Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me now bring to the Chair's attention John Estrada to be our Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago. John Estrada has been waiting for confirmation on floor of the Senate for 217 days. The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean has been used as a way station for drug smugglers who are shipping their products to the United States, which has caused steadily increasing violence and drug activity. We all talk about the War on Drugs. We need a confirmed ambassador if we are going to have all hands on deck in our campaign to keep America safe. In 2015, the State Department gave the island nation the crime rating of ``critical.'' We need an American of impeccable standing who commands wide respect both here and in the United States and in Trinidad and Tobago itself to effectively represent our interests there. We are very fortunate that the President has nominated John Estrada, a leading business executive and a former 15th sergeant major of the Marine Corps. Mr. Estrada has a compelling American story. He was born in Trinidad and Tobago and immigrated to the United States when he was only 12 years of age. Mr. Estrada served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 34 years. In 2003 he was made sergeant major of the Marine Corps. I want to make sure my colleagues understand just what an honor that is. It is the ninth highest enlisted rank in the Marine Corps. The sergeant major is the senior enlisted adviser to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and a singular honor. Only one marine is chosen every 4 years to serve as sergeant major. For Mr. Estrada to be chosen as the 15th sergeant major of the Marine Corps is a testament to the degree of trust and confidence the Marine Corps has in his abilities and skills. Mr. Estrada truly exemplifies the Corps' bedrock values of honor, commitment, and courage. While such virtues are their own rewards, Mr. Estrada's achievements have been repeatedly recognized over the course of his military service. He received the Distinguished Service Medal in 2007, the Bronze Star Medal in 2003, and the Meritorious Service Medal in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2003. There are over 50 more honors he earned that I could tell my colleagues about. The qualification of this highly accomplished nominee remains unchallenged, nor has any objection been advanced due to his experience for the post he is to take. He has twice been favorably reported from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous support. I have expressed my disappointment and confusion as to why we have not moved forward with Mr. Estrada. We all speak whenever we can to say thank you to the men and women who have worn the uniform of this country to preserve the freedom of America. Here is an individual who has devoted his entire life to defending America, his entire life to defending our country. He has accomplished extraordinary results as a member of the Armed Forces and now is prepared to serve our country in a very difficult position where law enforcement is desperately needed. It is for that reason that I would hope that after 217 days, my colleagues would be prepared to vote on this nominee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 329, John L. Estrada to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago; 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.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the effort by Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters to amend S. 2012 for Federal response to the ongoing crisis in Flint, MI. We know about the lead in the water supply, the fact that it was known, and the fact that many children today have suffered the consequences. It is incumbent that the Federal Government be a partner in finding a way to correct that circumstance as soon as possible. I come to the floor urging our colleagues to find a way that we can move forward with such an amendment to help the families in Flint, MI. I congratulate my colleagues, Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters, for their leadership. I hope we don't lose sight of the big picture, and that is that this is happening in cities and towns all across America. In Michigan, it is not only Flint but parts of Grand Rapids, Jackson, Detroit, Saginaw, Muskegon, Holland, and several other cities that have seen high lead levels in their children. Sebring, OH, just this week closed schools for 3 days because of lead in their tap water. In Toledo, officials have long treated the water with phosphates to prevent leaching of lead. Eleven cities and two counties in New Jersey had higher percentages of children with elevated lead levels than Flint, MI, State lawmakers and advocacy groups said on Monday of this week. Here in the Nation's capital, in Washington DC, in the early part of the last decade, lead leached into the water of possibly 42,000 children. Let me talk about my State of Maryland. In the city of Baltimore, high lead levels in schools prompted officials to turn off drinking fountains and pass out bottled water instead in every school in Baltimore City. They are not hooked up to the fountains because it is not safe. Across the State of Maryland, every 1- and 2-year-old in the entire State will be tested for lead--that is 175,000 children--because they are at risk. This is a national problem. In Flint, MI, it is estimated it cost about $800 million for remedial costs alone. That is about two-thirds of what we currently appropriate every year for drinking water infrastructure in the entire country. The amount we appropriate is woefully inadequate. Accord to the EPA's most recent estimates, more than $655 billion may have been needed to repair and replace drinking water and wastewater infrastructure nationwide over the next 20 years. This comes out to over $32 billion per year every year for the next 20 years. Yet currently we spend approximately $3 billion per year at the Federal level on combined drinking water and wastewater infrastructure State revolving funds--one-tenth of the total amount that is needed in order to modernize our infrastructure. The public expects that when they turn on the tap, the water is safe. They expect that when they use their bathroom facilities, the wastewater is being treated appropriately. They expect that the Nation of the United States can deliver water in a manner that is efficient and safe. In reality, our water infrastructure is out of sight and is woefully inadequate, as we have seen in Flint, MI. I ask my colleagues: If it costs $800 million to fix the pipes in Flint, MI, are we going to come to an agreement that we need a substantial increase in the amount of funds appropriated for the clean water and drinking State revolving funds to help all American cities? Because the stakes could not be higher. There are many things that went wrong in Flint, MI. First and most directly was the failure of the Governor and his appointed emergency managers to identify and address the problem as it grew more and more apparent. They knew the problem, and yet they didn't do anything about it. Second, a declining and increasingly impoverished population, which has gutted the tax base and eliminated the ability to pay back the loans the city might receive from the Federal Government to change out their pipes. It is also a matter of ability to actually afford the infrastructure at the local level. That is why the State partnership through the Federal partnership through the State revolving funds is so critically important. This has never been a partisan issue. I have served on the Environment and Public Works Committee since I was elected to the Senate, and we have recommended authorization levels and changes in the formula so that we can modernize our water infrastructure in this country. It has had nearly unanimous support in our committee. As I said, there is not nearly enough money in these revolving loan funds to keep up to date the drinking and wastewater infrastructure in this country, even if the cities could pay back the loans. The list goes on and on. This list is not limited to Flint. These demographic and fiscal physical characteristics are similar to many, many cities of every size in the United States, in almost every State. None of these things that have gone wrong in Flint are more distressing than the possibility that children may have suffered irreversible damage in their developing brains from the exposure to lead. Exposure to even a low amount of lead can profoundly affect a child's behavior, growth rates, and--perhaps most worrying--their intelligence over time. Higher levels of lead in a child's blood can lead to severe disabilities, eye-hand coordination problems, and even a propensity toward violence. Younger children and fetuses are especially vulnerable to even small exposures to lead--whether it be in tapwater, lead paint, lead in soil still left from the days of leaded gasoline, and lead in children's toys and jewelry. The list goes on and on and on. There is not just one source of lead, and I understand that, but when we turn on the faucets, we do not expect to have water that contains lead. Further, it is impossible to gauge how a specific child will be affected because the developmental impacts of lead poisoning can take years to become apparent. So you might have been poisoned 5 years ago, and the effects will take longer before it becomes apparent in the classroom or the community. In fact, the health effects are so severe, our Nation's health experts have declared there is no safe level of lead in a child's blood--period, the end, zero. I also want to highlight a quote from an article in the New York Times on January 29 of this year. Emails released by the office of [Michigan] Gov. 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 lead level, ``It is just a few IQ points. . . . It is not the end of the world.'' There has to be a greater sense of urgency in this country. We know every child, if they work hard, should have an opportunity in this country. We shouldn't take away that opportunity by diminishing their ability to achieve their objectives. Dr. Hanna-Attisha, the doctor primarily responsible for bringing this issue in Flint to light, and others have studied lead poisoning and have sharply different views of lead exposure for which there is no cure. Dr. Hanna-Attisha said: ``If you were going to put something in a population to keep them down for generations to come, it would be lead.'' This is devastating to the individual and devastating to our country's potential. The work of the institutions in the State of Maryland to combat lead exposure is exemplary. Baltimore's Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning is a nonprofit organization dedicated to services and advocacy on behalf of families affected by lead poisoning. This organization started as a grassroots effort by Maryland parents who saw a problem in their community and sought innovative solutions. The coalition has grown nationally, founding the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative to provide a holistic approach for safer and greener living spaces for American families. The coalition has dozens of local partners, including Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of Maryland School of Law. Together, I am proud to say, these Maryland institutions are paving the way to combat lead poisoning and researching innovative legal solutions to a tragic problem, but we cannot rely on the nonprofits to fix this problem for us. The stakes are too high and the solution too costly. We have a duty to these children to make sure their drinking water is safe. Make no mistake, massive lead poisoning of an entire city's children from any source robs our country of an entire generation of great minds--minds which are core to the futures of these most vulnerable communities. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to not only act responsibly with regard to Flint, MI--and we can do that today with the bill that is on the floor--but to recommit ourselves to find a path forward to provide safe drinking water not just for one city but for all American cities and all the people of this Nation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge that Senator Klobuchar is on the floor. I know she has nominations that she wants to bring to the attention of our colleagues. I thank Senator Klobuchar for being on the floor. She has been very much involved in our nominees, particularly for Norway but also Sweden. I thank her for her leadership in bringing these nominations to the attention of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and for the work she has done to advance these nominations. She has been steadfast in the need for us to act on these nominations. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Senator Corker and I are submitting a resolution today that urges all nations to contribute in order to address the humanitarian crisis in Syria. On February 4, in London, the British, German, Kuwaiti, and Norwegian governments will join with the United Nations to host the ``Supporting Syria and the Region'' conference. The numbers are well known, but bear repeating. The international community has a responsibility to help the 13.5 million vulnerable and displaced people inside Syria, and the 4.2 million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries. We must step up our efforts. Current pledges to the 2015 UN appeal have not even reached last year's levels--$3.3 billion against an appeal of $8.4 billion. Even this figure still masks the fact that not all pledges are met, building up needs for future years. The world must do more, and now is the time to act. The United States is already the largest donor to Syria, giving more than $4.5 billion to date, and Congress has been instrumental and bipartisan in its support of humanitarian relief for Syria. We must maintain this effort, as the need has never been greater. But we also need the entire international community to stand up on this issue. It cannot just be the responsibility of the usual generous donors to meet the needs of Syria. The humanitarian crisis in Syria is a stain on the conscience of the world, and the whole world needs to be part of the solution. This is not just a moral question, although it ought to be. We need to bring peace to Syria, food to Syrians, and safety to Syria's children. Without these basic elements, we are allowing a breeding ground for disillusionment, extremism, and indeed terrorism to grow. So this is also about our shared national security interests. Every nation should therefore step up to the plate: all responsibility cannot and should not fall on Syria and its neighbours. We urge all nations to participate in the conference in London on February 4, prepared to make significant donations that meet the UN appeal. We hope that senior-level representation and contributions by donor states will redefine the nature of this conference to prepare for long term humanitarian support to Syrians. Five years into the Syrian conflict, it is easy for donor fatigue to set in. But this is nothing compared to what Syrian refugees are experiencing daily. Whether they have been displaced inside Syria, whether they are building lives in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan, whether they are trying to integrate into a new city, or whether they are risking their lives in crossing open seas, refugees are facing daily challenges to their very existence. Our resolve to alleviate the hardships and suffering this conflict has caused must, at a minimum, equal theirs. The February 4 conference in London is an opportunity for nations to meet this crisis with the resources and determination necessary to address the short and long term needs of the Syrian people. The bipartisan resolution Senator Corker and I are putting forward encourages the international community to act with urgency to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Syria and in Syrian refugee-hosting countries in the region. It encourages nations to not only fulfill their previous pledges, but to commit to doing more. We must find ways to reduce the barriers preventing refugees from rebuilding their lives. Granting refugees the right to work and access basic services, and funding integration programs, are important goals in that respect. Education is also key. We must ensure that all children and young people affected by the conflict have access to a safe and quality education by both strengthening national education systems and investing in alternative learning pathways. When parents can't find educational opportunities for their children, they move away or put their children into the workforce. Without education, we risk losing a generation of young people. The United States, which has been the largest single humanitarian donor to date, will continue to lead in this effort, along with our partners. We will continue to lead because addressing the humanitarian crisis is part and parcel of achieving a political resolution to the conflict. It is integral to preserving regional stability and global stability.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to oppose the joint resolution that we will be voting on shortly, to support the Clean Water Act, and to support the clean water rule. I was listening to my colleagues. First, let me say that the basis of the regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency is based upon the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act was passed by Congress because Congress recognized that it had a responsibility to the American people for clean water. For public health reasons, for economic reasons, for reasons of generations, we needed to make sure we have clean water supplies for drinking, recreation, public health, and our environment. So the authority to issue this clean water rule comes from an act of Congress. Administrations have been enforcing the Clean Water Act for many years. It was fairly well understood--the waters of the United States-- until there were a couple of Supreme Court cases. The Rapanos case was in 2006. It required further clarification; otherwise, decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, giving great uncertainty as to what is covered and what is not covered. That was a decade ago. Congress could have acted during that decade, but Congress chose not to act. We could have clarified the law and therefore given EPA specific instructions, but instead the uncertainty has remained. I have often listened to my colleagues talk about how one of the most demanding problems we have is that we create uncertainty--a short-term extension of tax provisions, a short-term CR--that we don't give predictability, and that is one of the things we need to do. For farmers and ranchers and developers and the American people to be able to take full advantage of the opportunities of this country, they need to know the ground rules. That is exactly what this clean water rule does. It sets the parameters of what is going to be regulated and what is not. It uses the prior application--before the Supreme Court cases-- as its guideline. It does not pave new ground. It is basically what the stakeholders and the public thought was the law before the Supreme Court cases, which added to the uncertainty. If you listen to some of my colleagues, you would think they just pulled this regulation out of thin air. They had over 400 meetings with stakeholders--a 2-year process. Millions of comments were reviewed before the final regulation was issued. So this went through a very deliberative process. First and foremost, it offers certainty on the application of the law and uses the prior application as the main way of determining what is covered, and it rejects the case-by-case uncertainty that is under existing law. The rule protects public health, our environment, and our economy. Let me talk a little bit about that. One out of every three Americans would be getting drinking water that would not be covered if we don't get the Clean Water Act in full application--67 percent of Marylanders. There are millions of acres of wetlands that are at risk of not being regulated. Wetlands are critically important for flood protection in many of our States, to recharge groundwater supplies--important to many of our States--to filter pollution. That is very important. It is important in Maryland. The Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay's environmental future very much depend upon the quality of the upstream waters and wetlands. It is at risk if we don't move forward with the full application of the Clean Water Act. It is certainly important for wildlife habitat. I hear all of my friends talk about how important it is to preserve our wildlife. Well, that is very much engaged in what we are talking about. It also deals with our economy. Some of my colleagues have talked about that. Certainly I can talk about the wildlife recreation benefits in my State of Maryland--a $1.3 billion-a-year industry in Maryland and over $500 million in fishing alone. Well, let me tell you something. If you have polluted waters, you are going to lose your wildlife recreational industry. It is critically important for recreation. I think my colleagues understand that. My colleagues talk about agriculture. Agriculture, of course, needs clean water. We would be the first to acknowledge that clean water is very important to agriculture. As it relates to the agricultural community, there are so many special exceptions in the clean water rule. Let's at least be straight as to what is covered and what is not covered. Many of the examples that have been given on the floor of the Senate are not covered bodies of water under the clean water rule that is being proposed. The bottom line is that this rule is not only good for our environment, it is not only good to make sure people have safe drinking water, it is not only good to make sure that we have clean streams, that wetlands are protected, and that water bodies that flow into navigable waters are protected so we have clean water for the purposes of our environment, but it is also important for our economy because of the direct impact it would have, and it is important to many industries that depend upon clean water supplies. Many of them are very much dependent upon clean water supplies in order to produce the products in agriculture that are critically important. For the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let me add one last point. We are all proud Members of the Senate. We are all proud Members of this Congress. I would hope one of the legacies we want to leave when this term is over is that we have added to the proud record of those who served before us in protecting our waters and in protecting our air because that has been the legacy of the Congresses before us--the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Great Lakes. Congress was responsible for many of these programs. On the Chesapeake Bay, but for the actions of Congress, that program would not be what it is today. The funds would not be there. We initiated it. It was not even in the administration's budget. We did that because we recognized that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, the largest estuary in our hemisphere. We understood that, so we acted. So what is going to be the legacy of this Congress? Is this going to be a Congress that moves in the backward direction in protecting our clean water? I hope that is not the legacy of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of clean water, to be on the right side of what Americans expect us to do and to protect the water supply of our Nation and to vote against this joint resolution. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield back our time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time as a Senator from Maryland, as well as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to talk about the bill we voted on earlier today-- on the motion to proceed to the so-called SAFE Act dealing with Syrian refugees. I like to call it the fear act because I think it really is an act that is misguided. I will start by saying that the world looks to the United States, and when there are tough problems, they look to our leadership. They know this country is prepared to step forward and provide the international leadership to deal with the toughest problems we face as a global community. The bill I call the fear act would jeopardize America's response to one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our time, it would jeopardize the U.S. leadership on humanitarian issues, and I think it would compromise U.S. security. Let me tell my colleagues why. We face the greatest crisis on refugees and displaced individuals since World War II. The number is about 60 million globally who are currently refugees or displaced. The largest numbers right now are coming out of Syria. Make no mistake about it--millions are coming out of Syria. They are escaping the Assad regime's barrel bombs and gases and starvation policies. These are victims. These are people who are losing their lives because of the barbaric regime of President Assad. Our values are that we respond to those issues, that we act in a responsible way, that we help the international community to help those people who are trying to escape the persecutions of oppressive regimes. The fear act would shut down the U.S. process of accepting Syrian refugees. Why do I say it would shut it down? Because it would require the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence--all three--to certify, on an individual basis, the ability of these individuals to meet our standards to come into the United States. That would require 100 certifications per day, 300 certifications total. What else would they be doing? I hope the Director of the FBI is working to keep our country safe and more than just dealing with the Syrian refugees. This would cut down and eliminate our ability to accept Syrian refugees. Let me cite some of the numbers. The United States has accepted 2,000 Syrian refugees. There are millions of Syrian refugees. The total number the President has talked about is 10,000--a small fraction of the total numbers who are being relocated under the Syrian refugee program. We look at the neighboring countries alone, what is being done in Jordan, what is being done in Lebanon, and look at what Europe is accepting. We are taking a very small burden here, and it is individuals who do not pose a threat. I will explain that. Every one of us will do everything we can to make sure that our homeland is safe. I am prepared to do everything reasonable to make sure we keep Americans as safe as we possibly can from the threat of extremists. So what do these Syrian refugees go through? By the way, there has not been a reported case of a Syrian refugee in regards to terrorism. What do they go through? First, they are screened by the High Commissioner for Refugees of the United Nations. They screen the individuals who are considered eligible to come to the United States. They go through that screening process. Then they are fingerprinted and go through a biometric check. They go through several layers of biographical and background screenings. They are individually interviewed by U.S. officials. It takes about 18 to 24 months. If you are a terrorist, you are not going to go through this. It is up to the potential individual who will come to the United States as a refugee to establish that they are a refugee. That means they must establish that they have been a victim of the terrorist activities in order to be able to get to the United States. It is up to them to establish that burden. We don't accept individuals who cannot establish that burden. This is not the target group that we should be concerned about. The real threat to our homeland security--let's take a look at others who come to this country. We already did this in the omnibus bill, but we know under the Visa Waiver Program there are individuals who hold passports of countries with which we have the Visa Waiver Program. That means they are countries that have relations with the United States, and we generally accept their visitors without a visa. Many of these countries have foreign fighters who have gone to the affected areas that could very well be involved in terrorist activities and then come back to the European country and come to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Well, we took some action against that in last year's bill. That was good. We need to continue to scrutinize that. What we saw happen in California was that we had a spouse who didn't come under a Syrian waiver program or a Syrian refugee program, but who came under other visa programs. That needs to be scrutinized. For people who come to America, we need to know that they are not connected to a terrorist organization. But the greatest concern is the radicalization of Americans. We need to know why people do what they do. We need to have a better system to protect the homeland. Let's focus on the real problem areas in our country. If this bill were to be passed, it would actually make us less safe. It would affect our national security. Let me tell you the reason why. First, it would clearly diminish U.S. leadership. When we go and seek international support, particularly for our coalition against ISIL, our failure to be willing to take any of the Syrian refugees will certainly compromise America's credibility and ability to lead internationally. It will be used by ISIL as propaganda. Make no mistake about that. They understand that. This is what they are saying about America. It is against our values. It makes us weaker as a nation. It is for those reasons that we found that national security professionals from both parties, including Henry Kissinger, David Petraeus, Brent Scowcroft, and Michael Chertoff, all have come out in opposition on the grounds that it would undermine our security and benefit ISIL. These are professionals. They understand the risk factors. What we should be doing is everything we can to protect us from the threat of ISIL. That means let's figure out ways we can share intelligence information among all of our willing partners. Let's provide the leadership, particularly in those countries in which ISIL can operate, so that the governments represent all the communities, so that there is not a void where the Sunni minority population feels that their only safety is with ISIL. Let's make sure we cut off all the financial support for ISIL, including their oil abilities and the transport of oil. This is what the Obama administration is doing. Let's make sure we do cut off any opportunities to expand their capacity. Let's deal with foreign fighters--people who come from Western countries who go to these areas and train. Let's make sure that we know where they are, and when they try to come back into one of the Western countries, that they are apprehended and tried because of their affiliation with terrorists. Let's help countries such as Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon that are taking on the extreme burdens of the refugees so they can deal with their own crises that have been exaggerated because of the Syrian conflict and ISIL formation. In other words, let us work in a coordinated way to root out the main cause of the terrorist activities; that is, ISIL's ability to attract supporters and to gain territory. Let's take away that territory, coordinate our airstrikes, and work with the local forces on the ground. All of that should be done, and we need to work together on that. To concentrate on the few thousand Syrian refugees who have gone through this country's strictest vetting process makes little sense and will not keep us safer, but, as I indicated before, will actually compromise our national security. In closing, let me state what makes this Nation the great Nation that it is. I think each of us knows that we are living in a special country--a country that has stood up for freedom, a country that has been looked upon as a beacon of hope around the world. Many of our parents and grandparents came from other countries in order to settle in this country because of its opportunity. I am a student of history, not just because it is an effective, factual counterpart to the bluster of politicians and social media accounts. History can be a touchstone to remind us of who we are and a lens through which we can see who we are. Throughout our history, we have recognized that even in times of war we were fighting leaders of authoritarian regimes and not their victims. From 1945 to 1952, we resettled 400,000 displaced persons from Nazi-controlled areas in Europe. In the fall of Saigon in 1997, the United States rescued 883,000-plus refugees who fled Vietnam, a country with which we had been in a state of undeclared war that claimed 58,000 American lives. Between 1970 and 1991, we resettled 200,000 Jews from the Soviet Union, the very government which posed the greatest security threat the United States has ever known. In addition, we have resettled hundreds of thousands of refugees from Cuba and other countries behind the Iron Curtain. This Republican bill we considered today dishonors our proud history of providing a safe haven. History can also be harsh and unsentimental. This bill risks repeating mistakes of the past when the United States tragically turned away Jewish refugees in World War II. After the photo of Aylan Kurdi, the 3-year-old who was washed up on the beach, was published in the news media, the American people opened their hearts to the Syrian people. The American people recognize the distinction between those who are victims of terror and those who perpetrate it. We should not let knee-jerk reactions keep us from being the beacon of hope for Syrians and other refugees in the Middle East, Africa, and around the world. We should do what we do best--our values. We should never compromise homeland security. We need to do everything we can to keep Americans safe. We need to make sure we have the strictest vetting procedures for anyone who wants to come to this country as a refugee or a visitor. We could always do a better job, and we have to do more to understand why Americans have been converted to radicalization through the Internet and what has happened on social media. Yes, we need to do a much more effective job of keeping America safe and the homeland safe, but shutting down the Syrian refugee program would be a major mistake for our values of who we are as a nation and for our national security. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I object.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the bill Senator Flake is referring to, S. 145--a bill I support--is part of a package of 11 bills that have been approved by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee known as the lands bills. By the way, of the 11 bills, 7 of the principal sponsors are Republican and 4 are Democrats. S. 403 by Senator Klobuchar is on that list, which includes the North Country National Scenic Trail; S. 521 that I introduced concerning the President's Station in Baltimore; S. 593 by Senator Barrasso that includes the Bureau of Reclamation report on their infrastructure assets; S. 610 that I introduced dealing with P.S. 103, which is Thurgood Marshall Elementary School; S. 873 by the chair, Senator Murkowski, to designate wilderness within the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve; two bills, S. 1103 and S. 1104, by Senator Daines extending deadlines; S. 1240 by Senator Heinrich designating the Cerro del Yuta and Rio San Antonio wilderness areas in New Mexico; S. 1305 by Senator Barrasso concerning the Colorado River Storage Project Act; and, lastly, S. 1483 by Senator Alexander that would direct a feasibility study for designating the James K. Polk Home in Columbia, TN, as a unit of the National Park System. So therefore I ask unanimous consent that the request by Senator Flake be modified so that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following calendar items en bloc: Calendar No. 204, S. 145; Calendar No. 205, S. 403; Calendar No. 206, S. 521; Calendar No. 208, S. 593; Calendar No. 209, S. 610; Calendar No. 211, S. 873; Calendar No. 212, S. 1103; Calendar No. 213, S. 1104; Calendar No. 214, S. 1240; Calendar No. 215, S. 1305; and Calendar No. 216, S. 1483; that the applicable committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. That would be the list I just mentioned, the lands bills that have been reported out unanimously by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. CARDIN. Will the Senator yield for one moment?

Mr. CARDIN. I think this request deals with the lands bills, not the political appointments. I just wanted to point that out. These are the bills that came out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that deal with designating certain lands. We will have a chance later on the nominations.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, before I talk about the Omnibus appropriations, I note that just a few minutes ago the Senate approved the resolution for the 150th anniversary of Towson University. I must admit I have a direct interest in Towson. My mother graduated from Towson University. My wife Myrna graduated from Towson University, and Myrna today is the chair of the board of visitors of Towson University. It is a great institution. It started as the primary institution for educating our teachers and now has expanded to be one of the great universities in our State, attracting students from the entire university in a variety of programs. We are very proud of its 150-year history and we know it has a very bright future.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to talk for a few minutes about the Omnibus appropriations bill and tax bills that we just passed. I am very proud to have supported it. We have finally passed a budget for this year, giving predictability to our agencies and providing predictability for those who depend upon the government as a partner or for services. The alternative would have been another continuing resolution, which freezes in last year's priorities at last year's level. Now we have elevated appropriations with this year's priorities. The other alternative could have been sequestration, which is mindless, across- the-board cuts, saying that every priority in government is the same-- when it is not. We have avoided the worst consequence, that is, a government shutdown that we have seen happen in the past. So we should be very pleased the political system has worked and we have been able to pass a full-year appropriations bill with current priorities at a reasonable level. I am also pleased we were able to pass the tax legislation Chairman Hatch talked about. The alternative to that would have been another short-term extension of the expiring tax provisions. We saw last year that we did that with 2 weeks remaining in the year, and it expired on December 31, 2 weeks later. Now we have given--many of the permanent provisions give long-term predictability, and we have even approved the tax provisions to make them more efficient. That is good news. Then we have acted on many important issues from dealing with the extension of benefits to the first responders, to the attack on our country on September 11, to the extension of reform of the IMF-- International Monetary Fund--to authorizing some very important programs, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a 3-year authorization that provides $450 million in this year, $144 million above current appropriations. That is all good news, and we list many more important accomplishments in this important legislation. I must tell you there are some disappointments. One of the major disappointments is that we didn't follow regular order. It would have been much better to pass each of the appropriations bills, to have the tax bill considered as an independent bill, and have these other issues--and to have done it in an orderly way rather than looking at it December 18. So I would hope that in the future we will return to regular order, where we have, I think, a better chance of improving legislation with participation from all Members. Secondly, I was very disappointed that included in this legislation was the lifting of the ban on oil exports, energy exports. The reason I am so upset about that is I think that should have been a separate issue. It should have been taken up in consideration with the energy policies of America, our environmental policies of America, our environmental policies, the economic impact, and the security impact. We should have had a chance to debate that issue as a separate issue. It is far too important to our energy security and our energy policy in this country. Another concern I have--and let me point this out--I supported the package. I supported the tax provisions. The tax provisions will be scored as losing $680 billion over the next 10 years. I think that is somewhat misleading. I am going to be perfectly blunt about it. If you take out existing policy--this is the current policy in our Tax Code-- that actually costs us about 10 percent of that $680 billion, but that is still a substantial amount of money. I think it would have been far better to deal with these issues in a long-term budget agreement that dealt with the revenue needs of our country, dealt with our discretionary spending targets moving forward, as well as mandatory spending. That is what we should do rather than taking this up in piecemeal and now making it a little more difficult because the revenue projections are going to be less than they were before. On the Omnibus Appropriations Act, on the Democratic side, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. What a great job she did on our side; Thad Cochran on the Republican side. Senator Mikulski is my seat mate. She is my colleague from Maryland. We are so proud that we have given you one of the great leaders in the Senate, and that was demonstrated on the Omnibus appropriations bill that we voted on just a little while ago. From my State of Maryland, we are particularly pleased that so many of the military installations and Federal agencies that are in our State will get the resources--the predictable resources--to carry out their very important mission. We are proud of the role Maryland plays in our national defense with military installations such as from Fort Meade to Fort Detrick, from Aberdeen Proving Ground to Patuxent River, Andrews to Indian Head, Walter Reed naval. We have major facilities located in our State and now they will have a predictable budget to carry out their critically important mission of national defense. On the civilian side, we have many important agencies located in our State that now will have the resources they need in order to carry out their mission. I could mention so many, but if I might, the Census Bureau will get a $282 million increase in their budget to start planning for the next census. NIH will get a $2 billion increase. That is the largest increase they have received since 2003. The work they do is lifesaving. The appropriations bill will save lives in the United States and around the world and will create jobs because, as we know, the basic research done at NIH is so critically important to our economic growth. I am pleased that in Woodlawn, in Baltimore, the Social Security Administration will get $150 million for badly needed renovations of their facilities. That is important for them to carry out their critical role of providing the administration of the Social Security Act for our seniors, for our disabled, and for those who depend upon the Social Security Administration. There are so many areas I could talk about. The victims of domestic violence will receive the resources they need to carry out our commitment of the law we passed. There are certain challenges we have in our community. The heroin epidemic is affecting every State in our country, and this appropriations act will provide resources to deal with that. I am particularly pleased that in dealing with drug issues, the high-intensity drug-trafficking area, the Baltimore-Washington corridor will receive the resources they need in order to deal with the challenges. Our Nation's infrastructure benefits from this legislation. I am particularly pleased that Metro in the Washington area will receive the next installment of the $150 million that is a part of the $1.5 billion commitment, legislation I authored with the help of our regional colleagues. That commitment will stand firm. We know the Washington metropolitan transit system is the Nation's transit system, and so many of our Federal workers depend upon it in order to be able to get to work. Amtrak, $1.4 billion, is critically important to the entire country. We are particularly dependent upon Amtrak in the Northeast. The Baltimore Harbor will receive significant support. Those are jobs maintaining our harbor. Poplar Island, which is one of the environmentally friendly dredge sites, will get $26.5 million. I have spoken on the floor many times to talk about the Chesapeake Bay and the Federal partnership with the Chesapeake Bay. I was in the State legislature when we started their program, and $73 million is going to be directly appropriated as the Federal portion for the Chesapeake Bay Program. There are additional funds, such as $2.2 million, for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. There is $1.97 million for Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery, $2 million for the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. So there are resources here that carry out the Federal Government's commitment. Every President in recent times has acknowledged that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, the largest estuary in our hemisphere, and these funds will help live up to the commitment. I am particularly pleased that under agriculture, the Regional Conservation Partnership Program that we started last year under the leadership of Senator Stabenow is funded. The Chesapeake Bay region will receive funds under that program to help in our efforts for preserving the Chesapeake Bay. In the western part of my State, the Appalachian Regional Commission is critically important for economic growth. They receive an additional $56 million of funds. To me, that is extremely important for the development in the rural part of my State in western Maryland. During the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I authored and was pleased to see that we established a National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH. It acknowledged the fact that we have not done historically everything we need to do to deal with the disparities in our health care system. This year we are appropriating an additional $9 million to the Institute. I think that continues our commitment to make sure that we deal with all Americans' health needs. Last year, I brought before the Congress a request that we do something to deal with the Holocaust survivors who are still alive and in the United States. They are at a very delicate age and very fearful of being institutionalized. This budget provides $2.5 million to deal with that vulnerable population. I have been a strong supporter of--and at one time I chaired--the Maryland Legal Services Corporation. I have been urging us to try to stop falling behind in our commitment for the Legal Services Corporation. More and more people are being denied access to our legal system because of the failure of Congress to appropriate adequate funds. I am very pleased that in this budget an extra $10 million is appropriated to the Legal Services Corporation. I think my colleagues are aware of the challenges we have had in Baltimore. I am very pleased that the Obama administration, through its agencies, has made resources available to Baltimore and other urban centers to deal with opportunity for all communities and to restore the confidence between law enforcement and community. This budget moves forward on those commitments--from body cameras for police to helping law enforcement deal with ending racial profiling, to the Byrne grant funds--and over $476 million is available. And community and youth opportunities are in this budget as well. The Byrne grant was one-half billion dollars. As to community youth opportunities, this is a budget that will help us deal with the problems in our urban centers. I have taken the floor on several occasions to talk about our Federal workforce and how our Federal workforce has made incredible sacrifices during these tough budget years. Although they didn't cause the deficit, they have been called upon over and over to contribute by being denied pay raises, by being asked to pay more for their pension, by being asked to carry on more responsibilities with less personnel. This budget is a reprieve from the past budgets. There is no punitive action against our Federal workforce, and I am pleased for that. It provides a modest pay adjustment of 1.3 percent. It provides protection on the data breach that occurred under the cyber attack that affected our Federal workforce--protection for 10 years with a $5 million protection. That is within this budget act as well. And we give them more resources and more personnel to support and carry out their mission. On the national security front, I have already talked about the support for our military installations. I am particularly pleased that the FBI will receive a $390 million downpayment on a consolidated facility. The FBI today is located in 30 different facilities, and their main headquarters, the Hoover Building, is not adequate to meet the challenges they have today. All of us have expressed our concern about homeland security, about homegrown radicalization of our population. The FBI needs the facilities in order to keep the homeland safe and keep us safe. This is a $390 million downpayment on a fully consolidated facility for the FBI. A few weeks ago I wrote a letter with 27 of our colleagues to our leadership, urging them that this Omnibus appropriations bill should not be the place for so-called policy riders. I heard Senator Mikulski talk about it during her comments. We were concerned that we were trying to legislate on an appropriation bill without the authorizing committees doing the work they are supposed to do. I am very pleased that most of these riders were excluded. So we are not going to be talking about potentially damaging provisions that could have been included in here--from restricting Planned Parenthood to affecting the clean water of this Nation, to affecting the ability of America to respond to the challenges of climate change, to dealing with protection of our workforce through labor laws, to public safety with restrictions that could have been put on gun safety legislation, to dealing with our refugees. All those areas and many more were subject to policy riders that could have been included in this omnibus budget but were not. On the tax front, I have already thanked Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch. I am very pleased that we were able to do some very important things in the tax provisions. We got renewable fuels for wind and solar extended and improved, particularly for solar. I think this will make a huge difference. But let me just quote from the Bloomberg New Energy Finance, or BNEF, report. In the short term, the deal will speed up the shift from fossil fuels more than the global climate deal struck this month in Paris, and more than [the] Clean Power Plan that regulates coal plants. . . . This is exactly the sort of bridge the industry needed. The costs of installing wind and solar power have dropped precipitously. . . . By the time the new tax credit expires, solar and wind will be the cheapest forms of new electricity in many States across the U.S. So these are significant. Am I satisfied? No. I would like to see them stronger, particularly wind. I thought wind could have been stronger. But I think we have made significant progress in dealing with renewables, which is what we have to do from the point of energy security, as well as our environment and as well as our economy. Having a more diversified energy portfolio and being more energy secure will help our environment, will help our economy, and will help our national security. On the tax side, I was very pleased that we were able to make permanent several of the tax provisions that are critically important to families in the United States. We were able to make the child tax credit permanent, the earned-income tax credit permanent, and the American opportunity tax credit for higher education costs permanent. Transit parity. Transit parity is where those--particularly Federal workers--who use the transit system to come to work don't bring their cars. We subsidize greatly the parking lots and the ability of people to bring cars to work. When they take transit, they are helping us, and we have now made permanent the full limit on deductibility of the transit benefits. So that is a major step forward. I am very pleased that we were able to make that permanent. I thank Senator Schumer who took the lead on that, and I was proud to work with him on that. The low-income housing tax credit improvements that allow it to be more effective in its use were made permanent. Conservation needs were made permanent, and the S corporation improvements, which help small businesses, were made permanent. There is a lot here that we don't have to worry about this next December or two Decembers from now or even five Decembers from now, saying: Gee, are they going to expire? Now, we do have some success from 5-year reauthorizations. That does give us predictability and allows us to move forward. The new markets tax credits are extended for 5 years. The new market tax credits have been critically important for development in my State of Maryland. I could take you to East Baltimore where you see redevelopment occurring. The new markets tax credits are responsible for that. I could take you to Maryland, close to here, in Prince George's County and Montgomery County, and to the work they are doing there. So these are very important tools that help create jobs, and we now have more predictability. Then we have the 2-year extenders, including the energy efficiency that I led the effort on. So the bottom line is we now have much greater predictability. Let me comment just very briefly as the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I am certainly pleased, when we look at the budget that has been brought forward and passed now, for our foreign development assistance. I am pleased that we have the support for Israel included in this package and the economic aid for Ukraine. As to refugee assistance, one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, funds are in here for the United States to work with our international partners to provide for refugee assistance. There are many anti-corruption initiatives. There is $2.5 billion in this budget for good governance and to advance human rights globally--a high priority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, working with Senator Corker. The two of us are working very closely together to make it clear that we won't tolerate corruption and that we will continue to work as countries develop good governance and respect for human rights. As I said earlier, on the overall plan there are a couple issues in this budget that I am very disappointed about. One is the Visa Waiver Program, the discriminatory provisions against dual citizens. I don't think it has anything to do with safety. I don't think we are safer because we are going to make dual citizens go through a separate process. And it will cause, I think, actions by our allies that will be counterproductive to Americans and could have some unintended consequences. That shouldn't have been in this legislation. I also think the restrictions on the closing of Guantanamo Bay are misguided. Guantanamo Bay should have been closed a long time ago, and I regret that those restrictions are continuing in place. The bottom line is that I am very proud that we passed the omnibus bill. I supported it enthusiastically. I think it represents a compromise of the political balance of our Nation. We have resolved many policy challenges. We provided predictability to our agencies and predictability to policies that help private investment and our economy grow. It advances a cleaner environment, security of our homeland, education and welfare of our citizens, Americans' ability to compete globally. It deserves our support, and I am glad to see that it was passed. Shortly, it will be signed by the President and will be the law of this land. I note there are other colleagues here. So let me just very briefly ask to speak on a different issue.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, while Senator Hatch is still on the floor, I thank and congratulate him on his work with regard to the tax provisions we just voted on. I am a proud member of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch, working together in the best tradition of the Senate, were able to bring out an incredibly important bill that will add predictability to our Tax Code and to provide, I think, the right incentives for growth. I thank the Senator for the work, and I am proud to serve on the Finance Committee.

Mr. CARDIN. I am pleased to yield to my friend.

Mr. CARDIN. Once again, I thank my friend from Utah. We share a lot of the same objectives for a strong nation and moving our country forward. I think that is reflected in the bill we just voted on, the Omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier today I took the floor. Senator Cruz was here, and he raised an objection to a unanimous consent request that I had not yet made. I am not going to make that unanimous consent request, but I am going to mention, as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--and our Presiding Officer is one of the distinguished members of the committee--that there are 14 nominations that have been approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, some a long time ago, by unanimous vote. These are not controversial nominations. Each of the individuals is well qualified for the position. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Corker, reported these nominations out in a very timely way. Each of those in their own position is critically important to our national security. Having a confirmed ambassador in a country is critically important to our national security. Having the No. 4 person at the State Department confirmed is critically important in negotiating security issues. It is our responsibility to take these nominees up and to act on them and to confirm them so that we can have confirmed positions. I will just mention a few. As I said, I had given notice that I would ask unanimous consent, and Senator Cruz indicated that he would object and actually came to the floor to object. But we have to get this done. The reason we are not voting has nothing to do with these individuals--nothing, not one thing. These are qualified people. They are being held up for reasons unrelated to their important responsibilities to our country. Thomas Shannon, a career person, to the position of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. This is the point person who negotiates globally. Brian Egan to the position of State Department Legal Adviser. We all have questions on a lot of the legal issues on foreign policy, and yet we won't confirm a career person who has given his career to public service. David Robinson to the positions of Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations and Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. This is a person who we need to deal with a lot of the human rights issues. John Estrada to the post of U.S. Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago. Drug trafficking--we need a confirmed ambassador. For months and months and months they have been on the calendar and no action. Azita Raji to be Ambassador to Sweden and Samuel Heins to be Ambassador to Norway, our Scandinavian friends. I was at the State Department this week for the holiday reception with the heads of missions that are stationed in Washington. Ambassadors from other countries came up to me and said: Will we get a confirmed ambassador? It is affecting America's security and reputation, and we need to have confirmed ambassadors. Norway has gone 2 years without a confirmed ambassador. We have a person who is eminently qualified. There is no objection to Samuel Heins being confirmed. Yet we can't get a vet on the floor of the Senate because an individual Senator is objecting. That is wrong. We have a responsibility to act. David McKean to be Ambassador of Luxembourg, Cassandra Butts to be Ambassador to the Bahamas--that is eight of the total number who are being held that I mentioned. As I said, I intended to make the unanimous consent requests. Senator Cruz has already come to the floor to object. I regret that. I urge my colleagues to work out their problems, but do it in a timely way and don't hold America hostage, because that is what you are doing by not confirming these appointments. You are not holding the Obama administration hostage; you are holding America hostage. Who is hurt by not having a confirmed ambassador in Norway? There are Americans who get hurt who depend upon our relationship with Norway. There is a diaspora in the United States that is affected by not having a confirmed ambassador to Norway or to Sweden or to the other countries that we have not been able to get a confirmed ambassador. I urge my colleagues who have problems to enjoy the holiday, get some rest, and come back here ready to vote because I think that is what we were elected to do. I urge my colleagues to allow us, when we come back in January, to have votes on these very qualified people who are serving our country and are prepared to serve our country in a more significant way. Mr. President, I wish all my colleagues a very happy holiday season. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to join me in thanking Aiko Lane, a Brookings fellow from the Department of Defense, for her service to the Senate and to wish her well as she returns to the Pentagon. Before Aiko joined my office she was a policy adviser in the office of the Secretary of Defense focusing on countering weapons of mass destruction. She has also served as the Japan country director where she represented the Department of Defense on issues related to the U.S.-Japan alliance, including coordinating the U.S. response to Japan's 2011 devastating Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. Prior to her work on Japan, Aiko was the Afghanistan country director where she was responsible for engaging with international partners and allies on military support for the U.S. and NATO-led efforts in Afghanistan. Aiko, who received her undergraduate degree from Northwestern and a master's degree from Columbia, has been an important member of my foreign policy team over the last year, focusing much of her time and energy on my work as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy. Aiko's expertise in matters pertaining to East Asia and the Pacific and her solid advice and thoughtful analysis of all regional matters have been critical to me. Moreover, Aiko's hard work enabled the subcommittee to hold five hearings this year on matters ranging from democratic transitions in Southeast Asia to the North Korean nuclear threat. There is no question that the United States is fortunate to have people like Aiko representing Americans both at home and abroad. We here in the Senate will miss Aiko's extensive knowledge and extraordinary work ethic as she returns to the Department of Defense. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Aiko's husband, Haru, and their children, Callea and Kent, for sharing her with us this past year. The Senate schedule isn't always the most ``family friendly'' but Aiko has been able to juggle the competing demands masterfully. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Aiko Lane for her outstanding service to our Nation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have had the honor of being the ranking Democrat for the U.S. Senate on the Helsinki Commission. I work with Senator Wicker, who is the Senate chairman of the Helsinki Commission. The two of us have worked very hard on many issues. As I am sure everyone here knows, the Helsinki Commission is the implementing arm for U.S. participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--the OSCE. It is probably best known for its human rights basket. It does deal with security, military security. It does deal with economic and environmental security. But I think it is best known for its human rights and the impact human rights have on the security of the OSCE region. In March of this year, the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mr. Ilkka Kanerva, appointed me to serve as the assembly's first special representative on anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance. Since that time, I have focused my work on the urgent issue of anti-Semitism and community security, anti-Muslim bigotry, and discriminatory policing. So let me share with my colleagues the work I have done this year on behalf of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and on behalf of all Members of the Senate. My appointment came after horrific back-to-back terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen in January and February. In both instances, Jewish institutions were targeted--a kosher supermarket in Paris and a synagogue in Copenhagen. In both instances, some symbol associated with free speech was also attacked. In Paris, a murderous rampage was unleashed against the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. In Copenhagen, a conference on free speech, where a Danish cartoonist was among the speakers, was attacked. I subsequently visited both cities, along with Senator Wicker and Representative Aderholt, fellow members of the Helsinki Commission. Following our trip, I authored Senate provisions to increase State Department funding to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination in Europe and cosponsored Senator Menendez's resolution on anti-Semitism. That resolution supports national strategies to combat and monitor anti-Semitism and hate crimes, including training law enforcement and collecting relevant data. I am pleased that our State Department has advanced many of the efforts outlined in these legislative provisions through OSCE and civil society initiatives. I have also focused on the problem of discriminatory policing. This summer, Hungary's Commissioner for Fundamental Rights issued an important report on community policing in Hungary's second largest city, Miskolc. He concluded that police had participated in mass, raid-like joint controls, executed with local government authorities, public utility providers, and other public institutions, without explicit legal authorization and predominantly in segregated areas inhabited mostly by Roma. In short, police targeted Roma for harassment, fines, and daily indignities. For those of us who listened to Attorney General Holder present the Department of Justice's report on Ferguson last March, the Hungarian Commissioner's report has the feeling of deja vu--many differences, to be sure, but similar in that critical community confidence in law enforcement has been abused and damaged. I have sought to address these issues with several pieces of legislation, including S. 1056, the End Racial Profiling Act; S. 1610, officially named the BALTIMORE Act, Building and Lifting Trust in Order to Multiply Opportunities in Racial Equality, and S. 2168, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act. Among other provisions, these laws would ban racial profiling by State and local law enforcement, establish mandatory data collection and reporting, and address the issues of police accountability and building trust between police departments and communities by providing incentives for local police organizations to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to reduce misconduct. In the OSCE, where discriminatory policing issues have been documented from the United Kingdom and France to Russia, I have urged the chair-in-office to hold a high-level meeting on racism and xenophobia focused on concrete action. Following the most recent tragedies in Paris and San Bernardino, there has been a backlash of hatred directed against the asylum seekers, immigrants, and Muslims in many OSCE countries, often fueled by populist or extremist parties, such as Le Pen in France, UKIP in Great Britain, the True Finns in Finland, Swedish Democrats, Austrian Freedom Party, or Golden Dawn in Greece. Worse still, this kind of xenophobia bleeds into the discourse of mainstream parties. As such, I will add an increased focus on prejudice and discrimination linked with the migration and refugee crisis to my priorities. In addition to focusing on anti-Semitism and discriminatory policing and the anti-Muslim backlash, I will also look at the protection of migrants and refugees, as that is becoming an area of discrimination that is troubling in the OSCE region--including in our own country of the United States. I am particularly troubled by the spike in violence in our own country directed at houses of worship and community centers--fueled by escalating anti-Muslim discourse. In Palm Beach, FL, vandals broke all the windows at the Islamic Center, ransacked the prayer room, and left bloody stains throughout the center. That cannot be tolerated in our country. A number of mosques have reported receiving death threats or messages of hate. A pig's head was thrown at a Philadelphia mosque, shots were fired at a mosque in Connecticut, and a fake bomb was left at a Virginia mosque not far from where we are here today in the U.S. Capitol. I disagree in the most emphatic way possible with those who would have us call for excluding people from this country based on their faith, and limiting political participation based on religion. That is not who we are. Those are not our values. The images of Jewish refugees on SS St. Louis turned away, port after port, many of whom ultimately perished in death camps, and the image of American citizens, including children, imprisoned in internment camps solely because of their race, are dark corners of our own history. We must be careful not to retread that path. It is one reason I question those who describe terrorism as a Muslim problem. Such statements prevent our communities from working together against a common threat. The slaughter of schoolchildren in Columbine, the massacre of churchgoers in Charleston, and the Oklahoma City bombings were not White problems just because the perpetrators were White; neither should the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino be distilled as Muslim problems. Radicalization is a very real problem that currently tries to exploit the Muslim community, but it is our problem--Muslims Jews, Christians, Whites, Latinos, Blacks, all Americans--to all come together to solve this problem. When I see the young people who engaged in these horrible acts, I question why they were susceptible to such great untruths that would allow them to harm themselves and others. No family should have to lose their mother, son, or cousin to mass shootings. No family should have to live with the fear that their loved ones were the perpetrators of mass violence. We must work together to guard against such ideologies that would steal our young people from us. Given that the United States is historically a nation built upon immigration and the tenets of religious freedom, Americans have long lived alongside others and have seen people of different faiths live together in peace. Muslims have lived in America since the colonial days and served under the command of George Washington. There are an estimated 5,900 Muslims who currently serve in our armed services defending our country and our way of life. When the Supreme Court ruled this summer in favor of a young Muslim woman who allegedly suffered employment discrimination because of her head scarf, Justice Scalia announced the 8-to-1 decision, noting, ``This is really easy.'' Neither immigrants nor Muslims are new to our shores. Islam is also not new to Europe. Europe's own historic relationship with the rest of the globe has set the stage for ties that have long served as the backbone of prosperity for the Western world. Europeans have created a presence throughout the world--and that is a two-way street. Many countries in the OSCE region, including our own, therefore have a learned history of integration that can be useful in addressing the increasing diversity stemming from the refugee crisis and changing demographics. Given the conflicts that have forced mass displacement and migration, we should support long-term inclusion and integration efforts at the national, regional, and local level throughout the OSCE region-- especially with the leaders of humanitarian efforts for Syrian and other refugees--such as what is being done today in Turkey, Germany, Sweden, Austria, and OSCE partner states such as Jordan and Lebanon. They are taking on tremendous burdens for the refugees because they know it is the right thing to do. They need partners, including the United States. The successful integration of immigrants and refugees--including access to quality housing, education, employment, and public services-- facilitates meaningful intellectual, economic, and other contributions of migrants and refugees that are especially critical for children. These are areas in which our nations should exchange experts and information. Earlier this year, I introduced provisions in the Senate for a Joint Action Plan between the United States and the European Union to formulize and coordinate public and private sector anti-discrimination and inclusion efforts. We need diverse coalitions working together to address the momentous threats we face today. This includes leading by example by providing factual information about refugees and immigrants and publicly addressing narratives of hate. It is in that spirit that I will continue to work with other parliamentarians and with the administration to combat anti-Semitism, racism, and other forms of intolerance in the United States and elsewhere in the OSCE region. I will do that as the special representative of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and I will do that as a U.S. Senator. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I had the opportunity of heading a delegation this past weekend of 10 Senators who went to Paris for the COP21 talks, the climate change talks taking place in Paris. I was very proud of our delegation consisting of Senator Whitehouse, Senator Franken, Senator Markey, Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, Senator Shaheen, Senator Coons, Senator Booker, and Senator Schatz. All of us participated in the meetings that took place in Paris. We were impressed that 150 leaders of the world were in Paris at one time to show their support for a successful outcome on climate change and to express their urgency for dealing with this issue. I think it was a strong followup to the challenge Pope Francis gave all of us as to the moral challenge of our time to protect our planet for future generations. At the meeting in Paris, we recognized that our global health is at stake. Whether we are talking about our individual States--and I could talk about the people on Smith Island, as their island is disappearing, or the health of the Chesapeake Bay, and my colleagues in the western part of this country could talk about the wildfires and what is happening there. In Asia, we see climate migrants as a result of climate change. In Greenland, we see the glaciers disappearing. Every nation is at risk as a result of global climate change, and that is why 150 leaders went to Paris. The objective is clear. We had a chance to talk to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. He made it clear that our goal at a minimum should be to reduce the increase in warming by 2 degrees Celsius. That is doable. The scientists tell us we can do it. And if we do, we will have a healthier planet, we will create more jobs, and not only America but the world will be more secure. It was clear that U.S. leadership was critically important to that moment in Paris. President Obama, in getting China and other countries to submit action plans, encouraged over 180 countries that are participating in the Paris talks to submit their own action plans to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. That represents over 97 percent of the world's emitters. As I mentioned, we met with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. We all met with former Vice President Al Gore. I think we all were inspired by his lifelong dedication to this issue. We had a chance to meet with U.S. lead negotiator Todd Stern, who updated us on what was happening. We were particularly impressed with Secretary Moniz, our Secretary of Energy. He had earlier announced, with other world energy leaders, an innovation initiative showing how we can use U.S. technology to make it easier for the world to meet their goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time create more jobs in America. It was an impressive display. We had a chance to meet with local leaders. Mayor Bloomberg convened a summit of mayors. I was proud that my mayor from Baltimore City, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, was there. My colleagues participated in bilateral meetings of other countries to encourage them to be aggressive in submitting their obligations and how we could follow up and make sure we achieve our goals. It was clear that Paris is heading toward a successful agreement, and it will have U.S. support. We mentioned our commitment to carry not just our individual commitment but to be part of the global agreements in Paris. We pointed out that in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified by the U.S. Senate. This is the legal basis for moving forward. We also pointed out that our obligations to comply with our own commitments are controlled by the Clean Air Act, which is the law of our country. We pointed out the actions taken by the Obama administration. We also pointed out that 69 percent of Americans agree that we should have a multilateral commitment to reduce our carbon emissions. It was clear to us that by working together, we can have a healthier planet for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Udall, one of the great leaders on the environment and a very active member of our delegation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that some of my colleagues want to talk about our visit to Paris, but I understand Senator Hatch will be on the floor at 2:45 p.m. and we are recessing at 3 o'clock. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be recognized for up to 5 minutes between now and 2:45 p.m., but it may not be in this order: Senator Cardin, Senator Schatz, Senator Udall, Senator Shaheen, Senator Merkley, Senator Markey, and Senator Coons.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today is International Anti-Corruption Day. As the United States works to support good governance and anti- corruption efforts around the world, I wish to highlight one country, Ukraine, where these efforts are vital to the future viability of that state. The U.S. Congress has stood by the people of Ukraine since the Maidan demonstrations in November of 2013. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed two landmark pieces of legislation that are now law. This sent a clear signal to Kiev, Moscow, and the capitals of Europe that the United States stands squarely for the development, democratic aspirations, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine and its people. However, Ukraine's political leadership must also continue to hold up its end of the bargain. Ukraine is a country that has been plagued for many years by weak democratic institutions and rampant corruption. This internal threat of corrupt institutions poses the greatest long-term threat to Ukraine's future. Ukraine's reformers have made some progress. Last year Ukraine ratified an association agreement with the EU, which includes extensive commitments to governance reforms. The Parliament adopted a broad package of anti-corruption laws and established a set of institutions to fight corruption. The government made changes to the tax and budget codes and is starting to clean up its banking system. The government has also made reforms of the energy sector a top priority, adopting legislation to harmonize its natural gas markets with the EU's and raising tariffs to incentivize more efficient energy usage. Importantly, on Monday, November 30, a new special anti-corruption prosecutor was appointed with the backing of the civil society, which is a big step forward in the fight against corruption. Despite progress on these fronts, much work remains, and the political commitment to combat corruption among Ukraine's leaders is uneven. I acknowledge the pressure faced by the government. We all want to support Ukraine's positive path, but the Ukrainian people need more concrete anti-corruption results--not just legislation, not just commissions, as important as these are, but actual results. For example, there remain thousands of allegedly corrupt officials in the judicial branch, where judges and prosecutors are susceptible to bribes. While corruption in Ukraine's legal system cannot be resolved overnight, I urge Ukrainian officials to take measures that would remove these most egregious violators from the judicial branch and prosecutorial ranks and to retrain those who are not corrupt to build the next generation of jurists. The Government of Ukraine has taken positive steps in this regard, including the establishment of a constitutional commission tasked with recalibrating the checks and balances between the judiciary and the rest of the government. In September, the commission submitted new draft amendments to the Constitution on the justice system. However, concerns remain regarding the independence and integrity of the judicial institutions, including the newly established institution, the High Council of Justice, or HCJ, which has been called the ``gatekeeper to the court system.'' It is critical that the civil society and watchdog organizations are empowered to continue their work of holding the HCJ and elected officials accountable to ensure that any weakness in the checks and balances of the judicial system are not exploited for personal gain. I am also concerned about the process for vetting the current pool of judges. The Government of Ukraine is developing standards for judicial reappointment, which will be conducted by the HCJ. This process will test the political will of both the Government of Ukraine and the HCJ itself. Unfortunately, initial results are not positive. As of June of this year, the HCJ had received 2,200 complaints of judicial misconduct. Of this number, only 47 judges were disciplined and none were dismissed. Ukrainian citizens expect a clean government that abides by the rule of law. In July, I wrote to President Poroshenko, urging him to make anti-corruption reforms a priority by considering the appointment of a special anti-corruption prosecutor and special anti-corruption courts. While the government recently selected a special anti-corruption prosecutor with the backing of the civil society, the government must now ensure that this office remains free from state influence and interference to fulfill its mandate to root out corruption within Ukraine. I commend President Poroshenko for listening to the demands of civil society and amending the composition of the selection committee to include two candidates backed by civil society, which led to the selection of Nazar Kholodnytskiy. This was a step in the right direction. However, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine itself is still woefully understaffed, which impacts its ability to fulfill its mandate to prosecute corrupt acts. I call on the Government of Ukraine to ensure that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine is fully staffed and prosecuting cases without delay. Polls show that most Ukrainians confront petty corruption in their daily lives, and our focus on corruption at the national level should not diminish the importance of programming that addresses corruption at the municipal and local levels. The Government of Ukraine must invest in training and education to identify and root out petty corruption in higher education, health care, and law enforcement. A clear commitment to attacking corruption in health care, education, and law enforcement within a measurable framework will pay dividends for citizens across the country and will help to restore faith in Ukraine's democratic institutions. The United States is prepared to make a long-term commitment to Ukraine and, along with our European partners, we can provide support to Ukraine's efforts to tackle corruption within the judiciary, the civil service, and law enforcement while preparing these institutions to attract and retain talented individuals who are committed to eradicating graft and entitlement. I firmly believe that Ukraine could be a case study for how a country with the political will can work with the international community to root out pervasive corruption, but that political will must manifest itself concretely and soon. When you look at public opinion polls in Ukraine, fighting corruption is the Ukrainian people's No. 1 demand. On this International Anti-Corruption Day, I look forward to supporting Ukraine's leaders if they are willing and committed to answering this demand. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate a truly bipartisan, bicameral accomplishment. For the first time in 14 years, Congress is on the precipice of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. First enacted 50 years ago as a part of the civil rights era, this legislation sought to ensure all children, regardless of ZIP code, were able to obtain a high-quality education. The latest reauthorization of ESEA was signed into law in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind, NCLB, Act. Due for reauthorization since 2007, an entire generation of students have matriculated through our Nation's public school system under this Federal education policy while reforms have been desperately needed. I am proud of the compromises that Senate HELP Committee Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray were able to craft together starting back in January and for the tireless work of their staffs to get us to this point we are at today. Ensuring access to a high-quality education is one of the most important duties of Federal, State, and local governments. While Congress enacted the NCLB Act with the best of intentions and a comforting name, in reality the red tape and overreliance on the Federal assessments it codified have left far too many children behind since its passage. In the years leading up to today, I have heard from parents concerned about the pressure their children feel when taking certain assessments, I have been disheartened to hear educators in my State say that they are falling out of love with teaching with consistently changing mandates and the unpredictability of high stakes testing, and I have met with education leaders who are trying to make the best of an untenable situation. All of those involved in education--from students, parents, educators, school support personnel, education leaders, volunteers, and organizations which hold our schools accountable to ensure every child obtains a high-quality education-- deserve to move on from the failed NCLB Act. I have often heard from educators in my State who stress that a child is more than a single or collective set of test scores. I am pleased the Every Child Achieves Act, ECAA, will replace the Federal, one-size- fits-all ``adequate yearly progress'' accountability system and allow States to design their own accountability systems to identify, monitor, and assist schools. Rather than relying on a collective set of test scores to determine student performance, accountability systems will be able to take into consideration student growth over the course of a school year. States will be able to consider multiple measures of student learning, including access to academic resources, school climate and safety, access to support personnel, and other measures which can allow for differentiation in student performance. All of this will be done while ensuring that students are held to the high yet achievable standard of being college- and career-ready upon completion of high school. I am proud that the ECAA recognizes that, to support a successful student, schools should support the whole child, both physically and mentally. The approved bill includes a provision I coauthored with Senator Roy Blunt that will allow schools in low-income areas to use Federal resources under title I to provide school-based mental health programs. School-based mental health programs have been proven to increase educational outcomes, decrease absences, and improve student assessments. The ECAA also makes an effort to ensure students in our Nation have a deeper understanding of how our government functions, and I would like to thank Senators Chuck Grassley and Sheldon Whitehouse for working with me to modify the american history and civics title of ECAA to accomplish this goal. Our provision allows evidence-based civic and government education programs that emphasize the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, to receive Federal funding for expansion and dissemination for voluntary use. For too long, a singular focus on assessments pushed out other important subjects like these which ensure a student receives a well- rounded education. My home State of Maryland has made a commitment to funding education adequately over the past decade that has allowed Maryland to be a consistent national leader in student performance and student outcomes. Each day, our State's nearly 875,000 students make their way to the classrooms of more than 60,000 educators and thousands more support personnel and education leaders in nearly 1,446 Maryland schools. I appreciate the service of educators not only from the perspective of a lawmaker, father, and grandfather, but also as a husband of a teacher. I appreciate my colleague Senator Barbara Mikulski, for standing with me to prevent a proposal from Senator Richard Burr from being included in the final conference report which would have harmed Maryland's hardest to serve low-income students. Senator Burr's proposal would have reduced Maryland's share of title I-A funding for educating low- income children by $40 million per year, punishing States like Maryland that have made the decision to make proper investments in funding education for our children. Thanks to the work of Senator Mikulski and a strong coalition of members from similar States, the final conference report does not include this provision. The legislative process is about comprise. In many respects, this bill is a vast improvement over the No Child Left Behind Act, and the hard work of HELP Committee Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, House Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline, and Ranking Member Bobby Scott have led us to this point. However, work remains to address a current lack of protections to make our schools safer places for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, LGBT, students. In addition, Congress must not repeat the same mistakes we learned from under the NCLB Act by underfunding our Nation's public schools. I stand ready to work with Members from both parties to ensure that all Americans can obtain a high-quality education.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act of 2015, which I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Heller. This bipartisan, no-cost legislation would allow occupational therapists to perform the initial home health assessment in cases in which occupational therapy is ordered by the physician, along with speech language pathology and/or physical therapy services, and skilled nursing care is not required, ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries receive timely access to essential home health therapy services. Occupational therapy is frequently ordered as part of a physician's plan of care for patients requiring home health services, and, under certain circumstances, an occupational therapist is allowed to perform the comprehensive assessment to determine a Medicare beneficiary's continuing need for home health therapy services. However, under current Medicare law, occupational therapists are not permitted to conduct the initial assessment for home health cases, even when occupational therapy is included in the physician's order and when the case is exclusively related to rehabilitation therapy. By permitting occupational therapists to perform initial home health assessments in limited circumstances, the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act can help prevent delays in Medicare beneficiaries receiving essential home health therapy services, especially in areas where access to physical therapists and speech language pathologists may be limited. It is important to note that this legislation would apply only to rehabilitation therapy cases in which skilled nursing care is not required. Nurses would still be required to conduct the initial assessment for all home health cases in which skilled nursing care is ordered by the physician. Also, although the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act would allow occupational therapists to conduct initial home health assessments, it would not alter the existing criteria for establishing eligibility for the Medicare home health benefit. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller in supporting the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act, which will help ensure timely access to essential home health therapy services for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act of 2015, which I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Heller. This bipartisan, no-cost legislation would allow occupational therapists to perform the initial home health assessment in cases in which occupational therapy is ordered by the physician, along with speech language pathology and/or physical therapy services, and skilled nursing care is not required, ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries receive timely access to essential home health therapy services. Occupational therapy is frequently ordered as part of a physician's plan of care for patients requiring home health services, and, under certain circumstances, an occupational therapist is allowed to perform the comprehensive assessment to determine a Medicare beneficiary's continuing need for home health therapy services. However, under current Medicare law, occupational therapists are not permitted to conduct the initial assessment for home health cases, even when occupational therapy is included in the physician's order and when the case is exclusively related to rehabilitation therapy. By permitting occupational therapists to perform initial home health assessments in limited circumstances, the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act can help prevent delays in Medicare beneficiaries receiving essential home health therapy services, especially in areas where access to physical therapists and speech language pathologists may be limited. It is important to note that this legislation would apply only to rehabilitation therapy cases in which skilled nursing care is not required. Nurses would still be required to conduct the initial assessment for all home health cases in which skilled nursing care is ordered by the physician. Also, although the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act would allow occupational therapists to conduct initial home health assessments, it would not alter the existing criteria for establishing eligibility for the Medicare home health benefit. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller in supporting the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act, which will help ensure timely access to essential home health therapy services for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.