Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the career of Judge Ellen M. Heller. Judge Heller has served the people of Baltimore and Maryland in several capacities for many decades. She is well known and well respected in the legal and nonprofit and communities across our State. In 2010, Judge Heller brought her considerable talents to the Weinberg Foundation, one of Baltimore's most effective nonprofit organizations. After 6 years, Judge Heller will be concluding her role as chair of the board on March 1, 2016, and she will come to the end of her current term as a trustee of the Weinberg Foundation on May 16, 2016. Judge Heller has helped change lives while she has served at the Weinberg Foundation. Her commitment to service and her steadfastness have made her an incredibly effective chairwoman. For my colleagues who may be unfamiliar with the Weinberg Foundation, the organization does incredible work on behalf of low-income and vulnerable people from Maryland to Hawaii and from the former Soviet Union to Israel and beyond. The responsibility of chairing the board at the Weinberg Foundation is significant; we are fortunate Judge Heller's personal and professional experiences helped make her uniquely suited for the job. Judge Heller is no stranger to hard work. She graduated from the Johns Hopkins University, cum laude. She also graduated from my alma mater, the University of Maryland School of Law, cum laude. She earned both degrees while raising two sons. Judge Heller's accomplished legal career began as an assistant attorney general. She soon became an associate judge in the Baltimore City Circuit Court, the eighth judicial circuit, and would spend 6 years as the judge in charge of the civil docket. In 1999, Judge Heller became the first woman to serve as a circuit administrative judge on the eighth circuit. She championed numerous reforms, including the practice of alternative dispute resolution, ADR, in circuit court cases and the introduction of court-ordered mediation in certain civil cases. She also directed the establishment of a new pretrial discovery process, including the appointment of two felony discovery judges. Her dedication not only to justice as a concept, but to improving the process by which justice is administered, would serve her well at the Weinberg Foundation. Judges are the public face of the rule of law. I am thankful that so many people will associate justice with such a capable and revered judge. In 2003, Judge Heller retired from the bench and began to lend more of her time and talent to various worthy causes around Maryland and around the world. For instance, Judge Heller served as president of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, gaining experience in international aid missions. In her long and illustrious career, Judge Heller has worked with many other distinguished groups: the Maryland School for the Blind, the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene & Public Health, the Task Force on Women in Prison, Girl Scouts of Central Maryland, the Greater Baltimore Medical Center, the Public Trust and Confidence Implementation Committee, the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, and the World Jewish Restitution Organization. I have omitted many more organizations, but the underlying point here is that Judge Heller brought a wealth of experience and talent to the Weinberg Foundation. The Weinberg Foundation has a long track record of tackling issues head on. The foundation has been a national leader on addressing the basic human needs of healthcare, housing, economic stability, and food security. The Weinberg Foundation has also established itself as an effective advocate for people living with disabilities, the elderly, and our veterans. Judge Heller has helped the Weinberg Foundation accomplish extraordinary feats during her time on the board. She oversaw the Baltimore Library Project which to seeks to design, build, equip, and staff new or renovated libraries in selected schools where existing public funds can be leveraged. The Weinberg Foundation, with the help of 40 partners, will create as many as 24 of these inspirational spaces. The Weinberg Foundation has committed a total of $10 million for what is expected to be a legacy project. Judge Heller doubled the amount of funding provided under the employee giving program. The Weinberg Foundation's employee giving program awards grants to their deeply committed staff to fund direct outreach programs. Judge Heller and the Weinberg Foundation have done immeasurable good for people across the State of Maryland and around the world. As Judge Heller prepares to step down from the foundation, I would like to thank her for her dedication to lifting up all people. I would also like to thank her husband, Shale D. Stiller, and the rest of her loving family for sharing such an incredible woman with humanity. Judge Heller has placed the Weinberg Foundation on solid footing to continue to carry out its important missions. I know I join my colleagues in congratulating Judge Heller on everything she has accomplished and wishing her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Senator Corker. The two of us have worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without any partisanship. These are foreign policy issues that require the Senate to work together, and I want to thank Senator Corker for his leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on this issue and on many other issues. Let me first try to explain what we believe will happen in the next 45 minutes. Under the Arms Export Control Act, the sale of military armament to Pakistan requires the administration to give formal notification to the Congress. Prior to that formal notification, there is an informal process where the administration will inform the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee that they intend to make a sale. They did that in regard to the F-16s for Pakistan, and that is the issue we are talking about. For several months we have been in negotiations with the administration--as well as with stakeholders with regard to the sale of the F-16 to Pakistan--because quite frankly we did have concerns. We had concerns as to how it would impact the region, including India. We had concerns about Pakistan being a nuclear weapons state. We had concerns about Pakistan's efforts for counterinsurgency. We had concerns about Pakistan's participation in the peace process with Afghanistan. All of those are issues we were able to get some discussions on and we think some progress to the F-16 sale. The administration formally notified Congress of the F-16 sale on February 25. At that time the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee had agreed the administration should go forward with the sale. What we think will happen under the Arms Export Control Act--and any Member can offer a resolution of disapproval--is that Senator Paul will be offering to bring up a resolution of this approval. We think that will take place in about 45 minutes. It is likely it will require a motion to proceed or to bring the motion forward, and it is possible the leader, the Republican leader, the majority leader, may offer a motion to table in regard to that motion. I urge my colleagues to understand the next vote will be whether we are going to take up--or not--the resolution of disapproval. Senator Corker and I both urge our colleagues that this resolution not be approved, not be taken up; that we allow the sale to go forward but that we maintain our leverage, as Senator Corker has explained, because there are many more issues involved before the sale becomes complete. Quite frankly, the reason the F-16s are being recommended is because Pakistan needs the F-16s for their fight against counterinsurgency. I think all of my colleagues are aware of the mountainous terrain, territory that is in Pakistan on the Afghan border. Pakistan needs an air force capacity to deal with that counterinsurgency. It is our military's judgment that these F-16s are important in regard to that fight against counterinsurgency; that it is in our interests, U.S. interests; that it is in the regional interests, including the stability of its neighbor, India; and it is in the interests of dealing with the fight against the extremists. As I said earlier, the relationship with Pakistan is complicated. We have several areas of major concern in that relationship, and we fully understand the reasons Members would be concerned. We are a strategic partner with Pakistan in rooting out terrorism. Let me remind my colleagues, the people of Pakistan have had 40,000 deaths as a result of extremist activities within their borders. That is an incredible sacrifice that has been made in their campaign against terrorists, against extremists. They have the Haqqani network, which we know has taken out American interests in that region, they had the fight against ISIS, and they had the fight against LeT, which is a terrorist organization within Pakistan that has committed terrorist attacks in India. We want them to focus on all of these extremists. At times we don't get the full cooperation of Pakistan for these to be the priorities they go after. Obviously, we want to continue our partnership with Pakistan, but we want them to deal with the threat of the Haqqani network. We want them to focus on the threats of ISIS. We want them to concentrate on the destabilizing impact that LeT has on the relationship between Pakistan, India, and the cause of problems in India. We want to see more progress. On the second front, on the nuclear phase, Pakistan is the fastest growing nuclear stockpile in the world. Our relationship with Pakistan is critically important for the certainty, safety, and security of the command and control network of their nuclear arsenal. Are they doing everything we want them to do in that regard? No. Have we made significant progress in the safety of their nuclear stockpile? Yes. Do we want to continue our relationship so we can continue to make progress? Absolutely. The third area we need Pakistan's cooperation is in bringing together all the stakeholders for a peaceful discussion of the peace talks in Afghanistan. The extreme elements that are located in Pakistan need to be part of those discussions. Pakistan can play a critical role in helping that come about. Has Pakistan been helpful? Quite frankly, they have. They have been working with us to get all the stakeholders together in the talks. Could they do more? Yes, we think they could do more. What Chairman Corker said is absolutely accurate. We would encourage our colleagues to vote against the resolution of disapproval or to support our efforts to keep that off the floor, first and foremost because the F-16 are needed by Afghanistan and U.S. interests to fight the extremists, but just as important, it maintains the ability of the United States to deal with Pakistan to bring about further progress in all the areas I have talked about. As the chairman said, the worst-case scenario is that we break our relationship with Pakistan and other countries step in, and our ability to get changes in Pakistan's practices as they relate to support or fighting terrorist organizations or nuclear nonproliferation and participation in the Afghan peace talks could be marginalized. In order to maintain the type of bipartisan, bilateral pressure on the problematic elements of the security sector, but while supporting reformers in the military and civilian governments, we urge our colleagues that it is important we take this sale to the next level. The last point--and Chairman Corker pointed this out--we are not signing off on the foreign military financing part. The administration has brought forward a proposal for some reprogramming of funds to help pay for the F-16 sale to Pakistan. In other words, we would use some of the moneys we have already programmed for Afghanistan to be used to pay for the sale of the F-16s. That requires a signoff from the leadership of the two authorizing committees. Senator Corker and I had not signed off on that--nor do we intend to sign off on that until we have further explanations on a lot of the issues Senator Corker and I have already raised. We have ample ways of dealing with our bilateral relationship with Pakistan, allowing the sale formally to go forward by how the sale will be financed. For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Paul's resolution and allow us to continue the diplomatic path in regard to that region. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am certainly disappointed by the Senator from Texas objecting to the request of the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski. The request of Senator Mikulski is for us to consider two article III judges who are next in line for consideration before the U.S. Senate. They have cleared the committee. They have both been approved by the committee by voice vote, a unanimous vote within the Judiciary Committee. I know Paula Xinis--the vacancy to be filled in Maryland at University Park. She joined the law firm of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy in Baltimore. She is a senior trial attorney, well qualified to take the seat of the former chief justice, Deborah Chasanow. She was appointed by President Obama in March of 2015. We are now approaching the 1-year anniversary of her appointment--1 year anniversary for a noncontroversial, well-qualified appointment to the district court. Let me just talk a little bit about fairness. I heard what the Senator from Texas said about the majority leader scheduling the votes on the floor of the Senate, but I think my colleagues should be aware of the facts in regard to filling judicial vacancies. We have completed the confirmation process on 16 article III judges since the beginning of this term of Congress. The comparable number in the last 2 years of a Presidential term where the President was of the Republican Party and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats--just the opposite of what we have today--was the year 2007 and 2008 under President George W. Bush. The Judiciary Committee was chaired by Chairman Leahy. That year, by March 9, we had cleared and confirmed 40 judicial appointments--40 compared to 16 in this Congress. By the end of the year, we had approved 68 of President Bush's nominees. Going back to the other time with a Republican President and with a Democratically controlled Senate--President Reagan--in 1987 and 1988, under Chairman Biden, by March 9 of the last year, the Senate had confirmed 47 of his nominations, compared to 16 this year, and by the end of the year, we had confirmed 85 nominees, including a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Kennedy. We have pending right now on the floor of the Senate that have cleared committees--every single one by voice vote unanimously--we have 12 article III judges who are ready for action and 5 other judicial appointments, for a total of 17. But that is not the whole story. We have 25 nominees who are still pending before the Judiciary Committee, including Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland, to fill a vacancy. This is not the only vacancy we have in Maryland. We now have two in Maryland waiting for action by the U.S. Senate. So there is a matter of fairness here. There is also a matter of respect for the judicial branch of government in allowing the courts to be able to function. The district court is where most individuals get their justice. That is the trial court. That is the court where most of our citizens will go for their judicial relief. We have vacancies where appointments have been made that are noncontroversial, well-qualified people, and we can't get a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate? My friend from Texas tells me this is the prerogative of the majority leader. It is our responsibility to act on these nominations. Senator Mikulski has set up a process in Maryland where we take an interview process to get the very best talent to serve on our courts. I am honored to work with her as we go through the process of finding the very best to serve on the courts. How do you expect to allow their name to come forward when it takes a year to consider a nomination? If you want to get the very best on the courts, we have to act, and we have to be responsible. Let me just say something. We have to take up these nominations. I appreciate that we always have a lot of work that we have to do. We have time today to get these nominations done. I call on the majority leader and I call on my friends to say: Look, let's get our court vacancies filled. Let's carry out our responsibility and vote on these nominations. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain four amendments that I have filed and would like to make pending on S. 524. I understand we are in a position now that we need consent in order to have these amendments pending. I am not going to ask for consent, but I will explain the four amendments in hopes I will have an opportunity to present these amendments and have them considered by the full Senate. I know Leader McConnell wants an open amendment process, and I think all four of these amendments are very much relevant to the underlying bill which is aimed at authorizing the Attorney General to address the national epidemic of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use. The first amendment I wish to talk about is an amendment on which I am joined by Senator Cornyn. It is amendment No. 3421, which would allow grants for 24/7 treatment centers. I am proud to join with my colleague Senator Cornyn on this amendment, which clarifies that grants under section 301 of CARA may be awarded for the establishment and support of treatment centers that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide immediate access to behavioral health services. The epidemic of opioid abuse and addiction impacts every State in our country. Many of us know individuals and families who have been deeply affected by this tragic crisis. Heroin and opioid drug dependency has more than doubled in Maryland over the last decade. The number of deaths related to heroin and opioid drug dependency has increased by more than 100 percent in the last 5 years. In 2013, there were 464 heroin-related overdose deaths in Maryland, greater than the number of homicides. Some parts of Maryland have had the highest per capita rate of heroin and opioid drug use in the United States. In some regions of the State an estimated 1 in 10 citizens are addicted to heroin. Improving access to behavioral health care--meaning both mental health and substance abuse treatment--is essential in combating this epidemic. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, more than half of the individuals with substance use disorders also have at least one serious mental health condition. There is often a small window of opportunity for getting an individual with substance abuse or mental health issues into treatment. If treatment cannot be provided on demand, often the opportunity is lost. Allowing grants for the establishment and support of 24/7 treatment centers providing behavioral health services on demand will help ensure those individuals in need have access to behavioral health services at the time they need it. I ask my colleagues to join me in helping to get this amendment pending and adopted. It is a bipartisan amendment, as I said. I am joined by Senator Cornyn in presenting it to our colleagues. The second amendment is pretty simple. It requests a GAO report on naloxone price increases. I am pleased this amendment I would offer would require a study of the most recent dramatic increase in the price of this medicine. Naloxone is a lifesaving drug that is used to reverse the effects of opioid overdose. However, according to the Baltimore City Health Department, the cost per dose in Baltimore has quadrupled over the past 2 years--quadrupled in 2 years. This GAO study would evaluate the impact of the ability of States and local health departments to reduce the number of deaths due to opioid overdose. It is a pretty simple amendment, and I would hope we could get it pending and included in this legislation because I think it would save lives. The next amendment I wish to talk about is again a bipartisan amendment that is being offered with Senator Heller. This amendment would repeal the therapy cap. I was in the House of Representatives when the therapy cap was imposed on therapeutic rehab services. It was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and imposed annual financial limits on outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology services, as well as occupational therapy services. The decision to impose those caps was not based upon data, concerns about quality of care or clinical judgment. The sole purpose was to limit spending in order to balance the Federal budget. I was in the Ways and Means Committee room when Chairman Thomas brought this issue up to include in the Balanced Budget Act, and I asked the question: Why are we doing this? He said: Well, we need these dollar amounts to equal the numbers. I said: What is the policy reason? None could be given. These arbitrary caps create an unnecessary and burdensome financial barrier to Medicare beneficiaries who rely on essential rehab services such as physical and occupational therapy to live healthy and productive lives. Chronic pain, which is defined as pain that lasts for several months or in some cases years, affects at least 116 million Americans each year. Physical therapy plays an important role in managing chronic pain. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published draft clinical guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain, making it clear nondrug approaches, such as physical therapy, are ``preferred'' treatment paths for chronic pain. Approaches such as physical therapy ``have been underutilized and, therefore, can serve as a primary strategy to reduce prescription drug medication abuse and improving the lives of individuals with chronic pain.'' I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller to permanently repeal the therapy cap and ensure that Medicare beneficiaries, including those suffering from chronic pain, continue to have access to medically necessary outpatient physical therapy services. The fourth amendment I would like to offer is in title IV of this legislation. It addresses the so-called collateral consequences. Section 402 directs the Attorney General to establish a ``Task Force on Recovery and Collateral Consequences.'' Collateral consequences refer to a penalty, disability or disadvantage experienced by an individual because of a criminal conviction, but that is separate from the court's judgment or sentencing. The commission will study these consequences and whether they affect the ability of individuals to resume their personal and professional lives. In other words, we are talking about reentry into society. But we do not have to wait for the results of a commission to take action to ameliorate one of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. Here, I am talking about the fundamental right to vote. An estimated 5.85 million citizens cannot vote as a result of criminal convictions, and nearly 4.4 million of those have already been released from prison. So 4.4 million people in our communities are denied the right to vote. Nationwide, 1 in 13 African Americans of voting age have lost the right to vote, a rate 4 times higher than the national average. Latino citizens are also impacted in an extreme way because they are disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system. States have vastly different approaches to voting with a criminal conviction. This patchwork of State laws has caused confusion among election officials and the public, sometimes resulting in the disenfranchisement of even eligible voters. Some of these State laws are a holdover from the era of Jim Crow laws, where even misdemeanor convictions could take away an individual's right to vote. In some cases, the right to vote is lost permanently, with no ability for rehabilitation. This is just plain wrong. The amendment I wish to offer would provide much-needed information into the hands of citizens returning from incarceration. My amendment would direct the Justice Department to provide to individuals released from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons information regarding their right to vote following release. It would require notifications to individuals of the impact on their voting rights when they accept a plea agreement from the U.S. attorney and require the Department of Justice to report on the disproportionate impact of both Federal and State criminal disenfranchisement laws on minority populations, including data on voter disenfranchisement rates by race and ethnicity. My amendment does not change any existing Federal or State voting rights laws. It does not. It simply requires the Justice Department to provide additional information to ex-offenders upon their release from prison, and it makes sure that defendants are aware of the impact on their voting rights when accepting a plea agreement. The Department of Justice study can provide us additional information on the patchwork of State and Federal disenfranchisement laws, which Congress and the States can use to make further changes in the statute. So I urge my colleagues to have a process where this amendment, along with the other three I have discussed, can be made pending so that we can vote on these amendments. I think they all would improve the underlying bill, and it is certainly consistent with the majority leader's commitment to an open amendment process. I hope there will be a way that I will be able to offer these amendments and the full Senate will be able to vote on these amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, in his message about our responsibility to do our job. It is very simple: Do our job. Do what the people of our State elected us to do. Senator Brown is absolutely correct. 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 last time I checked, the President was elected for a term of 4 years, not 3 years and 2 months. We still have 10 months left of President Obama's Presidency. There is plenty of time for the Senate to consider his nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States. I find it shocking that my colleagues would suggest, even before the President has submitted a nomination, that the Senate would not conduct hearings or consider the nomination of the President to the Supreme Court, even though that is our constitutional responsibility and even though we were elected for a 6-year term. The last time I checked, we are in session until the end of this year. We don't adjourn in March. The President has 10 months left in office, and Senators should do our work and do our job. I think the American people will ultimately demand that the Senate do its job and not threaten to stop working simply to coddle and pander to the most extreme and fringe elements of its base. Senators should look to the Constitution for the history and the precedents of the Senate on how to proceed. I say that because if we do not hold a hearing on President Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court, it will be the first time in the history of the United States that a nominee who requested a hearing is denied a hearing--the first time ever. This is a matter of what is the appropriate role in the Constitution of the United States. We all took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and it is our responsibility to respond with a serious effort. The majority leader said that when we get a nomination, we should act with dignity. Well, we are not acting with dignity if we don't hold a hearing. Let me remind us that the last time a President nominated in an election year of the opposite party, President Reagan's nomination of Justice Kennedy was considered by a Democratic-controlled Senate and approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate. Let me also remind us that there have been times where a nominee of the President has not been approved by the Judiciary Committee. They have still come to the floor of the Senate for action. Justice Thomas was approved by a majority vote of the Senate even though he was not recommended by the Judiciary Committee. It was short of the 60-vote threshold, which means that if the Democratic majority had wanted to filibuster, they could have. So we are on uncharted waters here with what the Republicans are doing. We have separation of branches of government. That is the history of our country. That is the democracy in which we live. It is our responsibility to preserve that. We, the legislative branch of the government, have the responsibility to advise and consent on the independent judiciary. The Supreme Court operates with nine justices, not with eight. It is an abuse of power of the majority in the Senate-- the Republicans--to say that we are going to reduce the Supreme Court of the United States to eight by inaction. What happens when we have conflicting decisions made by different circuits and the only court that can determine the law is the Supreme Court in its interpretation and they are 4-to-4 deadlocked? If we do not take up this appointment and we go the full year into next year, it will be two terms of the U.S. Supreme Court without the full complement of justices. Do your job, my colleagues. That is all we have to do. You don't have to vote yes. Vote. Have a hearing. Have the courage to vote yes or no on the President's nominee. They are saying we are not even going to have a chance for a hearing or vote, and we don't even know who the nominee is, and that is just plain wrong. I think the American people will speak with a clear voice and say that is not what the Senate should be doing. I hope the Republican leadership will provide the dignity of the Senate, hold hearings, and allow the full Senate to vote up-or-down on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the tragic deaths of two fellow Marylanders. Senior Deputy Patrick Dailey and Senior Deputy Mark Logsdon of the Harford County Sheriff's Office were killed in the line of duty on February 10. I join the people of Maryland and law enforcement communities across the country in mourning the loss of two dedicated public servants. The men and women of law enforcement put themselves at great risk to protect our communities. Law enforcement officers are the embodiment of the rule of law. An attack on them is an attack on the rule of law itself. The word ``hero'' does not do justice to the legacies of Senior Deputies Dailey and Logsdon. Both men served the people of Harford County with distinction. On his 16th birthday, Deputy Patrick Dailey began his career in public service by joining the Joppa-Magnolia Volunteer Fire Company. His two sons, Bryan and Tyler, are also members of Joppa-Magnolia Volunteer Fire Company. Deputy Dailey was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps before joining the Harford County Sheriff's Office where he would serve for 30 years. On Christmas Eve 2002, Deputy Dailey saved the life of a teenager traveling in an SUV that collided head on with a cement mixing truck. Deputy Dailey, a number of fellow sheriffs, and two civilians emptied six fire extinguishers in an attempt to quell a fire that threated to engulf the vehicle and the unresponsive driver. Using only their bare hands and batons, the group managed to free the driver seconds before the fire consumed the passenger compartment. The teen was able to thank his rescuers 3 months later at the Harford County Sheriff's Office awards banquet. Deputy Logsdon also served in the military before becoming a Harford County Sheriff. He was a member of the 115th Military Police Battalion and deployed to Iraq in 2003 with the Maryland National Guard. Exactly 11 years before his death, Deputy Logsdon confronted a suicidal man who was armed with a loaded shotgun. In a display of great bravery and at great risk to himself, Deputy Logsdon managed to talk the man into surrendering his weapon. After the man was disarmed, Deputy Logsdon continued to help the man by transporting him to the hospital where he received medical care. The deaths of Deputy Dailey and Deputy Logsdon represent a profound loss for the people of Maryland. In the days since the February 10 shooting, Marylanders across the State have responded with a groundswell of support for the Dailey and Logsdon families, as well as the Harford County Sheriff's office. I think that speaks to the character of Marylanders and the esteem in which law enforcement officers are held. I would like to offer my most sincere thanks to other deputies who responded to the call, the Abingdon and Joppa Magnolia Volunteer Fire Departments, the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, and University of Maryland Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, all of whom administered aide to both deputies. On behalf of my fellow U.S. Senators, I offer my deepest condolences to the Dailey and Logsdon families as they navigate this difficult time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize February as National Children's Dental Health Month. Since 1981, this month has afforded us the opportunity to acknowledge the importance of children's dental health, recognize the significant strides we have made and the work that remains to be done, and renew our commitment to ensuring all children in our country have access to affordable and comprehensive dental services. To echo former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, ``there is no health without oral health.'' Despite being largely preventable, tooth decay is the single most chronic health condition among children and adolescents in the United States. It is 5 times more common than asthma and 20 times more common than diabetes. Nearly half, 44 percent, of the children in the United States will have at least one cavity by the time they start kindergarten. Children with cavities in their primary or ``baby'' teeth are three times more likely to develop cavities in their permanent adult teeth, and the early loss of baby teeth can make it harder for permanent teeth to grow in properly. Left untreated, tooth decay can not only destroy a child's teeth, but also can have a debilitating impact on his or her health and quality of life. Tooth and gum pain can impede a child's healthy development, including the ability to learn, play, and eat nutritious foods. Recent studies have shown that children with poor oral health are nearly three times more likely to miss school due to dental pain, and children reporting recent toothaches are four times more likely to have a lower grade point average than their peers without dental pain. Tooth decay and oral health problems also disproportionately affect children from low-income families and minority communities. According to the National Institutes of Health, approximately 80 percent of childhood dental disease is concentrated in 25 percent of the population. These children and families often face inordinately high barriers to receiving essential oral health care, and, simply put, the consequences can be devastating. Madam President, many have heard me speak before about the tragic loss of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Prince George's County resident. In 2007, Deamonte's death was particularly heartbreaking because it was entirely preventable. What started out as a toothache turned into a severe brain infection that could have been prevented by an $80 extraction. After multiple surgeries and a lengthy hospital stay, sadly, Deamonte passed away--9 years ago today. So today we mark the ninth anniversary of his tragic death. Since the tragic death of Deamonte in 2007, we have made significant progress in improving access to pediatric dental care in the country. For example, in 2009, Congress reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP--with an important addition: a guaranteed pediatric dental benefit. Today, CHIP provides affordable comprehensive health coverage, including dental coverage, to more than 8 million children. Thanks to CHIP, we now have the highest number of children in history with medical and dental coverage. In addition, in 2010, Congress included pediatric dental services in the set of essential health benefits established under the Affordable Care Act. I am very proud my State of Maryland has been recognized as a national leader in pediatric dental health coverage. In a 2011 Pew Center report, ``The State of Children's Dental Health,'' Maryland earned an A and was the only State to meet seven of the eight policy benchmarks for addressing children's dental health needs. In addition, in the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange, every qualified health plan now includes pediatric dental coverage, so families do not have to pay a separate premium for dental coverage for their children and do not have a separate deductible or out-of- pocket limit for pediatric dental services. However, Madam President, more work remains to be done. For example, according to a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, three out of four children covered by Medicaid did not receive all required dental services over a recent 2-year period, with one in every four failing to see a dentist at all. This is simply unacceptable. We must act to ensure that all American children have access to comprehensive oral health care. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Tragically, our health care system was not there for Deamonte. Today, on the ninth anniversary of his death, let us honor his memory and pledge to do better for the children in our country by working together to build on the significant strides we have made over the past 9 years, and to ensure that all children have access to affordable and comprehensive pediatric dental services. Madam 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 join the Nation in offering my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Justice Scalia, who was an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. For more than three decades, Justice Scalia devoted himself to the rule of law and public service at the highest levels. Whether you agreed or disagreed with his decisions, there is no debate about Justice Scalia's profound impact on the Supreme Court. He served his country with great honor. I was privileged to serve as a member of the Judiciary Committee when I first joined the Senate. I participated in confirmation hearings for judicial nominees for both President Bush and President Obama, including the hearings for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The Constitution spells out quite clearly what happens when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court. 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 American people twice elected President Obama to 4-year terms in office. Their voices have been heard very clearly. Elections have consequences, and President Obama must carry out the constitutional responsibilities and duties of his office by nominating a successor for Justice Scalia. The President is simply doing the job that the American people elected him to do. The President doesn't stop working simply because it is an election year. He has more than 300 days left in office, as do the Senators who will face the voters this November. Congress should not stop working, either, in this election year and should earn their full paycheck. So my message is clear. Do your job. It is our responsibility to take up the nominations the President will submit to us. And I think the American people will ultimately demand that the Senate do its job and not threaten to stop working simply to coddle and pander to the most extreme fringe elements of its base, as was done when the government shut down a few years ago with the flirtation of a default on the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Just as the President is carrying out his constitutional duties, so should the Senate. My colleagues in the Senate took an oath to support the Constitution. It is only February, leaving the Senate plenty of time before the elections to consider a nomination that President Obama will make in the coming weeks. I find it disgraceful that my Republican colleagues would try to obstruct the nomination before the nominee has even been named. Our job as Senators is to examine the qualifications of the nominee for the position. The Senate should get to work once President Obama makes his nomination, in a process that usually takes around two months. If you look over the history of nominations that have been made by a President on Supreme Court nominees in the amount of time the Senate has considered those nominations, the average is 2 to 3 months. Let me remind you, we have almost a year left in this term of Congress. There is plenty of time. The Senate Judiciary Committee has historically reported nominees to the floor even if the nominee did not garner a majority vote in the committee. And then let the Senate work its will to either confirm or reject the President's nominee. The tradition of the Senate is to allow each Senator to vote yea or nay on a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. That has been the tradition of the Senate. Of course, every Senator has the right to vote no. Senators were elected for 6-year terms by the citizens of their State and have the right and obligation to vote. President Obama was elected by the people of the United States for a 4- year term and has the right and obligation to nominate. History has shown that when the roles were reversed and the Democrats held the majority in the Senate, Supreme Court and judicial nominees for Republican Presidents were given hearings and up-and-down votes regardless of when the vacancy occurred. Justice Kennedy was confirmed to the Supreme Court in the last year of President Ronald Reagan's final term in 1988. Other examples of Presidential election-year confirmations include Justice Murphy in 1940, Justice Cardozo in 1932, and Justice Brandeis in 1916. And the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed numerous judicial nominees of President George W. Bush throughout his final year in office, including nearly a dozen judges in September 2008, just weeks before the election of President Obama. 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 Senator and swore to support the Constitution. In my view, Justice Scalia would expect nothing less than for the President and the Congress to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution, our Nation's most fundamental legal document. Justice Scalia wrote a 2004 opinion about the importance of having all nine Justices on the Supreme Court. He stated that without a full complement of Justices, the Court--I am quoting from Justice Scalia--``will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issues'' in pending cases and that a vacancy ``impairs the functioning of the Court.'' Justice Scalia understood the importance to have nine Supreme Court Justices. Are we really going to allow there to be a vacancy for that ninth seat for a year? Former Justice Rehnquist, when he was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1972, wrote that the prospect of affirming lower court judgments by an equally divided court was ``undesirable'' because ``the principle of law presented by [each] case is left unsettled.'' When there is a circuit split, Justice Rehnquist continued, ``the prospect of affirmance by an equally divided Court, unsatisfactory enough in a single case, presents even more serious problems where companion cases reaching opposite results are heard together here. . . . [A]ffirmance of each of such conflicting results by an equally divided Court would lay down `one rule in Athens, and another rule in Rome' with a vengeance.'' What Justice Rehnquist was saying is when we have different appellate court decisions--one circuit ruling one way and another circuit ruling another way--they come to the Supreme Court, we have conflicting interpretations, and we have the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve that difference. What happens if there is a 4-to-4 vote? We have different rules in the Fourth Circuit than in the Third Circuit. That is why we have a Supreme Court. And for a year-plus we are going to say we are not going to allow the full complement to be there? I am also privileged to serve as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the ranking member and former chair of the Helsinki Commission. I must tell my colleagues, as I meet with heads of foreign governments, parliamentarians and judges overseas, I feel great pride in that America has created independent judges where a neutral fact-finder decides the case based on the law and the facts and cannot be fired for making a decision that offends the government or the politically powerful. I really do believe the Supreme Court and Federal judiciary are some of the crown jewels of our American system of government and the envy of the world. That is why I am so disgusted and disappointed today with the majority's attempt to abdicate their responsibilities as Senators and as Americans by not doing their job and simply obstructing the operation of good governance for partisan political purposes. I say that because the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have written a letter saying they are not even going to take up this nomination. There will not even be any hearings. Do your job. Our job is to consider a nomination that is submitted by the President. What the Republicans are effectively trying to do is to temporarily shrink the Supreme Court from nine to eight Justices and shorten the term of the President from 4 years to 3 years. That is not in the Constitution. This is disgraceful and indefensible. Frankly, it reminds me of the arguments Republicans used in 2013 when they accused President Obama of trying to pack the court when they announced they would not support further nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. No, President Obama was not trying to pack the court by changing the number of seats on the court. He was merely nominating individuals to existing vacancies on the court that were authorized by Congress by an enacted statute. That is the President's responsibility. Let me remind my colleagues that Congress has the authority to pass a statute that is signed into law by the President or by overriding his veto. What Congress cannot and the Senate should not do is purport to shrink the size of the court, be it the Supreme Court or district court or circuit court, by simply refusing to even consider a nominee until the next President takes office. If this decision by the Republicans is allowed to stand, it would create an artificial vacancy for over a full year, spanning two terms of the Court, which would be unprecedented since the Civil War. We recall that after the last century, Supreme Court nominees have received timely hearings and considerations by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate. It matters if the Supreme Court is not fully operational and gridlocks in 4-to-4 ties. Under that scenario, the division of the lower court stands, even when there is a split among the circuits where only the Supreme Court could and should clarify the law. This will lead to more uncertainty, litigation, wasted time and resources, and ultimately delay and deny justice for the American people. It would be a great tragedy--and potentially do long-term damage to the Supreme Court and the independent judiciary--if the Republican strategy of delay and obstruction prevails. I urge my colleagues: Do your job. Do your job. When the President submits the nomination for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia, schedule a timely hearing and establish a reasonable schedule for the Senate and each of its 100 Members to vote yea or nay on the person the President submits as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is our responsibility. We need to do our job. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join the American people in celebrating Black History Month, but it should be noted that the immeasurable role African Americans have had in making the Nation the strong Nation that it is today could not be fully recognized in 1 short month. Black history is American history. This February we highlight the titans of African-American history: Marylanders such as Harriet Ross Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and Thurgood Marshall; icons, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Dr. Dorothy Height; and contemporary heroes, such as John Lewis and Mae Jemison. We all celebrate the countless men and women whose names will never grace the history books or newspapers, those who fought each day for freedom and equality, those who pushed the limits of innovation, and those who endured and overcame hardships over the centuries. As we celebrate, the struggle to ensure all Americans under the law are treated equally under the law rages on. I believe that as much as Black History Month is about reflecting on a rich past, it is also a time for all Americans to contemplate how to create a better future. It is not enough simply to recognize the great contributions that African Americans have made, to honor those who have come before us; we must use Black History Month as a springboard to bring about positive change in America. I have a number of legislative priorities that relate directly to Black History Month and to building a better future. I take pride in being from Baltimore for many years reasons. I know all my colleagues are familiar with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP for short. The NAACP celebrates its 107th anniversary on the 12th of month. The NAACP is headquartered in Baltimore City. The model of the NAACP is ``One Nation Working Together, For Justice and Equality Everywhere.'' The motto is fitting because for the last 107 years, this is exactly what the NAACP and its more than half a million members have done. I have introduced legislation to honor the legacy of the civil rights champion, executive director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Solicitor General, Supreme Court Justice, and Baltimorean Thurgood Marshall. The legislation would direct the National Park Service to determine the suitability of including his alma mater, Public School 103 in West Baltimore, as a national historic site. The stories of Justice Thurgood Marshall reading the Constitution in the basement of P.S. 103 during detention typifies the American dream. Preserving P.S. 103 would not only be a fitting tribute to a great Marylander but also an enduring symbol of the importance of education in shaping civic-minded and great Americans. I understand that the legislation may be included in the Energy Policy Modernization Act that the Senate may consider again in the near future, and I hope the Senate will approve of this amendment. I just mentioned education, and during Black History Month, I think there are few topics more important to promoting equality than ensuring that all Americans have access to a high-quality, affordable education. In December of this past year, Congress enacted the Every Student Succeeds Act in a strong bipartisan manner. I hope the Members of this body can build on this momentum by confronting the pressing issues of college affordability and student debt. I am a strong supporter of President Obama's America's College Promise proposal to provide 2 years of community college education tuition-free for responsible students. This proposal will allow students to earn the first 2 years of a 4-year degree or the critical skills necessary to enter the workforce without having to take on decades of debt before they even embark on their career. While student debt is a critical problem for nearly 42 million Americans, paying for higher education can be especially difficult for African-American families. According to the Urban Institute, since the mid-2000s, African-American families on average have carried more student loan debt than White families. This is driven in large part by the growing share of African-American families who take on student debt. In 2013, 42 percent of African Americans ages 25 to 55 had student loan debt, compared with 28 percent of Whites. Because African- American families on average have less wealth and fewer private resources, they may be more likely to turn to loans to finance their education. Education is the great equalizer in our society. As a nation, we cannot afford to price Americans of any race out of education and the opportunities a quality education provides. The main higher education equalizer, the Federal Pell grant, provides its lowest share of college education costs since its enactment in 1965. As a result, more than 61 percent of the students who receive a Federal Pell grant award have to take out loans, compared to only 29 percent of their more affluent peers. With more than 60 percent of African-American undergraduate students utilizing the Federal Pell grant to pay for their education, this has placed an undue burden on African-American communities for decades. During Black History Month and beyond, I will continue to help support legislation to help ease the burden of paying for higher education. In the last year, Baltimore and many cities across the United States have been inundated with news crews covering the deaths of unarmed Black men and women at the hands of police officers. Long before the unrest that gripped Baltimore last spring, I had introduced a number of bills seeking to empower communities and rebuild trust between the citizens and police departments. Events in Baltimore, Charleston, Cleveland, Chicago, and many other places showed the urgent need for congressional action. That is why I introduced the BALTIMORE Act, which would help communities nationwide by building and lifting trust in order to multiply opportunities and racial equality. The BALTIMORE Act is a package of legislation made up of bills that I have previously introduced, along with several new additions. Many provisions in the BALTIMORE Act enjoy bipartisan support. Title I of the BALTIMORE Act includes law enforcement perform provisions to help better train and equip law enforcement officers so they can better serve communities across the country. The first provision contained within the BALTIMORE Act is the End Racial Profiling Act. The End Racial Profiling Act would end racial and discriminatory profiling by State and local law enforcement and require mandatory data collection and reporting. Think about this for a moment: In 2016 there is no national standard against law enforcement officers stopping someone merely because of his or her race. I am pleased that Maryland attorney general Brian Frosh recently issued guidelines prohibiting the use of discriminatory profiling by State and local law enforcement in Maryland. And the Attorney General of the United States has acted, but we need a national standard with the force of law that would prohibit the use of discriminatory profiling by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. The second provision deals with State and local accountability. It would require local law enforcement officials receiving Byrne JAG and COPS Hiring Program funds to submit officer training information to the Department of Justice. That information would include how officers are trained in the use of force, racial and ethnic bias, deescalating conflicts, and constructive engagement with the public. The Police CAMERA Act would establish a pilot program to assist local law enforcement in purchasing or leasing body-worn cameras. I am pleased that several provisions that are consistent with the BALTIMORE Act were included in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations measure enacted by Congress in December. The appropriations legislation directs the Department of Justice to swiftly devise and submit plans to improve training levels in use of force, identifying racial and ethnic bias, and conflict resolution for State and local law enforcement officers. It urges DOJ to partner with national law enforcement organizations to promote consistent standards for high-quality training and assessment and directs the agency to better collect State and local law enforcement data on the use of force. I also want to mention that I introduced the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act, which would help local law enforcement agencies strengthen their department and combat officer misconduct. The BALTIMORE Act deals with voting rights reform and civil rights restoration. The Democracy Restoration Act would make citizens who have returned from incarceration eligible to vote. At the State level, I was proud to see that the Maryland State Senate recently overturned our Governor's veto of a State statute expanding the right to vote for people who have served their time. I want to reduce recidivism and give people a stake in their communities. If you want to do that, they need to have a voice and a vote. The Democracy Restoration Act would also restore one's eligibility to serve on a Federal jury. Congress should also enact legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act and reverse the damage done by the Supreme Court decisions that undermine the fundamental right to vote as Americans, to cast their votes for the Presidential primary elections of 2016. The BALTIMORE Act also deals with sentencing reform. Over the years, sentencing in this country has been marred by racial disparities. The discrepancy between jail time for crack and powder cocaine users is only one such example. The RESET Act would reclassify specific low- level nonviolent drug possession felonies as misdemeanors and eliminate the aforementioned distinctions between crack and powder cocaine. I am pleased to be able to say that the sentencing reform is a bipartisan issue, and I look forward to working with any member who is willing to ensure that all Americans are treated equitably under the law. I hope the Senate will take up legislation to address some of these disparities in the very near future. Finally, the BALTIMORE Act addresses reentry and employment law reforms. I think this section is especially important because once someone has served his or her sentence, that person should be able to start anew and should get a fair shot to reenter the workforce. I would be remiss if I did not mention Second Chance, Inc., a Baltimore nonprofit that trains returning citizens in deconstruction, architectural salvage, and much more. I have had a chance to meet with the staff of Second Chance, and I can tell you that their reentry and job program should be a national model. I invite my colleagues to learn more about the good work that is being done only a short drive north of here. I am pleased the administration has ``banned the box'' when it comes to the hiring of Federal contractors, so that ex-offenders get the second chance to rejoin our communities as productive and working members of society. I am pleased the State of Maryland as well as Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County have all ``banned the box'' in various forms, and I urge the private sector to follow suit. Helping ex-offenders find gainful employment is a win-win by reducing social services costs, increasing tax revenues, and making our communities safer. Eliminating disparities in our justice system is critically important. It is just as important to eliminate disparities in the quality of health care available between groups of Americans. In Baltimore, living in certain African-American neighborhoods instead of a White neighborhood, separated by only a few miles, can shorten life expectancy by as much as 30 years--a full generation. That is unacceptable. As a Senator with a longstanding record of working to promote health equity, including my legislation establishing Offices of Minority Health throughout the Department of Health and Human Services and elevating the National Institutes of Health's National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities to an Institute, I will say we have made progress in shrinking disparities, but I am far from satisfied. I am very encouraged to see that NIH received a $2 billion increase in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus spending bill. That is very important. That is the largest increase NIH has received since 2003. The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities received $278 million. This is an increase of $8.7 million over its fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Make no mistake, that money will help save lives. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we have recently made health care coverage more accessible and affordable than it has been in decades. By reducing the number of uninsured Americans across the country, the ACA is working to address health inequalities. For instance, between 2013 and 2014, the percentage of uninsured African Americans fell by 6.8 percent. Also, because of the ACA, there is increased funding available for community health clinics, and 300,000 Marylanders, including more than 140,000 African Americans, are served by these clinics. Under the ACA preventive services, which are critical to the early detection and treatment of many diseases that disproportionately affect minorities, are now free for 76 million Americans, including 1.5 million Marylanders. Some of what Congress can do to shrink disparities is not limited to health care policymaking. Recent events in Flint, MI, have brought to light the need to focus on environmental justice issues. Flint is a case study in what happens when environmental stewardship and water infrastructure needs are ignored. It is also an example of how pollution can hurt minority populations in a severe way. Flint's population is about 100,000 people. Roughly 56 percent are African American. The residents of Flint will have to live with the complications of lead poisoning for the rest of their lives. What disturbs me the most--both as a grandfather and a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee--is the very real possibility that children may have suffered irreversible damage to their developing brains from exposure to lead in drinking water. Exposure even to low levels of lead can profoundly affect children's behavior, growth rates, and their intelligence over time. I might point out that Freddie Gray, the person who was killed in Baltimore, had high levels of lead in his blood. Elevated levels in the bloodstream may cause learning disabilities and other developmental issues. I wish to quote from an article in the New York Times, January 29 of this year: Emails released by the office of [Michigan] Governor Rick Snyder last week referred to a resident who said she was told by a state nurse in January 2015, regarding her son's elevated blood level, ``It is just a few IQ points. . . . It is not the end of the world.'' It is a crisis when we deny a child his or her full potential by exposing them to lead. This crisis could have been avoided. It is going to affect an entire generation of children in Flint to varying degrees. Sadly, Flint is not alone among the cities in which pollution is harming African Americans at disproportionately alarming rates. Nationally, African Americans are 20 percent more likely to have asthma versus non-Hispanic Whites. According to a study in the Annual Review of Public Health, many African-American children live in more heavily polluted areas. Living in urban centers increases one's exposure to traffic and industrial pollution, which promotes a greater sensitivity to allergens. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, Black History Month is about reflecting on a rich path but also a time for all Americans to contemplate how to create a better future. The Senate is capable of great things. Landmark bills like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 all passed through this Chamber. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress to transfer the good will and kind words of Black History Month into meaningful legislation to help African Americans and all Americans. I presented only a small portion of my legislative priorities today. I know other Senators may have different ways of approaching some of these same challenges. In honor of the countless men and women who have contributed to making this country great, let us work together to get something done for the American people. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on April 10, 2014, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act in this Chamber. Three days earlier, the world had marked the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, one of the most horrific events in modern history that unfolded as the world stood back and watched. At that time I noted that, ``[u]nfortunately, we have not learned the lessons of the past. We must do better to not only see that sort of atrocities never again occur under our watch . . .'' That statement was not only a reflection of my beliefs, but a promise to keep the issue of atrocity prevention in front of the Senate and the American people. So today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities occurring in Syria, South Sudan, and elsewhere, I come to address this body again. I am here today not to look backward about actions not taken. I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to make sure the United States has the tools--diplomatic, political, economic, and legal--to take effective action before atrocities occur. Essential to this is authorizing the Atrocities Prevention Board, and ensuring that the United States Government has structures in place and the mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential atrocities. President Obama, when he established the Atrocities Prevention Board in 2012, said that, ``preventing genocide [is] an `achievable goal' but one that require[s] a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind of methodical organization that accompanies mass killings''. I am introducing the Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2016 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in this effort by Senators Tillis, Murphy, Menendez, Shaheen, Brown, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Coons, Mikulski, Markey, Merkley, and Boxer. This bill authorizes the Board, which is a transparent, accountable, high-level, interagency board that includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Board will meet monthly to oversee the development and implementation of atrocity prevention and response policy, and additionally address over the horizon potential atrocities through the use of a wide variety of tools, so that we can take effective action to prevent atrocities from occurring. This bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on the ground. They will be equipped to see the warning signs, analyze the events, and engage early. This bill also codifies the Complex Crises Fund, which has been a crucial tool to our ability to quickly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential mass atrocities and conflict. We used the Complex Crises Fund in Tunisia during their Arab Spring and in Sri Lanka after its civil war. We've used it to respond quickly in Kenya and Cote d'Ivoire, where it has helped save lives. Importantly, this bill builds greater transparency and accountability into the structure of the Atrocities Prevention Board. Civil society will have a say, and Congress will have a greater oversight role to make sure we are getting this right. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places the United States on solid moral ground. But the moral argument alone is not enough. We must also remember that America's security, and that of our allies, is affected when civilians are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS systematically targeting communities on the basis of their ethnicity or religious beliefs and practices, including Yezidi, Christian, and Turkmen populations, but over sixty years after the Holocaust, we still lack a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and genocide. So, let this bill act as our framework, and also our call to action, so that when we use the phrase `never again', we know that we are taking meaningful preventative action.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on April 10, 2014, I introduced the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act in this Chamber. Three days earlier, the world had marked the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, one of the most horrific events in modern history that unfolded as the world stood back and watched. At that time I noted that, ``[u]nfortunately, we have not learned the lessons of the past. We must do better to not only see that sort of atrocities never again occur under our watch . . .'' That statement was not only a reflection of my beliefs, but a promise to keep the issue of atrocity prevention in front of the Senate and the American people. So today, under the heavy cloud of atrocities occurring in Syria, South Sudan, and elsewhere, I come to address this body again. I am here today not to look backward about actions not taken. I am here today to stress that our job, our responsibility, is to make sure the United States has the tools--diplomatic, political, economic, and legal--to take effective action before atrocities occur. Essential to this is authorizing the Atrocities Prevention Board, and ensuring that the United States Government has structures in place and the mechanisms at hand to better prevent and respond to potential atrocities. President Obama, when he established the Atrocities Prevention Board in 2012, said that, ``preventing genocide [is] an `achievable goal' but one that require[s] a degree of governmental organization that matches the kind of methodical organization that accompanies mass killings''. I am introducing the Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2016 to ensure that we do just that. I am joined in this effort by Senators Tillis, Murphy, Menendez, Shaheen, Brown, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Coons, Mikulski, Markey, Merkley, and Boxer. This bill authorizes the Board, which is a transparent, accountable, high-level, interagency board that includes representatives at the assistant secretary level or higher from departments and agencies across the U.S. Government. The Board will meet monthly to oversee the development and implementation of atrocity prevention and response policy, and additionally address over the horizon potential atrocities through the use of a wide variety of tools, so that we can take effective action to prevent atrocities from occurring. This bill gives our Foreign Service Officers the training they need to recognize patterns of escalation and early warning signs of potential atrocities and conflict. With this training, we will, over time, build atrocity prevention into the core skillset of our people on the ground. They will be equipped to see the warning signs, analyze the events, and engage early. This bill also codifies the Complex Crises Fund, which has been a crucial tool to our ability to quickly respond to emerging crises overseas, including potential mass atrocities and conflict. We used the Complex Crises Fund in Tunisia during their Arab Spring and in Sri Lanka after its civil war. We've used it to respond quickly in Kenya and Cote d'Ivoire, where it has helped save lives. Importantly, this bill builds greater transparency and accountability into the structure of the Atrocities Prevention Board. Civil society will have a say, and Congress will have a greater oversight role to make sure we are getting this right. Mr. President, this is a good bill. It does good things, and places the United States on solid moral ground. But the moral argument alone is not enough. We must also remember that America's security, and that of our allies, is affected when civilians are slaughtered. Our security is impacted when desperate refugees stream across borders. Our security is affected when perpetrators of extraordinary violence wreak havoc on regional stability, destroying communities, families, and livelihoods. We have seen groups like ISIS systematically targeting communities on the basis of their ethnicity or religious beliefs and practices, including Yezidi, Christian, and Turkmen populations, but over sixty years after the Holocaust, we still lack a comprehensive framework to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and genocide. So, let this bill act as our framework, and also our call to action, so that when we use the phrase `never again', we know that we are taking meaningful preventative action.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I first thank Senator Kaine for his input in this legislation and so much other legislation that goes through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is an extremely valuable member of our committee, a very good thinker, but more importantly he listens to others in the committee and finds a common way that we can make important national foreign policy issues bipartisan. He has done that and did that with the Iran review act in reaching a way that we could bring that together in a bipartisan manner. He was very helpful on the North Korean sanction bill that we have on the floor, so I thank Senator Kaine for his contributions. I say to Senator Corker, I know we are getting near the end of this debate. I have been listening to this debate throughout the day, and I think it points out the best traditions of the U.S. Senate. So many Members have come to the floor in serious debate about the national security challenge that North Korea presents--not just, as I said, to the Korean Peninsula, not just to our allies in East Asia but globally--and how U.S. leadership is going to be vitally important and we are going to act. The United States is going to act. The Senate tonight is going to pass a very strong sanctions bill, a very strong message bill that we do not intend to sit back and let North Korea proliferate their weapons of mass destruction. We also don't plan to sit back and let them commit gross violations of human rights. We will not sit back and allow them to attack our intellectual property through cyber security attacks, and we are going to act as one, united. We are going to act, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. We are going to work with the administration. We are going to get this done. Then, yes, we are going to go to the international community. We are going to put pressure on other countries. We know the Republic of Korea is with us. We know Japan is with us. China needs to be with us, and we are going to go and talk to China, explain and work with them so we can get international pressure to isolate the North Korean regime until they change their course. It is critically important to our security but also to the people of North Korea. I thought this debate has been in the best tradition of the U.S. Senate. Again, we had the architects, as Senator Kaine pointed out, drafting this bill. Senator Corker's leadership clearly set the climate in our committee so we could have that type of debate. I am sorry no one here could sit in on some of Senator Corker and Senator Menendez's meetings as they were negotiating the specific terms of the bill. Each had their views, but they listened to each other. They recognized that by listening to each other they could come out at the end of the day with a stronger bill. As a result of our two colleagues, we were able to reach that common ground and I think very shortly we are going to be able to show the people of in country the best traditions of the U.S. Senate on foreign policy issues. I am very proud to work with Senator Corker and my colleagues on this bill. Thank you.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as I listen to my colleagues, I think we know how proud we are to serve with people who have such deep knowledge and strategic views on how we as a nation can better defend ourselves and lead the world. To Senator Menendez's comments about America's strength, yes, I think everyone understands that we have the greatest arsenal in the world. We do. But America also understands the power of diplomacy, and diplomacy has to be backed up with incentives and disincentives. Incentives, yes. The American taxpayer is generous with development assistance and our assistance in helping countries develop into stronger democracies in which they can be stronger economies and have a better life for their people and, by the way, be better consumers of U.S. products. That is what America does--it offers incentives--but we also lead the world in saying: If you do not follow the internationally acceptable norms, there will be consequences, and those consequences mean that we will not let you do commerce to strengthen your ability to harm your neighbors and to harm global security. That is what Senator Menendez was talking about. The sanctions we are imposing here are aimed directly at North Korea's ability to compile weapons of mass destruction, to harm their own people, and to harm others through the use of cyber. That is what these sanctions are aimed at. They are aimed at preventing them from being able to do that. It also shows U.S. leadership because our allies look to the United States first. It is an international financial system, and if the United States is not prepared to move forward, we cannot expect the rest of our allies to move ahead. So it is a clear signal that we are prepared to take these actions. We are taking these actions. We are going to take them by ourselves if we have to, but it will be much more effective if we can get the international community to support us. Senator Menendez is absolutely correct. I remember when we did this against the apartheid of South Africa. We were able to get actions taken by other countries after we acted. The Senator is absolutely correct on Iran. We acted on Iran; we then got other countries to act. If the United States had not shown the leadership, they would not have acted. That is now true with North Korea. Our actions will help us get other countries to act so that we can hopefully accomplish our goal of a peaceful North Korea without the use of our military might. Let me explain what is at stake here. We all understand the tests that are going on with the so-called satellite tests to be able to develop a missile that can deliver a weapon well beyond the Republic of Korea that could directly attack U.S. interests and certainly our allies' interests. That is what they are trying to do with these tests, is to develop weapons of mass destruction that could cause unspeakable damage. That is what we are trying to prevent. And it is not just the direct actions by the North Koreans; they have already shown their willingness to work with other rogue states in developing weapons of mass destruction. If we allow them to accumulate these weapons, they could then transfer them to other rogue countries and they could be used against our interests. We also know that North Korea is willing to make arrangements with terrorist organizations, and these weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists and be used against our interests. That is what is at stake. There is a lot at stake, and that is on the weapons program. We already saw North Korea act in regard to Sony on cyber. We know this is a growing field. If we don't take action now, the circumstances are only going to get more damaging to U.S. interests. The one area that I really congratulate Senator Gardner and Senator Menendez for bringing to this bill is the human rights issues, the gross violations of human rights. We talked about this. There is no country in the world that treats its citizens worse than North Korea does. They are literally starving their population. They are starving their population. They torture their population. They imprison anyone who dares say anything against the government. They do summary executions if they don't like you. We know that. It has been documented over and over again. This legislation speaks to American values. Our strength is in our arsenal and our strength is in our universal values; that we won't allow that to happen; that, yes, we have an interest in how the people of North Korea are treated; that these are international norms that have been violated by North Korea. I just wanted to follow up with Senator Menendez because I thought he articulated so well about America's strength and how we act. It is not just because we have the best military in the world; it is because we have the will to stand up for values that are important for not only our national security but for global security. When the United States leads, other countries join us, and we get results. Hopefully, we are going to be able to change North Korea's conduct through these measures. That is in the best interest of the United States, it is in the best interest of our allies, and it is in the best interest of North Korea. That is what this legislation speaks to. I share Senator Menendez's hope that we will see a very strong vote in a few minutes, and I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed their views on this. I urge everyone to support this effort and to show America's resolve in the united policy in this regard. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first start by thanking Chairman Corker. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a proud tradition of working on national security and foreign policy issues in the best interest of our country and putting partisan differences aside so we can speak with a strong voice. Chairman Corker has carried out that tradition and has elevated it to a level that I think has been not only in the best interest of the Senate but the best interests of our country. That is particularly true in the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016. So I thank him for the manner in which he brought different views together. We all had the same objectives, but as the Presiding Officer knows, when dealing with 100 Members of the Senate and the 19 Members of our committee, we each have different views, and to try to harmonize that so we can get legislation done in a timely way takes a great deal of talent and patience. Senator Corker has both talent and patience, and I thank him very much for the way he led our committee to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that I think will get overwhelming support, will become law, and will advance U.S. national security interests. I have my two chairmen here. Senator Gardner is the chairman of the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee in the Foreign Relations Committee. He understood the importance of North Korea, its nuclear weapon program, its weaponization program, and the impact it has globally. That is for sure, but East Asia is a particular concern, and Senator Gardner understood that, working with our allies in East Asia to develop the right U.S. leadership so we will have an international coalition isolating North Korea because of its conduct. So I thank Senator Gardner for introducing the original bill in the Senate and working with Senator Menendez particularly--who introduced it on our side--to bring together legislation that is a proper role for Congress. I want to underscore that. This legislation represents what Congress needs to do. We are the policymakers of America. We pass the laws. Then the executive branch, which is critically important to foreign policy-- don't get me wrong--but we enable the tools to be able to carry out this foreign policy. What this legislation shows is Congress speaks with a very clear voice, that we will not tolerate North Korea's proliferation of weaponry, its intimidation of its neighbors, its human rights violations, and that we will use the strongest possible measures to ensure that we contain that type of nefarious conduct. Quite frankly, the legislation we have before us is similar to the approach we took with Iran and the congressionally mandated sanctions we had on Iran that made it clear we were going to isolate Iran until they changed course on their nuclear weapons program. What this legislation does is take the product that came over from the House of Representatives--it was a good bill that came over from the House of Representatives, but we strengthened it. We made it more effective through the input of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So it is a strong message--unified, bipartisan, working with the administration to produce a strong policy. North Korea's foreign policy challenges are known by all. It has been known by every American President since the start of the Korean war. They have tested four nuclear weapons and they tested a long-range ballistic missile in defiance of numerous international obligations. U.S. leadership is absolutely critical in standing up to North Korea's activities. We must isolate North Korea to prevent it from getting international help to further its illegal weapons program. That is the basic point of sanctions. We want to prevent commercial interests anywhere in the world from trying to help North Korea get the type of weapons, equipment, and resources it needs in order to further its illegal weapon program. The United States must lead in effective diplomacy to provide incentives and disincentives toward North Korea's conduct. We need to form strong alliances and partnerships in the region. We have to work in close coordination with our allies, and quite frankly our goal is a peaceful and reunified peninsula. We think that is in the best interest of all the Korean people. Over the last two decades, the North Korean regime has moved steadily forward in their nuclear weapons development program and in the production of nuclear material. They have continued to develop this ballistic missile program, they possess hundreds of short- and medium- range missiles, and they are seeking ICBM capabilities. They have active uranium and plutonium programs that pose a proliferation threat. They have tried in the past to help Syria build a nuclear reactor and have been a source of nuclear material missile technology to rogue states, including terrorists. It is not just about one country-state. It is about what they are doing in helping other countries that support terrorism and terrorist groups itself. It is critically important we act. North Korea represents a grave and growing threat to the United States, the region, and the international community. To respond to North Korea's continued belligerence, the legislation we have before us includes mandatory sanctions--and the chairman mentioned that these are mandatory sanctions--directed against specific entities that violate U.S. law and United Nations Security Council resolutions, including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms-related materials, human rights violations--and we will get to that because it is an important part of this legislation--and activities that undermine cyber security. Our legislation targets for investigation those who support these activities by providing the regime with industrial inputs, such as coal that provides economic support for North Korea's illicit activities or luxury goods that allow the regime to continue to exercise its control. We are going after the source of their financing of their illegal weapons program. It is not always the direct equipment that goes into building the weapons; in many cases, it is the mineral wealth of the country that they are using in order to finance that. This legislation targets those sectors. The President is mandated to sanction any person who has contributed to or engaged in or helped to facilitate these actions. Even isolated regimes like North Korea are nonetheless tied to the global financial order in ways that provide the international community with leverage to seek changes in North Korea's behavior. This legislation also codifies existing cyber security sanctions in response to North Korea's increasing capability and provocations in the cyber domain, including the attack on Sony. This is an important step in building and enforcing international norms when it comes to cyber space. One of the areas that we have strengthened in the House bill is to make it clear that our concerns about North Korea go well beyond their nuclear weapons tests but also to their cyber attack activities. The vast majority of North Koreans endure systematic violations of their most basic human rights. Chairman Corker talked about this. Many of these violations constitute crimes against humanity. It is a fact that is well-documented by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry. Widespread malnutrition, torture, and fear have made North Korea one of the most egregious human rights violators, unparalleled in the contemporary world. They are the worst. These crimes by the North Korean regime should shock the conscience of humanity. Building on the important work of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry, the United Nations Human Rights Commission and General Assembly adopted by overwhelming margins resolutions calling for accountability for North Korea's human rights abuses. Just last year, the United Nations Security Council took up the DPRK's grave human rights injustices on their standing agenda for the very first time. These multilateral resolutions need to be backed up by appropriate action, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is well past time to hold North Korea responsible for its human rights violations, and this legislation does just that. In response, this legislation imposes sanctions not just for North Korea's nuclear programs and continued provocative behavior but for the severe human rights abuses committed in North Korea as well. This is new and necessary policy ground for the United States with regard to North Korea. Although tough sanctions have worked on North Korea when applied in the past--and I think it is important to point out that sanctions do work. In 2005 the United States designated Banco Delta Asia, BDA, as a money laundering concern for facilitating North Korean illicit activities and banned all U.S. financial institutions from dealing with that bank. It worked. It had a major impact on North Korea. The problem is, that was 2005 and we let up. We didn't keep the pressure on. This legislation will correct that oversight and remedy the reasons why these sanctions are not effective today. This legislation acknowledges that sanctions and diplomacy are the most effective way when integrated into a comprehensive strategy that engages all of our instruments of national policy. The North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 includes instruments to improve the enforcement of multilateral sanctions, an overall strategy to combat North Korea's cyber activities, and other efforts to address human rights abuses. The legislation also protects important humanitarian assistance programs. This is another point I want to underscore: We have no problem with the people of North Korea. It is the government. It is the government that is not only threatening its neighbors, it has damaged, threatened, and killed its own people. This legislation makes it clear that we will continue to try to get humanitarian assistance to the people of North Korea. Finally, effectively enforcing sanctions against North Korea is not something the United States can do alone. It requires our allies, our partners, and the rest of the international community to join us in this effort. This legislation seeks to create the policy environment that makes such a multilateral effort at the United Nations Security Council possible. The onus is now on China. Chairman Corker is actually right in what he said. China is as much a threat as any country in the world as a result of North Korea's activities. China can make a huge difference in isolating North Korea and changing their behavior to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. That is their objective. China has told us that. They need to take action. They shouldn't be blocking U.N. Security Council action. They should not only be supporting that, they should be using their influence over North Korea to bring about a change of behavior of North Korea as it relates to proliferation of weapons. So it is on China. The United States will do what it must do to safeguard our interests and that of our allies. And that, we will do. But we hope China, which claims to share our same goals on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, will agree on the meaningful steps necessary so that we can achieve that goal. Let me be clear. The United States and Republic of Korea alliance remains as firm and resilient as ever and stands ready to support the Korean people against any and all provocations by North Korea. Just this weekend, the alliance made a decision to begin formal consultations regarding improvements to the THAAD missile defense system operated by U.S. Forces Korea. I support this decision, as it is both an important element of our extended deterrence architecture and it sends the right signal of U.S. resolve to protect our allies and partners in the region. We will look for new defense systems to help the Republic of Korea and our friends in the Korean Peninsula. I also wish to commend President Park for her leadership in responding to this growing threat. She has demonstrated the necessary political will to strengthen cooperation and consultations within the alliance and with partners in the region to forge a united and strong international response to North Korea's reckless behavior. We must also continue to look for opportunities to enhance trilateral cooperation between the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Japan and South Korea are our most important allies in the region, and as we approach North Korea, to be most effective, we need to act together. Strong, clear-eyed, forward-looking leadership will be necessary if we hope to pursue eventual denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. It calls for close coordination with our regional allies, South Korea and Japan, particularly in the areas of missile defense and information sharing. And it calls for U.S. leadership to strengthen the existing counterproliferation regime, to ensure that North Korea's most dangerous weapons are contained as we work toward their elimination. This legislation does that. It strengthens U.S. policy and allows us to ensure that North Korea will pay a price for its continued nuclear ambitions, while providing the administration with the toolkit it needs to develop and implement a more effective approach to North Korea. I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting this very important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Texas for the work he is doing on the Judiciary Committee. I hope we can continue in that bipartisan spirit to deal with addiction and, I hope, improvements in our criminal justice system, providing resources to people who have addiction needs. I know there is a strong bipartisan effort to deal with community mental health so we can get services in our community. This is not a partisan issue. I am glad to see that the work by the Judiciary Committee is productive in trying to lead to those conclusions. I do want to, though, comment a little bit on what was said in regards to the Obama administration. We are here together with a bill on North Korea that is not partisan at all. Democrats and Republicans are working together. There is no division between Congress and the White House. We all believe we have to isolate North Korea and its conduct. The administration has been very strong in actions in the United Nations, keeping us closely informed, and we very much want to work with a strong, united voice. That is how we keep our country the strongest, and that is what we should do on national security. So let me just try to fill in the record a little bit from the previous comments made about the Obama administration. Let us remember that the Obama administration took over after, I would say, a failed policy in the Middle East in which we went into Afghanistan--as we should have because of the attack on our country. But before completing Afghanistan, the previous administration went into Iraq, using our military first rather than looking for a solution that would provide the type of stability in that region to prevent the spread of radicalization. Instead, governments were formed that didn't represent all of the communities, and we saw splinter groups formed and the recruitment for extreme elements. President Obama was able to develop international coalitions to work together. I think America is always best when we lead and we can be joined by the international community. The President also understood that it shouldn't be up to America's military to solve all of the problems, that there is not a military solution to the spread of radicalization, that internal support in the countries must come from the countries themselves, that we do not want to be seen as a conquering power, and that it is for the region to defend itself. Yes, we will help, but we are not going to put our ground troops in a situation where they are used as a recruitment for radical forces. We also understand that America leads best when we can get our ideals of good governance with governments that represent all the communities so there is no void. President Obama and his administration have been very strong in those areas. With regard to dealing with ISIL, the radical forces that exist today, a policy is well understood: Cut off their support. Cut off their support in regards to recruitment by having representative governments. Cut off their support by dealing with their oil supplies and their looting and extortion. Cut off their support by taking back territory in a way that we can control that territory. That is what we have seen happening, certainly in the last several months, as territory that was formally held by ISIL is now being held by the Government of Iraq, particularly, but also Syria. So I just wanted to correct on this day when we are bringing up the North Korea bill, that every President since the Korean War has had challenges in dealing with the problems in North Korea and that we are together on this issue as a Congress and as a Nation to isolate North Korea. It is not just their nuclear weapon program. As I pointed out earlier, it is their cyber attacks, their human rights violations, and all those issues to which we are speaking with a very strong voice today. I hope that as Democrats and Republicans, the House and Senate, the President and Congress speak with a strong, unified voice, America's national security interests will be better served. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes also.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Cotton in urging our colleagues to vote for the confirmation of Scot Marciel to be Ambassador to Burma for the reasons Senator Cotton pointed out. There are exciting things happening in Burma. It is a country in transition. We have seen some promise. There are still major challenges in that country. We clearly need a confirmed ambassador. It is important that the Senate act, and I am glad to see we will be acting in a few moments. We couldn't have a more qualified person to take on the ambassadorship of Burma than Scot Marciel. He currently serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs. I got to know him very well in that capacity in the last Congress when I chaired the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations on East Asia and the Pacific. He is a career diplomat who has taken on some of the most challenging positions in Foreign Service, including being the Chief of Mission in Indonesia. He has devoted his life to these challenges. I know he will do an excellent job representing U.S. interests in Burma. I urge our colleagues to support the nomination. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the European Union, to both recognize the peace and prosperity that it has brought to Europe for more than 75 years and the unprecedented challenges confronting the union today. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently held a hearing on the threats to the European Union and the implications for U.S. foreign policy. Our committee was also briefed this week by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland on these issues. Coming out of these discussions, I am absolutely convinced that the U.S. has an obligation to stand with our friends in Europe during these challenging times in support of the principles that we all share: democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights, economic prosperity, and peace and security. I would like to lay out how I see these challenges threatening the cohesion and stability of the EU. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but is intended to create a sense of urgency among my colleagues regarding the crises faced by the EU and our transatlantic alliance. First, I want to reiterate the remarkable trajectory of the democratic process and peace in Europe since the World Wars of the last century. Emerging from the ashes of World War II, what started as the European Coal and Steel Community expanded to become the European Economic Community, which created a single market for the free movement of goods, people, capital, and services. The ideal of a single market guaranteeing freedom of movement for all member citizens still underpins the EU today, as it has grown from 6 to 28 members. This basis in an economic union was always intended to grow into a political union as well. Jean Monnet, often regarded as the father of the European Union, stated that ``we are not forming coalitions of states, we are uniting men.'' This principle serves as the basis for cooperation amongst member states as they have pooled diplomatic resources to address some of the most pressing issues around the world, usually in concert and in lock-step with the United States. In capitals around the world, the U.S. works with EU representatives to address vexing regional challenges, the provision of humanitarian assistance, and support for values that we hold dear. The allure of EU membership has served as a powerful incentive, especially for countries in Central and Eastern Europe, to reform and adopt high governance standards in preparation for EU membership. Nowhere else in the world does such an incentive exist; and, while not without its challenges, this accession process has improved the economic circumstances, political rights, and civil liberties of millions across the continent. Today, however, the EU is confronting its most serious crises, which collectively threaten the future of the European project. These threats to European cohesion are both internal and external, between north and south and east and west, as well as within and outside individual member states. First, the refugee and migrant crisis today consumes policymakers in Brussels and across Europe. Tensions have grown among member states on the right approach to accepting them, as more than 1 million entered Germany alone in 2015, with the prospect of more in 2016. The heated debate within the Union on how to deal with the crisis has called into question the ability of Brussels to enforce commitments by its member states on borders, Schengen visa-free travel, and quotas associated with resettlement. In recent months, member states have agreed to resettlement quotas and border protocols, only to see those agreements fall apart in quick succession. Some are now concerned that this trend could extend to other EU member states' commitments in areas like sanctions on Russia. Second, the 2008 financial crisis and the possibility of Greece exiting the Eurozone drew attention to the fiscal policy differences between Europe's industrialized north and less developed south and shook the foundations of the monetary union. The EU has not yet weathered this particular storm, and while perhaps not as prominent in the news due to other challenges, the fiscal situation in Greece remains very precarious. Member states and the IMF remain focused on resolving the crisis, but the natural tension between painful economic reforms and the associated political and humanitarian costs remains. Third, governments across the EU are contending with the very real threat of domestic terrorism and foreign fighters. Horrific attacks have galvanized European leaders to action, but significant challenges remain as the necessity for enhanced counterterrorism and intelligence measures interact with real concerns regarding privacy. Fourth, an alarming nationalist trend has emerged in several countries across the Union. Although nationalism has, of course, existed for years across the Continent, it has been exacerbated by the migrant crisis. In some countries, governments have embraced a brand of ``illiberal democracy'' which calls into question the very democratic values of the EU and the four freedoms that make up its core. Every member state signed up for these values when they joined the Union--many of which had to enact difficult reforms to make them a reality. It is unfortunate and worrying that we have seen an erosion of support for these principles in some corners, a dynamic that deserves increased attention and understanding. Fifth, Russia continues to place pressure on the EU and poses a threat to the security of EU countries in the east. Ukraine is the clearest example, where Ukrainian aspirations for an association agreement with the EU were met with the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of eastern Ukraine. We have worked closely with the EU to establish and maintain a sanctions regime on Russia that is having a measurable impact. We must stay united on sanctions until the Minsk II agreement is fully implemented and Crimea is returned to Ukrainian control. For years, Russia has also sought to erode support for EU institutions though a sustained propaganda campaign across the Union. We understand that Russia works to fund and influence anti-EU political parties, think tanks, NGOs, and media voices within the Union and among aspirant countries. Russia is using the very strengths of Europe's democratic societies against it--free press, civil society, and open debate. We should be prepared to push back against these revanchist efforts, not through propaganda, but a clear and forceful debate on facts. Russia has not been reluctant to use its energy resources as a weapon as it seeks to pursue its ambitions, including by withholding energy exports to Europe in order to extract concessions on other issues. Much of Europe imports a considerable share of its oil and gas supplies from Russia. The EU plays an important role in negotiating energy deals with Russia and must constantly contend with the threat that the country poses to the energy needs of member states. The collective negotiating power the EU wields with Russia is critical to ensuring the individual energy security of all EU nations. Finally, UK Prime Minister Cameron is negotiating a new settlement between Britain and the 27 other members of the EU prior to a referendum this summer on the UK's continued participation in the EU. Although the Prime Minister has said that the ``best answer'' is for the UK to remain part of a reformed EU, it is up to the British citizens to vote to remain within the Union. All of this matters greatly to the United States. EU member states include some of our oldest and closest allies in the world. Our partnership with the EU has afforded us the possibility of addressing some of the most challenging international issues--this partnership has made us safer and stronger. We also draw great economic benefit from a stable EU--the Union is our largest trading partner and our economies are intertwined in beneficial ways for citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. This partnership is vital to our interests, but only works if the EU's institutions are vibrant and able to respond to the challenges before it. While many of these problems will be up to the EU member states to resolve, I strongly believe that we should stand in solidarity with the Union through this difficult period and take tangible action to support our friends. First, we must continue to make clear our support for the democratic principles that serve as the basis for the EU and should be clear in speaking out against the growing chorus of illiberal voices. The U.S. should reenergize ties with civil society across the continent, especially in Central and Eastern Europe where strong civil society connections established after the Cold War atrophied as attention shifted elsewhere. We also need to reinvigorate the transatlantic dialogue--among governments, think tanks, NGOs, and civil society organizations--on these issues. The transatlantic relationship always has and always will benefit from enhanced ties among our people. The U.S. should also work to develop a new generation of foreign policy and security policy leaders and analysts that focus on Europe and the centrality that the continent has for our interests. Second, we should support European efforts to bolster energy security across the continent in a way that ensures reliability and decreased dependence on Russian supply. Third, we should continue to work with Europe on strengthening security, its border controls, and the vitality of the Schengen visa- free zone. This means sharing of intelligence and best practices on how to prevent terrorist attacks before they happen. I also want to applaud the administration's intention to invest $3.4 billion into the European Reassurance Initiative, which will ensure a sustained U.S. military presence in Europe to help deter further Russian aggression. Fourth, we should continue our robust support for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, International Organizations for Migration, and several outstanding NGOs which work directly with refugees and migrants across Europe. We should be proud of this commitment and continue to support the most vulnerable populations. Fifth, we should continue to work closely with the EU and member states on working to ensure that the Minsk II deal is fully implemented. Success to date has been rooted in U.S.-EU solidarity, and we must finish the job--the sanctions regime must remain in place until Minsk II is realized and Crimea is returned to Ukrainian control. Finally, we should continue our robust support for Ukraine while holding the government accountable to progress in the fight against corruption. I am concerned by the recent departure of Ukraine's Minister of Economy who resigned in protest against the slow pace of reform and anticorruption efforts. The U.S. Congress passed two pieces of legislation last year supporting Ukraine's economy, Ukrainian civil society, and the government's broad-based reform efforts. Although some progress has been made, we must finish the job. The success of Ukraine will be the success of Europe and the ideals that have drawn sovereign states to join its ranks for the last 75 years. I call on this body to continue to support Ukraine's reformers throughout civil society and government as they continue to make real strides towards integration with the west and adoption of the democratic ideals that we uphold. More importantly, I again call upon Ukraine's leaders to prove that they are serious about countering corruption. The international community's patience in this regard exists, but is not limitless. We need to see concrete results soon. In 2012, the Nobel Peace prize was awarded in recognition of the EU's central role in providing stability in Europe. The chairman of the Nobel committee said the following at the ceremony: ``We are not gathered here today in the belief that the EU is perfect. We are gathered in the belief that here in Europe we must solve our problems together. For that purpose we need institutions that can enter into the necessary compromises. We need institutions to ensure that both nation- states and individuals exercise self-control and moderation. In a world of so many dangers, compromise, self-control and moderation are the principal needs of the 21st century.'' These words continue to ring true today as pressure on the Union grows. Across the ocean here in the U.S., we should resolutely stand in solidarity with our friends in Europe and the principles they embrace. Never before has the EU been so challenged or our transatlantic alliance so valuable. We must bolster our ties this year and renew our commitment to a robust transatlantic relationship.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to bring to the attention of my colleagues the number of nominees in important foreign policy areas that have been acted on by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but have not been acted on by the floor of the Senate. There are currently 15 nominees that have been recommended favorably by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in most of these cases, they were unanimous votes in the Committee. I am confident to say that in each of these cases there has been no question raised as to the qualifications of the individuals to fill these particular positions. We are talking about senior members of the State Department diplomatic team. We are talking about Ambassadors in countries around the world. We are talking about people who have extremely important positions with regard to our national security. These positions are critically important to our country, and they have remained vacant in some cases for over a year. It has been a long period of time that we have not acted on these nominations. The reason we have not acted on these nominations, quite frankly, is because there is a Member in the Senate, or more than one Member of the Senate, who has put what is known as a hold on these nominations. What that means is that a Senator has indicated that he or she is going to object to the consideration of the nomination on the floor. That is normally done in order to get a little bit of attention on an issue, and it is my understanding that in each of these cases, these holds have nothing to do with the qualifications of the person for the position to be filled, but it is to give the Member an opportunity to get some help on other issues or to raise other concerns. Here is the problem. In some cases these holds have been in place for over a year. In some cases we are talking about several months that a position has gone unfilled because of the hold. How can we overcome that? We can overcome that by a Senator releasing the hold, allowing a nomination to come to the floor for a vote. In many cases, I expect, it will be by unanimous consent, since there has been no objection raised, and we can move forward with the nomination. Quite frankly, it is the majority leader--the Republican leader--who controls the agenda of the floor of the Senate. The majority leader can move to executive session, file a cloture motion, and if 60 Members of the Senate want to move forward with the nomination--and I expect that in each one of these cases we are probably talking about almost unanimous votes in the Senate for these nominations--we would pass a cloture motion. After the hours have passed, we would have an up-or- down vote on the nomination. If the majority leader were to announce that we would have a cloture vote on a Thursday or Friday and we would stay in over a weekend in order to finish a nomination, which is typically the case here, we would get it resolved before we left for the weekend. As you know, we have been completing our work on a Thursday. There is plenty of opportunity to take up nominations. We have extensive periods of time that we are in State work periods. There are plenty of opportunities for us to take up nominations on the floor for votes. All we need to do is say: Look, by this date certain, if we don't have your answers, we are going to a cloture vote. It would certainly move a lot of these nominations. This Senator thinks it is unacceptable that 15 of our positions right now are going unfilled because of holds by Members of Congress. I think we have a responsibility to act. I am talking about positions on OPEC. I am talking about the IMF. I am talking about Ambassadors to the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden. I am talking about the U.S. representative to the IAEA. I am talking about the Under Secretary of State. I am talking about Ambassadors to Luxembourg and Burma. There is a whole list of nominations that have gone unfilled. What does this mean for our country? Well, if you don't have the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs--that is the No. 4 person in the State Department. That is the person directly responsible for all the regional bureaus--for Europe, the Middle East, East Asia and the Pacific, for our hemisphere, for Africa. We don't have the principal person in the State Department confirmed for those regional concerns. That is a national security risk by not having a confirmed person for Under Secretary of State. My colleagues are quick to be critical if they don't believe the administration is responding quickly enough to certain concerns. For us not to respond for months on critical positions, to me, is compromising our national security. But it goes beyond that. In bilateral relationships with countries, the fact that they don't have a confirmed ambassador speaks volumes to that country's belief as to how important we think that relationship is. So if we are talking about a U.S. businessperson from South Carolina or Maryland who is trying to do business in Trinidad and Tobago and there is no confirmed ambassador, that person is at a disadvantage by not having a confirmed ambassador in that situation. If we are talking about a family member who is trying to deal with a family issue in Norway and we don't have a confirmed ambassador, that makes it more difficult for us to be able to represent our constituents because our No. 1 person, our head of mission, has not been confirmed. So it affects our ability to strengthen bilateral relations, it affects our national security, and it is absolutely wrong. I want to make one thing clear. It is an honor to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it is an honor to be the ranking Democrat. Senator Corker, the chairman of that committee, and I work very closely together. I am proud of the record of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Senator Corker's leadership. We have reported out these nominations in a timely manner. We have gathered information about the person's qualifications. We have questioned the person. We have gone through the confirmation process to make sure this body carries out its constitutional responsibility to approve Executive nominations. We take our work very seriously, but we do it in a timely way. We act in a timely way. Senator Corker was responsible for these nominations getting out of the committee promptly, but until the Senate acts, the person can't take on the responsibility. Now it is the responsibility of the Senate. That is why I call upon my colleagues who have made objections to withdraw those objections. They have been there for months. Let's move forward. If they don't, I would ask that the majority leader give us time for a cloture vote or at least announce a cloture vote. If we did that, I would think these nominations would comfortably move forward. Some of my colleagues are on the floor, and they are going to talk about specific nominees. I will yield to them shortly, but if I might, I am going to raise 2 of the 15 today. I will do others at other points, but I am going to talk about two of the nominees and I could talk about a lot more. I want to talk about Tom Shannon for Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. I want to tell the American people more about the qualifications of Ambassador Tom Shannon and the important post for which he has been nominated. The Under Secretary for Political Affairs is the State Department's fourth-ranking official, responsible for the management of the six regional bureaus of the Department as well as the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. This is a tremendously important leadership post on key national security issues. Ambassador Tom Shannon, a career member of the diplomatic corps--he is a career diplomat, serving under both Democratic and Republican administrations--is held in universal respect and esteem by his colleagues and has been nominated to this position. He is strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have twice spoken on the floor to ask for unanimous consent for Ambassador Shannon, and I am proud to again ask for his confirmation because few diplomats have served our Nation under both Republican and Democratic administrations with as much integrity and ability as Ambassador Shannon. In his current role as Counselor with the Department, he provides the Secretary with his insight and advice on a wide range of issues. His previous service is formidable. He was our Ambassador to Brazil, was Assistant Secretary of State and Senior Director on the National Security Council staff for Western Hemisphere Affairs, and also served in challenging posts in Venezuela and South Africa, among others. He is a career diplomat, giving his life to the Foreign Service. As I said, he has served different Presidents for over 30 years. He should be confirmed today. Mr. Shannon has been waiting on the floor of the Senate for confirmation for 125 days. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 375, which is Thomas A. Shannon, Jr.; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.