became a Senator and swore to support the Constitution. Let me remind my colleagues that a democratically controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court during the last year of President Ronald Reagan's final term in 1988. Senators also confirmed Justice Murphy in 1940, Justice Cardozo in 1932, and Justice Brandeis in 1916. The precedent of the Senate indicates that we need to take up this nominee. What the Republicans are effectively trying to do is temporarily shrink the Supreme Court from nine to eight Justices and shorten the term of the President from 4 years to 3 years. Why? Because the President is of a different party than the Senate. This is disgraceful and indefensible. Let me quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 as the first female Justice of the Supreme Court. When asked about the vacancy on the Court created by the death of Justice Scalia, Justice O'Connor said, ``We need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on with it.'' I agree with Justice O'Connor. Let's do our job and fulfill the Senate's constitutional responsibilities and vote up or down on Judge Garland's nomination. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the tragic death of a Marylander. Officer Jacai Colson of the Prince George's Police Department was killed in the line of duty, on Sunday, March 13, 2016. Officer Colson was an upstanding law enforcement officer whose death shocked and saddened so many in Maryland and the national law enforcement community. America is the great Nation it is in no small part because of our respect for the rule of law. Officer Colson and his fellow Prince George's County police officers put their lives on the line every day to uphold the rule of law. Officer Colson was only 28 years of age. Today, March 17, 2016, would have been his 29th birthday. On Sunday, March 13, 2016, the district III station in Prince George's County came under fire in what was a deliberate attack on law enforcement and on the rule of law itself. Officer Colson arrived on the scene. After finding himself in the middle of a firefight, Officer Colson had the composure to return fire. During the firefight, Officer Colson was shot and killed. Every member of the U.S. Senate, every Marylander, and every American should be inspired by the life of Officer Jacai Colson. Officer Colson was an undercover narcotics agent. He had a dangerous job with zero margin for error. Officer Colson did not make errors. He was a 4-year veteran of the Prince George's Police Department. The commander of the Prince George's County Police Department's narcotic enforcement division said of Officer Colson: ``Not only is he good at his job, he's that guy that you wanted on your team.'' The president of the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 89, described Officer Colson as ``. . . always the first person here in the morning, ready to work and put in a full day's work.'' Officer Colson was a native of Boothwyn, PA. He came from a law enforcement family. His grandfather, Sergeant James G. Colson, Jr., retired from the Delaware County, PA, police department after more than 40 years of service. Officer Colson was the quarterback of his high school football team. He attended Randolph Macon University, where he also played football. He sang in the Ujima Gospel Choir and worked in the admissions office and in the marketing and communications department. Officer Colson gave of himself to improve his community while he was in college. He was a member of Brothers 4 Change, a student organization devoted to community service, and he also volunteered with Habitat for Humanity. I am thankful to the Colson family for sharing such a promising young man with the people of Prince George's County. The pain they are going through right now is a pain no family should have to endure. Most tragically, they are not alone. So far in 2016, 23 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty. In February, two of Officer Colson's Maryland colleagues from the Harford County Sheriff's office, Senior Deputy Mark Logsdon and Senior Deputy Patrick Dailey were killed responding to a call. The loss of Officer Colson represents the loss of one of the best and brightest among us. He could have done anything with his life, and he chose to protect his fellow Americans. I am thankful that Officer Colson was able to enrich and save the lives of so many people during his life. On behalf of the people of Maryland and my fellow U.S. Senators, I offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Officer Colson. I hope they are able to find solace in the fact that Jacai Colson was a true hero.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to join the American people in celebrating Women's History Month. It is clear that 1 month is hardly enough time to recognize all that women have done, what they are doing, and what they have yet to accomplish. Despite the persistence of dogmatic opposition, women have played a major role in advancing every society on earth. I am a proud husband, father, and grandfather. In my time representing the people of Maryland, in the U.S. Senate, I have traversed the State many times. As a member and now ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the chance to travel and meet with people from very diverse backgrounds. At home and abroad, I have found it difficult and often imprudent to make generalizations with regard to policy. One common truth, however, that easily crosses national borders, ethnic lines, political divides, and religious devotions is this: the way a nation treats its women is very much a barometer as to how well that nation is doing. And so this March we will celebrate women on the forefront of industry and innovation, science and social justice, policy and patriotism, and so much more. We must also remember that Women's History Month is not just about celebrations. Women's History Month should be a time when all Americans come together for a frank conversation about the well-being of women at home and abroad. That conversation must lead to concrete action because, if we want to improve any aspect of our society, starting with empowering and lifting up women is an investment that will return the greatest dividends. Throughout American history, we have made progress in so many arenas because women had the bravery to break the proverbial glass ceiling. One such woman who I think deserves accolades during this Women's History Month, and every month for that matter, is a Member of this very body. This Congress boasts the most female representatives in history. I suspect that number would be larger if we gave the people of Washington, DC, full statehood and a voting Senator, but I will discuss that another time. The record number of women in Congress is not an accident; it took hard work and grit. The living embodiment of that grit and know-how is the senior Senator from Maryland, my colleague Senator Mikulski. There is a wonderful sense of symmetry in the fact that in 1981, then- Congresswoman Mikulski co-sponsored the first Joint Congressional Resolution proclaiming a Women's History Week, and today she is being celebrated as a role model during Women's History Month. 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. In the Halls of the Senate, she opened doors that had previously been closed to women. Sometimes she used gentle politicking, and sometimes she knocked the doors off the hinges. No matter how she did it, Senator Barb refused to accept second-class treatment because of her gender and fought to be recognized as an equal. To take that one step further, Senator Barb refused to let other women be treated like second-class citizens by the rule of law or antiquated social norms. I don't have the time to list all that she has done for Marylanders and working families across the country in her long and distinguished career, but I will share a list of hard-fought firsts: first Democratic woman elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right; first Democratic woman to serve in both Houses of Congress; first woman to be elected to statewide office in Maryland; first Democratic woman Senator elected to a leadership position; first Democratic woman to serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee; first woman to chair an Appropriations Subcommittee--the Commerce-Justice- Science Subcommittee; first woman to serve on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee; first woman to serve on the Senate Small Business Committee; first woman to serve on the House Interstate & Foreign Commerce, now known as the Energy & Commerce Committee--first woman on the Health Subcommittee; most senior woman in the Senate on January 3, 1997; longest serving woman Senator in U.S. history on January 5, 2011; and longest serving woman in Congress in U.S. history on March 17, 2012. Senator Barb will be leaving the Senate when her term ends next January. That does not mean that she will stop doing what she does best, fighting for what is right. Generations of young women who choose to participate in public life or who dream of joining the U.S. Senate have benefited from Senator Barb's trailblazing legacy. As we begin to fathom life in the U.S. Senate without Senator Barb, we should take a minute to analyze the current state of politics and policy as it relates to women in America. Regardless of any Member's political support of anyone running to replace President Obama, it is worth noting that there is a chance that a woman, a former U.S. Senator, a former Secretary of State, and Former First Lady could potentially be the next President of the United States. The 2016 election should serve as a chance to audit how our political system is working on behalf of women, including in terms of health care. The Affordable Care Act, ACA, has played a role in creating greater gender equality in this country. Under the ACA, being a woman is no longer a ``preexisting condition.'' What does that mean? It means insurance companies can no longer force women to pay more based on their gender. The ACA also provides more preventive services for women at no cost. Lifesaving preventive services like mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and prenatal care are now covered at no additional cost for roughly 48.5 million American women with private insurance. Access to these services means that fewer women will be sidelined from the job market, unable to support families because of preventable illnesses. There is no question that we are making progress in women's health care, in terms of cost, equity, and in providing much-needed services. We have further to go. Gender-based disparities in medical research still remain. Some medical trials today do not consider the impact of gender in their research, and diseases like heart disease, which is the leading cause of death for American women, are often misdiagnosed or overlooked. That is why I have continuously fought for robust funding for the National Institutes of Health, NIH, which pioneers much of our Nation's groundbreaking medical research and clinical trials. I was very encouraged to see the NIH receive a $2 billion increase in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus spending bill--thanks in large part to Senator Mikulski. That is the largest increase NIH has received since 2003. By ensuring that NIH has all of the tools it needs to continue such urgent work, we can address persistent disparities and continue to build on the gains in our health care system made under the ACA. One thing is certainly clear: we only stand to gain from increased resources for our medical community to improve the health of women. Improving health care is only one part of the equation involved in empowering and uplifting women in the United States. I have previously spoken about the need to close the gender pay gap, the need to pass meaningful legislation to reduce the number of women killed by guns during instances of domestic violence, and the need to ensure women can continue to make choices concerning their own reproductive health. All of these are critically important to the well- being of women in America. America was built on the promise of equal rights. Our history is defined by groups struggling to achieve full equality under the law. I think many Americans would be shocked to find out that the Constitution still lacks a provision ensuring gender equality. Think about that: women still lack the same constitutional protections as men. I think this is wrong and have introduced legislation to remove the deadline for States to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which 35 States have ratified already--just three more to go. The Equal Rights Amendment is slightly longer than two tweets, but would finally give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. It reads as follows: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. It is that simple. When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress, but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982. To put that in context, in 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate Congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments, and the ERA time limit was contained in a joint resolution, not the actual text of the amendment. The Senate could pass my legislation removing the 10-year deadline right now. I hope that the majority leader will bring this legislation up for a vote because American women deserve to know that their most fundamental rights are explicitly protected by our Nation's most venerated document. I would like to take a moment to discuss some issues that apply more to women outside of the United States but still affect every American. I serve as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In that position, I have seen firsthand how the relatively small amount of money allocated for foreign assistance saves both lives and American tax dollars over time. At less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, foreign assistance helps us rely less on costly military operations and prevent international catastrophes before they happen. As I previously stated, the way a nation treats its women is very much a barometer as to how well that nation is doing. And just as in the United States, giving women outside United States the tools they need to succeed uplifts families, communities and nations. The millennium development goals, MDGs, were some of the most aggressive and successful attempts to combat global poverty and improve the quality of life for millions of women and families in the developing world. The millennium development goals, first established in 2000, brought together nations, businesses, international organizations, and foundations in a focused and coordinated effort to reduce poverty and disease by 2015. Over the last two decades, the number of people worldwide living in extreme poverty has been cut in half, from about one in every six people in 1990 to 836 million in 2015. We have made progress in global education, with a 20 percent increase in primary school enrollment in sub-Saharan Africa and a nearly 50 percent decrease in the number of out-of-school children of primary school age. In terms of gender equality, we still have a long way to go, but today we can cheer the fact that women have gained more parliamentary representation in ninety percent of the countries of the world than twenty years ago. The rate of maternal mortality has declined by forty- five percent worldwide, including by sixty-four percent in Southern Asia and forty-nine percent in sub-Saharan Africa. When it comes to combating HIV/AIDS, we have made truly incredible strides over the past fifteen years. New HIV infections dropped by forty percent between 2000 and 2013, and the number of people living with HIV that were receiving anti-retroviral therapy increased seventeenfold from 2003 to 2014. Behind these impressive numbers are countless women who are alive and strengthening their families and communities because of the millennium development goals, but there are still many areas where we need to make more progress. In September 2015, more than 150 world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 sustainable development goals, SDGs. The SDGs aim to build on the successes of the millennium development goals and catalyze further progress. One area where there is still much work to be done concerns child marriages. I am pleased the sustainable development goal 5 includes a target to eliminate child, early and forced marriages. According to the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, each year, 14.2 million girls are married before their 18th birthday. Some of these girls are as young as 9 years old. Childhood marriage robs girls of their adolescence, denies them an education, greatly increases the risk of maternal mortality, and decreases their chance of becoming economically independent. Pregnancy and childbirth are the leading causes of death for young girls in low- to middle- income countries. And children of young mothers have higher rates of infant mortality and malnutrition compared to children of mothers older than 18. Terrorist groups often use forced marriages to sustain their efforts. Last April, for instance, Boko Haram kidnapped over 250 girls in Nigeria. Some of those girls were later forced to marry their kidnappers. The so-called Islamic State is also notorious for forcing local women and girls to marry its fighters. Forced marriage is deplorable for many reasons, not the least of which is that is it used as a weapon of war. The women and girls being forced into these marriages are the very same women and girls who could be leaders, business owners, teachers, and doctors if given the chance. It is in the best interest of these girls and of the United States that the international community speak with a united voice against this practice. As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I invite all members of Congress to work together to find a way to address this pressing human rights issue. I am an original co-sponsor of S. Res. 97, a bipartisan resolution supporting the goals of International Women's Day. After seeing the impacts that the MDGs have had on vulnerable populations around the world, I have no doubt that the goals contained in this resolution can be accomplished if the United States is willing to take the lead in organizing the international community. I have mentioned only a small portion of legislative priorities the Senate could act on right now. As we move through Women's History Month, let us remember that strong and empowered women have gotten us to this point in history and will help lead us to a brighter future.