Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, shortly I will be asking consent to advance certain nominations of the President for confirmation by the Senate. I do that in my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There are seven that I will bring up today, but there are many more waiting for action. Seven represents some of these nominees. There are others waiting for action. What these seven all have in common--all seven--is that they are well qualified for the position, they have gone through the process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--the committee of jurisdiction--they have had hearings, there have been questions asked, the vetting has been done, and they have cleared the committee by unanimous vote. There is no reason to withhold their confirmation when looking at their qualifications for the positions they have been nominated for. In some cases, these nominees have been waiting as long as 6 months for confirmation on the floor of the Senate. In each of these instances, we are talking about confirming individuals to positions that have importance for our national security and that will be directly involved in protecting our country. Recent events only underscore the importance to have confirmed executive nominees to handle the challenges that are brought before our country. Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 375 Let me start by first mentioning Tom Shannon. Tom Shannon has been nominated to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and is the Department's fourth ranking official, responsible for the management of six regional bureaus of the Department as well as the Bureau of International Organization Affairs. This is a tremendously important leadership position on key national security issues. Among the many issues with which the Under Secretary will contend, we have the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. This is the person who is responsible within the State Department as its top management, and I think every Member of the Senate wants to see this implementation done in a way that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. This individual also will be monitoring the civil wars raging in Syria, Libya and Yemen, which we know have a major impact on the voids created that allow ISIL to be able to gain footholds. The growing turmoil in Venezuela, the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and the need to ensure the full implementation of the Minsk agreement, as it relates to Ukraine, are all on the plate of the person who holds this position. Tom Shannon has been nominated and has gone through the process. He has received the full support of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is a seasoned diplomat. We are fortunate that Ambassador Tom Shannon, a career member of our diplomatic corps who is held in universal respect and esteem by his colleagues, has been nominated to this position. Few diplomats have served our Nation under both Republican and Democratic administrations with as much integrity and ability. In his current role as Counselor of the Department, he provides the Secretary with his insight and advice on a wide range of issues. He has previously served as Ambassador to Brazil, as Assistant Secretary of State, as Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council, and in challenging posts in Venezuela and South Africa, among others. He has also served as Acting Secretary for Political Affairs. So he already has the experience and the job training in order to accomplish this. So as I said, there has been no objection raised as far as his qualifications and the need to confirm this appointment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 375; 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's comments come off Republican time.

Mr. CARDIN. This is your time, not our time.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I certainly understand the right of the Senator to object. I would just hope that this could be resolved. It is not about the State Department being put at a disadvantage by not having these confirmed positions; it is the American people. These are security positions for which we have to have representatives, and not only of the State Department. As I go through these nominations, we will be talking about the Legal Adviser at the Department of State, and we will be talking about ambassadors. Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 204 Next, Madam President, let me mention Brian Egan to be State Department Legal Adviser. The Legal Adviser is the principal adviser to the Department of State on all legal matters, domestic and international, arising in the context of the work of the Secretary of State and the Department as a whole. The Legal Adviser also advises the President and the National Security Council, as well as other Federal agencies, on all legal matters involving the conduct of foreign relations. I think we are all familiar with the challenges we have that are raised every day in the Senate--issues raised about whether this is legally acceptable or not. We really should have a confirmed Legal Adviser to the State Department in order to respond to the concerns not only of the Congress but of the American people and our international partners. Like Ambassador Shannon, Mr. Eagan has also served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. He entered public service in 2005 as a civil servant in the Office of Legal Adviser of the State Department, which was headed at the time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He has worked in the private sector. He has served as Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence at the Treasury Department. He has served on the National Security Council staff. His is a nonpartisan, fairminded individual who clearly has the skills and ability to advise our policymakers well and lead the Office of Legal Adviser. He has been waiting since June for floor action. This is not a matter that just recently came to the floor of the Senate. He has been waiting since June. It has now been 6 months. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 204; 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. Madam President, I next would like to address the nomination of David Robinson to the position of Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations. The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations has an important role to play in helping the Department of State to address the multiplying violent conflicts around the world and the rise of violent extremist groups. I don't have to tell this body how many challenges we have globally in conflicts dealing with extremists. This is the key person to deal with this issue. Ambassador Robinson clearly has the background and skills to excel in the position for which he has been nominated. He is a career diplomat. This is a career diplomat. This is a person who at an early age went into service for our country--at great risk, as we know. With over 30 years of experience, he currently serves as the Principal Deputy High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he oversees the implementation of the peace agreement that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has served both Democratic and Republican administrations far and wide under dangerous and demanding circumstances. He was the Assistant Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Ambassador Robinson has served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Populations, Refugees, and Migration, and as U.S. Ambassador to Guyana from 2006 to 2008, and as Deputy Chief of Mission in Guyana and Paraguay. This is a highly qualified individual, a career diplomat who has shown his commitment and dedication to serving our country. The position he has been nominated for is a critically important position at this time in our history. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 332 and 333; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Azita Raji has been nominated for Ambassador to Sweden and Samuel Heins as Ambassador to Norway. Having representatives on the ground in Scandinavian countries is urgently needed. Both Sweden and Norway are key strategic allies and members of the Arctic Council. Russia's recent military activities in the Arctic and its disputed territorial claims in vast stretches of waters make the presence of a strong American voice in Sweden and Norway essential. Moreover, nearly 300 Swedish citizens have left to fight in Syria or Iraq, making it the second largest country of origin per capita for foreign fighters in Europe. Put simply, we need representation in Stockholm and Oslo to protect the U.S. strategic interests abroad. I particularly want to note the close ties and deep friendship the United States and Norway have, symbolized by the 32-foot Christmas tree at Union Station that is annually gifted to the American people by Norway, their gratitude for U.S. assistance during and after World War II. Norway is a founding member of NATO alliance and has been more than diligent in attending to its obligations. It has contributed personnel to NATO's operations in Afghanistan, Libya, and the Balkans. Its former Prime Minister currently serves as the 13th Secretary General of NATO. Just this year, Norway assumed leadership responsibilities for NATO's air-policing mission over the Baltic States and is participating in a large-scale NATO anti-submarine exercise. I am also pleased to note that these nominees for these critical positions have incredible backgrounds. Neither were controversial during the consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Azita Raji is an accomplished businesswoman with impressive international credentials. She was the vice president of J.P. Morgan Securities in New York, Tokyo, and Japan. She speaks five languages and has published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Samuel Heins is not only a highly respected lawyer in his home State of Minnesota, but with over 40 years of legal experience he is also a distinguished human rights advocate. He founded Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. He was a private citizen member of the 2011 U.S. mission to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and has won human rights awards. Samuel Heins has been waiting for 200 days. This is not a recent matter. Azita Raji has been waiting almost a year for confirmation. These are people who are ready to serve our country, critical allies. Mr. President, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 148; 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. This is the Azita Raji nomination

Mr. CARDIN. Let me remind our colleagues we are talking about the Ambassador to Sweden. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 263; 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. This is the Samuel Heins nomination.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to address the nomination of Cassandra Butts to the post to be Ambassador to the Bahamas. Cassandra Butts is currently a senior advisor to the CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in Washington, DC. She is a leading attorney and former Deputy White House Counsel. She is known for her expertise in both domestic and foreign policy, particularly in economic development and migration policy, due to her work on the board of the National Immigration Forum. I am confident she will apply these essential skills to the task of furthering the bilateral relationships between the Government of the Bahamas, a key U.S. Caribbean partner. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 127; 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, the nominees I went through unanimous consent requests--all are important to our national security. We are talking about Ambassadors. We are talking about career people whom we depend upon for advice, for handling conflict areas. It is in our national security interests to get these nominees confirmed. They have been held up for as long as a year in some cases. I understand the right of individual Senators. I urge my colleagues, we have a responsibility to act on these nominations. I urge my colleagues to work with us. I applaud Senator Corker. He has moved these nominations through the committee. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to work with us so we can get these individuals serving our country. They are public servants and they deserve our consideration.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2913.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am not going to ask for a record vote on this amendment, and I hope that will help others try to move the process along. This amendment is very similar to the next amendment, the Coats amendment, in that it is a clear indication that the Democrats understand that we want to extend the medical expense deduction of 7.5 percent threshold to seniors, which expires at the end of 2016. The difference is that we don't believe it should be paid for on the backs of our seniors, and that is why this amendment would have it paid for by a minimum tax of 30 percent on those who earn over $1 million dollars, the so-called Buffett rule. The Coats amendment that is coming up next is on the backs of seniors by denying the indexing of the $85,000 threshold for seniors to pay the additional Medicare premiums. I will have a chance to talk about that in a moment, but this amendment allows us to extend the medical expense deduction of 7.5 percent threshold but does it without attacking our seniors.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment because of how it is paid for. Seniors who have $85,000 of income have to pay a higher Part B premium today. We have indexed that because, as I think Members on both sides of the aisle agree, we believe that brackets should have that type of index so that our seniors are protected from inflationary growth. The problem with the Coats amendment is that he removes that index through 2025. This is an attack on our seniors. There is no way that we should be paying for this worthwhile extender. I don't disagree with the extender, but I do take exception with paying for it on the backs of our seniors, and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the highway trust fund, HTF, and the conference report we will be considering shortly to accompany the surface transportation reauthorization bill, which is called the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, FAST Act. First, I am pleased to see that this bill provides 5 years of funding for our Nation's transportation infrastructure. That is the kind of long-range certainty our State and local officials and the private sector need to plan transportation infrastructure projects in a thoughtful and responsible way. While there are many excellent provisions in the bill, I do have significant concerns about the way our Nation's surface transportation infrastructure is being funded. First, I will speak about the policy within the bill. I am pleased that the conference committee has retained this Nation's commitment to transportation alternatives. This bill includes more than $4 billion for bike and pedestrian infrastructure, making our roads safer for everyone who uses them. My bill creating a dedicated program for nonmotorized safety is also included in the reauthorization, which will support things like bike safety training programs for both bicyclists and drivers, again making our streets safer for all who use them. Furthermore, the section 5340 bus program has been kept intact. This program is for high-density areas like Baltimore and Washington, DC, which cannot simply widen a road to accommodate extra travelers. The FAST Act provides more than $2.7 billion to high-density areas. This is significant for Maryland in particular. Over the life of this bill, Maryland should receive more than $4.4 billion in Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration, FTA, funding combined. That is an extraordinary amount of funding for a State that sorely needs it. I am concerned, however, that the FAST Act undermines the public input, environmental analysis, and judicial review guaranteed under the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. If Congress wants Federal agencies to approve more permits faster, then we should appropriate the requisite funds for sufficient staff and other necessary resources. We should not undermine the integrity of important project reviews. Moreover, the argument that the permitting process takes too long is a red herring. More than 95 percent of all FHWA-approved projects involve no significant impacts and therefore have limited NEPA requirements. If we really want to speed project development, we should recognize the known causes of delay and not use this bill as a Trojan horse to dismantle our Nation's foundational environmental laws. So while I support many of the policies in the bill, I am still very concerned about the impact it will have on our environment. While I have mixed feelings about the policies in this bill, I am not conflicted with regard to how it is funded. I am extremely disappointed in the hodgepodge of questionable pay-fors that we are using in this bill. We certainly needed to address the problem of funding our Nation's highway and transit systems beyond the myriad short-term extensions that Congress has approved in the past. But instead of opting for a reliable and permanent future revenue stream to pay for this critical government function, the FAST Act falls back on provisions completely unrelated to highways and mass transit. It relies on one-time pay-fors that are simply digging a deeper hole for the next reauthorization. That is a troublesome precedent. I think we have missed an opportunity here to stick to the ``user pays'' principle with regard to the Federal gasoline excise tax, which hasn't been raised since 1993. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the tax would fully fund the bill for 5 years. Gasoline prices are plunging around the country, with the national average falling in 24 out of the past 30 days, according to the American Automobile Association, AAA, earlier this week. The price of a gallon of regular gasoline now stands at $2.04 nationally, down 14 cents compared to 1 month ago and 74 cents lower than this time last year. AAA officials and others anticipate that the national average price will dip below the $2.00 threshold within a matter of days. So, as I said, I think we may be missing an opportunity here to put surface transportation infrastructure funding back on a solid foundation, appropriately based on the ``user pays'' principle. It is also important from a policy perspective that we price carbon more appropriately to reflect its total costs, promote fuel efficiency, and accelerate the absolutely essential shift from fossil fuels to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. Lower gasoline prices let motorists keep more money in their pockets in the short term. But we have to think about the long term, too, and if we needlessly delay making that inevitable shift, the long-term costs to human health and the environment will dwarf any perceived short-term gains. There is one so-called offset in the bill that I adamantly oppose: the use of private collection agencies, PCAs, to collect tax debt. I oppose this provision not only because it simply will not raise revenue but also because it is terrible tax policy that puts a target on the back of low-income and middle-class families. The Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and the National Taxpayer Advocate all join me in opposing this provision. The Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, scores this provision at over $2.0 billion over 10 years, but since JCT only takes into account incoming and outgoing tax revenue, its score doesn't take into account the IRS's implementation and oversight costs and the opportunity costs of farming collections out to private collectors. Twice before, from 1996 to 1997 and from 2006 to 2009, Congress required Treasury to turn over some tax collection efforts to PCAs with miserable results. The first attempt resulted in the loss of $17 million and contractors participating were found to have violated the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act. Under legislation enacted in 2004, the IRS again attempted to use PCAs to collect Federal taxes in 2006. In September of that year, the IRS began turning over delinquent taxpayer accounts to three PCAs who were permitted to keep between 21- 24 percent of the money they collected. While the program was supposed to bring in up to $2.2 billion in unpaid taxes, data from the IRS showed that the program actually resulted in a net loss of almost $4.5 million to the Federal Government after subtracting $86.2 million in administration costs and more than $16 million in commissions to the PCAs. In analyzing the PCA offset last year, the IRS prepared a preliminary estimate of the percentage of individual taxpayers who have ``inactive tax receivables'' that would be subject to private debt collection and who are low-income. After reviewing collection data for fiscal year 2013, the IRS found that 79 percent of the cases that fell into the ``inactive tax receivables'' category involved taxpayers with incomes below 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. So nearly four-fifths of delinquent taxpayers were almost surely in the ``can't pay'' category and would be unlikely to make payments when contacted by a PCA instead of the IRS. Not only are low-income taxpayers more vulnerable to begin with, PCAs actually provide fewer options for them to meet their tax obligations. IRS employees, unlike the PCAs, have a variety of tools at their disposal they can use to help delinquent taxpayers meet their tax obligations, especially those facing financial difficulties. These tools include the ability to postpone, extend, or suspend collection activities for limited periods of time; making available flexible payment schedules that provide for skipped or reduced monthly payments under certain circumstances; the possibility of waiving late penalties or postponing asset seizures; and offers in compromise, OIC, which are agreements between struggling taxpayers and the IRS that settle tax debts for less than the full amount owed. In contrast, the PCAs' sole interest is to collect from a taxpayer the balance due amount they have been provided. They have no interest in whether the taxpayer owes other taxes or may not have filed required returns. They cannot provide any advice or use any of the tools IRS employees have, such as extensions or offers in compromise. In October, I joined 15 other Senators--including several of my Finance Committee colleagues and Ranking Member Wyden--in signing a letter the senior Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, sent to leadership on the dangers and shortcomings of this provision. Unfortunately, our message was not heard. So, because we refuse to turn to obvious and commonsense financing solutions for our transportation infrastructure problems, we have decided instead to use an offset that has historically lost money, all on the backs of low-income taxpayers. Mr. President, the FAST Act conference report is a bipartisan, bicameral achievement. I congratulate the House and Senate conferees for reaching an agreement; I know it has been an arduous process. The reauthorization contains many good provisions and provides 5 years of desperately needed funding for our Nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure. I will vote for the conference report, but I will do so with serious reservations about how this bill is funded. Our surface transportation infrastructure is a crucial component of our national security and economic competitiveness. Reauthorizing our surface transportation programs used to be a relatively routine matter; now it is becoming harder and harder to do and we are relying more and more on gimmicky funding mechanisms. These are worrisome precedents.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, my highest priority is America's security. Let me share with my colleagues how the climate change summit that is taking place in Paris affects global and U.S. security. Climate change is a global problem. Global problems require global solutions. As negotiators from over 180 nations gather in Paris, I think it is important that the Senate take note of this historic moment--when all countries, developed and developing, are finally coming together to tackle the global threat of climate change. The achievement of a new international agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris is our chance to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy a safer, healthier, and more prosperous world. Time is running out for us to act. As world leaders gather to find cooperative solutions to combating climate change, I am reminded of the message of Pope Francis's Climate Change Encyclical and the environmental crisis facing our planet. Let me quote from Pope Francis. The urgent challenge to protect our common home includes a concern to bring the whole human family together to seek a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change. . . . I urgently appeal, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all. . . . Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political, and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Pope Francis is correct. World leaders are heeding the Holy See's call for collective action, and for the first time in history, we are on the cusp of reaching an agreement where all countries will commit to doing their fair share to lower greenhouse gases. Now, 187 nations representing 97 percent of the global carbon emitters have already submitted plans to lower or limit their carbon pollution. U.S. diplomatic leadership helped spur countries like China, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and others, some of which were previously reluctant to pledge any action on reducing emissions or to make serious commitments to curb greenhouse pollution. To underscore these commitments, some developing countries are also contributing to the international climate finance mechanisms that will help the world's most vulnerable populations adapt to the world's worst impacts of climate change. China alone has pledged more than $3 billion to this effort. Now that the United States has finally persuaded the broadest possible group of countries to take actions against climate change, it is no longer true to argue that the United States shouldn't reduce its emissions because developing countries refuse to follow suit. We have gotten them all to act. Paris is the best chance we have of forging an agreement where all countries pledge to lower their carbon emissions. U.S. leadership brought us to where we are today, and now the United States must seize the opportunity for a truly global agreement to address climate change. The United States voluntarily submitted its carbon reduction goals very early in the process. Our deliberative early action, which included an explanation of the national policies that will result in the achievements of our mission reduction goals, spurred more than 180 countries to do the same. China, for example, committed to lower its carbon emissions per unit of GDP by 60 percent to 65 percent below 2005 levels and increase renewable energy to account for 20 percent of its electricity generation by 2030. This will require China to build an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nonfossil electric generation, which is close to the entire installed capacity of all powerplants in the United States. The global outpouring of support for cooperation is a true testament to the strength of U.S. global leadership on climate change. Optimism and global cooperation in these efforts are at an all-time high, and that is largely due to constructive U.S. engagement. If we want to lock in this progress, we must support a strong and ambitious agreement in Paris. These initial pledges will not put an end to global warming, but they are a strong first step that sets the international community on a path to limit the rise of temperature by 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Continuing on our current trajectory would result in a projected warming of 3.6 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. But with the pledges currently on the table in Paris, we can lower this to 2.7 degrees--more than halfway to the 2 degree goal. More importantly, however, these Paris pledges are only the first wave of action. Actions coming out of Paris will give us a lasting framework whereby countries can update their pledges over time to ensure that they meet their global goal of 2 degrees Celsius. By implementing their initial commitments and making further investments in clean energy, cheaper renewable fuels will allow for even more ambitious carbon reductions in the future. The Paris agreement alone will not end the threat of climate change, but it is a solid first step--one that includes countries at every stage of economic development. The private sector has also come out to voice its support for this ambitious agreement in Paris. Already 154 U.S. companies, representing $4.2 trillion in annual revenue, operating in all 50 States, and employing 11 million Americans, have signed the American Business Act on Climate Pledge and are voicing their support for a positive outcome in Paris. It is not just governments. It is also the private sector, which we desperately need for Paris to be successful. The Paris agreement will help send a strong market signal for clean, renewable energy worldwide, and that long-term certainty is exactly what investors need. If we don't embrace the clean energy revolution that the world is poised to leap forward into, then our competitors will. It will be the doubters and the deniers who will be blamed for the United States' descent from a global leader in clean energy technology innovation. U.S. deployment of clean energy and technologies has grown exponentially in recent years. Renewable energy generation has experienced the fastest growth of all generation sectors. Since 2008, the cost of clean energy technologies has dropped dramatically, fostering this growth. For example, with wind energy, as of 2014, there were more than 65,000 megawatts of utility-scale wind power deployed across 39 States--enough to generate electricity for more than 16 million households. In solar energy, by 2014 the total capacity of the utility-scale solar PV reached 9.7 gigawatts with 99 percent of these installations occurring after 2008. This trend has continued with 15 percent of all electric generation capacity brought online from January to September 2015 arising from the utility-scale PV. There is almost limitless growth potential in clean energy. The United States has traditionally led the world in energy technology development for more than a century. U.S. energy innovations brought power and light to the world, and that continued spirit of leadership is powering the global clean energy revolution. Strong outcomes in the international agreement that is coming together at COP21 Paris will be a catalyst in the clean energy revolution. The world is looking to the United States for continued leadership. This week's announcement of the new Mission Innovation Initiative led by the U.S. Department of Energy and Secretary Moniz, which includes 19 other nations, is a gleaming example of U.S. clean energy diplomacy, sending another strong signal of U.S. cooperation and commitments to growing job and investment opportunities in the United States while providing global clean energy solutions that will allow developing global communities to bypass cheap and dirty power and thrive through deployment of affordable clean energy solutions. It will be U.S. technology helping the global community produce energy in a more cost- effective and cleaner way, thereby creating more jobs in the United States. Climate change affects us all. The people of Maryland understand that. Those who live on Smith Island in the Chesapeake Bay are seeing their island disappear due to the more frequent storms we are experiencing and the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Climate change is also a world stability issue. Climate refugees are a real concern for regional and U.S. security, so this is a national security imperative. The solution is COP21 Paris. Two percent Celsius goals will dramatically improve the environmental health of the planet, thereby helping us with our national security. It will give us energy security because we have renewables that are a lot easier to get to and are more plentiful than the fossil fuels. Health energy security will enable us to no longer be dependent on circumstances that occur in other parts of the world. And, yes, we will also create more jobs, particularly by the use of U.S. innovations. The Paris agreement will serve as an important role in transitioning the world toward more renewable energy which will serve as a source of American job growth and innovation and put America back in control of our own energy future. Paris is our best opportunity to avoid the most devastating impact of climate change. We need an agreement to ensure that all countries do their fair share to address this problem. In order to lock in years of U.S. leadership, we need an agreement to maintain the clean energy revolution that is so critical to job creation here at home and protecting our Nation's energy security, but most importantly, we need an agreement to make sure we avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change that threaten the rights of our children and our grandchildren to pursue a healthy, safe, and prosperous life. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Katharine Blodgett Gebbie, the past director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's--NIST--Physics Laboratory and its successor, the Physical Measurement Laboratory. On December 10, 2015, the Precision Measurement Laboratory at NIST's Boulder campus will be formally renamed in honor of Dr. Gebbie, the first time in more than 50 years that a major NIST building has been named for an individual. This incredible recognition underscores and celebrates Dr. Gebbie's 45 years of service to NIST and her contributions on behalf of the scientific community and our Nation. At a time when a much smaller percentage of women were a part of the American workforce and pursued advanced academic degrees, Dr. Gebbie received an undergraduate degree in physics from Bryn Mawr. She went on to receive a B.S. in astronomy and a Ph.D. in physics from University College London. She began her career in 1966 by doing astrophysics research at the Joint Institute for Lab Physics--JILA--a cooperative enterprise between the University of Colorado at Boulder and NIST. She later joined NIST as a physicist in 1968, working in the quantum physics division of JILA. Dr. Gebbie's ascent into a leadership role began in 1981, when she was named as a scientific assistant at the National Measurement Laboratory. In 1983, she became a program analyst for then-NIST Director Ernest Ambler and his deputy, Ray Kammer. In 1985, Dr. Ambler appointed Dr. Gebbie as the chief of JILA's quantum physics division, and in 1989, she was named as acting director of the new NIST Center for Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics at NIST's main facility, in Gaithersburg, MD. From there, Dr. Gebbie's responsibilities only grew, reflecting her outstanding leadership, effective integration of emerging technologies, and unwavering dedication to the team of scientists and engineers who served under her. In 1990, Dr. Gebbie was named as the founding director of NIST's physics laboratory, which merged elements of five predecessor facilities based in Maryland and Colorado. Under her management, the NIST physics laboratory flourished. Her extensive support for her staff in the form of increased funding, encouragement, and logistical support contributed to an overall environment of scientific freedom, creativity, and innovation. The physics laboratory's scientific advances under her directorship are too numerous to recount here. Chief among them were progress in atomic clock technology, nanotechnology, advanced research on ultra-cold matter, and Bose-Einstein condensation--all of which prompted developments in a variety of scientific fields and helped to further establish NIST's status as ``America's laboratory.'' Out of this atmosphere, an impressive four physicists in Dr. Gebbie's organizational unit--Bill Phillips, Jan Hall, Eric Cornell, and David Wineland--were awarded Nobel prizes between 1997 and 2012. Other scientists honored under her leadership include MacArthur Fellowship winners Debbie Jin and Ana Maria Rey and International Union of Pure & Applied Physics--IUPAP--Young Scientist Prize winners Till Rosenband, Ian Spielman, Jacob Taylor, and Gretchen Campbell. Among Dr. Gebbie's greatest contributions to the scientific community include her early promotion of the internet as a means of sharing scientific data at NIST through the laboratory's Electronic Commerce in Scientific & Engineering Data program and her support of a broad range of NIST initiatives and external programming like the Center for Nanoscale Science & Technology and the Joint Quantum Institute, a research partnership between the University of Maryland and NIST, founded in 2006. Perhaps the most enduring aspect of Dr. Gebbie's legacy, however, will be the programs she pioneered to support diversity and her tireless efforts to promote the inclusion of women and minorities in so-called STEM--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-- fields around the country. In 1993, NIST implemented the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships--SURF--program, aimed at integrating under-represented minorities into the laboratory, allowing students to participate in the cutting-edge scientific and mathematical research at NIST. The program has since expanded to every NIST laboratory and is jointly funded by the National Science Foundation. For her contributions to the scientific community and to the Nation, Dr. Gebbie has been recognized with numerous accolades, including the Women in Science & Engineering Lifetime Achievement Award, the Presidential Rank Awards for Meritorious Senior Executives, the Partnership for Public Service's Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Career Achievement Award, the Women in Science & Engineering WISE Award, and two Department of Commerce gold medals. She also serves as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a fellow of the American Physical Society, a fellow of the Washington Academy of Sciences, and she previously participated in the 2nd IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Dr. Gebbie and in celebrating her legacy as one of the American scientific community's trailblazers. Her work will undoubtedly open the doors for countless scientists to come.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to honor the life of Anita Ashok Datar--a loving mother, beloved daughter and sister, and dedicated humanitarian from Takoma Park in my home State of Maryland. She was one of 19 victims killed on November 20 in a terrorist attack in Mali. Anita's life was one of service to others, both at home and abroad. She was born in Massachusetts and raised in Flanders, NJ. Her friends and classmates remember her as kind and smart, ``one of the good ones.'' After she graduated from Rutgers University, she served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Senegal--the beginning of her career helping the world's most disadvantaged. From there, she went back to school to obtain master's degrees in public health and public administration and began her work improving the lives of the poorest as a global health professional with expertise in reproductive health, family planning, and HIV prevention and treatment. Ms. Datar spent over a decade working on critical development projects in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. As my colleagues know, Mali has been in turmoil for several years. It is the location of the world's most dangerous peacekeeping mission. Despite the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping mission and a French-led military operation, terrorists have continued to carry out periodic attacks on Malians and foreigners. Despite these dangers, Ms. Datar, who was serving as a senior director for field programs at Palladium, went to Mali as a U.S. Agency for International Development contractor to help those in need. Her dedication to seeing that vulnerable populations are not forgotten, overlooked, or marginalized epitomizes public service, and it exemplifies the best of American values and ideals. For that, she will always be remembered. The attack on the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako was nothing more than a senseless act undertaken by people who have no compassion and clearly no regard for human life. We cannot and will not let actions like this stop us from pursuing the mission that people like Anita Datar are so passionate about: improving the lives of the poorest of the poor. There is no better way to honor her legacy than to continue to help the needy, the disenfranchised, and those at risk both here at home and around the world. Anita is survived by her 7-year-old son, a brother, her parents, and countless friends and colleagues. In addition to offering our condolences, we must commit to continuing her work and remembering the sacrifices that she and countless other development workers make each and every day.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate may soon consider bipartisan legislation which I recently introduced with Senators Portman and Klobuchar: the Church Plan Clarification Act of 2015, S. 2308. By introducing this bill and asking for a unanimous consent agreement regarding its passage, our goal is to ensure the retirement security of clergy, church lay workers, and their families across the country. The Church Plan Clarification Act addresses several unintended consequences resulting from the application of general tax and pension regulations to the unique structures of church pension plans. Churches and synagogues established some of the first pension plans in the country, several dating back to the 18th century, and they are designed to ensure that our clergy and lay staff have adequate resources during their retirement years. Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over 1 million clergy members across the country in their retirement--particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations. Church plans are often structured to reflect the ecclesiastical teachings of their denomination. The resulting diversity of plan structures, coupled with the complexity of the legal and regulatory framework that applies to church plans, has led to the need for this legislation. The bill would correct several technical issues that, while small, are critical to the functioning and operation of church plans and the retirement benefits they provide. While the corrections contained in S. 2308 would be of tremendous help to church plans, I want to make clear that the bill does not affect the definition of ``church plan'' under the Internal Revenue Code or Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA. In particular, no inference is intended by this legislation regarding the statutory requirements a pension plan must meet to be considered or treated as a ``church plan'' under IRC section 414(e) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 3(33) of ERISA, and the bill has no bearing on the interpretation of those sections. Rather, the Church Plan Clarification Act is simply about fixing the rules that govern how church plans operate and serve their participants. Again, the Church Plan Clarification Act is targeted, noncontroversial, and has broad bipartisan and bicameral support. I hope we can work quickly to provide clarity for these plans by enacting this legislation and thereby ensuring that those who dedicate their lives to religious service are not inappropriately and unfairly disadvantaged.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to call for urgent action to prevent widespread violence and mass atrocities in Burundi. Let us not allow Burundi to become the next Rwanda or Darfur. We are at a critical juncture. I call upon the Burundian Government and opposition to respect the spirit of the 2000 Arusha agreement and immediately stop all violence, disarm militias, including youth militia aligned with the government, and urge all legitimate stakeholders to agree to participate in an inclusive dialogue to determine a path forward for their country. As my colleagues may know, the country has been in turmoil since April, when President Pierre Nkurunziza decided to run for a third term. His decision, which many feel violated the spirit of the very agreement that ended the Burundi 12-year civil war and the Burundian Constitution itself, has led to widespread violence. An attempted coup in May revealed an alarming split in the militia's military ranks, and I came to the floor in June to discuss my concern that the situation could escalate. Unfortunately, I was correct. It has. At that time, 90,000 people had fled the country, and now there are over 200,000 refugees. In June, an estimated 21 people had died during the protest. The U.N. now estimates that nearly 250 people have been killed since April, some at the hands of the security forces and others in a series of tit-for-tat targeted assassinations and killings. The violence has taken on troubling overtones. Bodies of those who have been clearly victims of execution-style killings are found daily in the streets of Bujumbura, Burundi's capital. The families of political opponents are now being targeted and killed. Government officials have been murdered. In November, Burundian officials engaged in alarming rhetoric reminiscent of language used to incite and carry out the genocide in Rwanda. The government was forced to issue a letter that claimed that the statements made by the President and the president of the senate were not intended to foment such actions. Intended or not, such comments are deeply disturbing. The international community has engaged, but I fear our efforts may not be enough. I was very pleased to see the African Union Peace and the Security Council's October 17 communique, which urged dialogue, called for deployment of additional human rights monitors, and threatened targeted sanctions against those who contribute to the escalation of violence and act as spoilers to a political solution. It sent a strong message to all parties that continued violence will not be tolerated and that an inclusive dialogue--one that includes the Burundian opposition that has taken refuge outside the country--is the only way to restore stability. The United Nations Security Council took a much needed step by approving a resolution in late November. The European Union has been forward leaning, imposing sanctions on government officials and requesting a dialogue with the government to discuss the current situation under the provisions of the Cotonou Agreement related to democracy and human rights. The United States has been actively engaged in preventive action and diplomacy for some time. On November 23, President Obama issued an Executive order sanctioning four individuals whose actions have threatened the peace and security of Burundi. He also announced that as of January, Burundi will no longer be eligible for preferential trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Our Special Envoy for the Great Lakes, Tom Perriello, has been in the region numerous times. High-ranking officials, including our United Nations Ambassador and the Secretary of State have raised Burundi with our international partners on numerous occasions. Ambassador Power has traveled there herself, and I applaud the administration's consistent attention to the concerns of Burundi. However, the violence continues. We must redouble our efforts to support a political solution to this current crisis. Let me be clear. There is no substitute for a commitment by the Burundians themselves when it comes to finding a way forward. They themselves must choose the path of peace, but I firmly believe we, in cooperation with our international partners, can provide the right incentives for them to do that. We can take other meaningful actions in pursuit of an agreement. First, we must help the African Union to finalize contingency plans for an African-led mission to prevent widespread violence in the country. Second, I call upon the AU to convene a meeting with special envoys from the United Nations, African Union, United States, European Union, and Belgium, as well as representatives from the East African community, to discuss coordination among donors, the United Nations, the AU, and the Security Council's recommendations and to identify ways that the international actors can support the increased number of human rights monitors and military observers authorized by the AU in October. Third, it is imperative that we help put in place mechanisms for accountability for those who have engaged in extrajudicial killings during this period of time. Those who have committed these atrocities must be held accountable. The international community must be firm about this. We cannot allow those who perpetrate these crimes to go unpunished. The United States has made a promise to actively prevent the commission of mass atrocities. As the unrest continues, people are suffering in refugee camps or living in fear in their homes, afraid to go out. Violence is on the rise, the economy is in a downward spiral, and civil space is closed. Every day that goes by without a civil solution the probability of atrocities increases. Preventing widespread violence and mass atrocities is everyone's business. Diplomatic engagement to prevent political violence that has the potential to become ethnically based killing is exactly what we and the rest of the international community must focus on addressing. I submit to you that acting to prevent this from happening is all of our collective business, and I urge continued action to do so. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 28th World AIDS Day. This day is a time to recognize the tremendous progress we have made in combating the human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome, HIV/AIDS, and to redouble our commitment to preventing and treating this devastating disease. For many years, we have viewed AIDS as a death sentence. Before 2000, rates of infection grew exponentially. People living with HIV/AIDS had few options, and what options they did have were expensive and out of reach. Millions of children orphaned by HIV/AIDS were isolated within their own communities, and there was virtually no way to prevent HIV transmissions from pregnant women to their unborn children, ending countless lives before they could truly begin. But thanks to sustained United States and global efforts-- administered through programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and UNAIDS--we are finally turning the tide, not only in terms of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS, but also by improving the lives of those affected by this disease. Since 2000, new HIV infections have dropped by 35 percent. AIDS- related deaths are down 42 percent from their peak in 2004. To date, 15 million men, women, and children worldwide are on anti-retroviral therapy, compared to only 1 million in 2001. We have also made significant progress in tackling mother-to-child transmissions, which are key to ending the AIDS epidemic. Today 73 percent of pregnant women living with HIV have access to anti-retroviral therapy, greatly reducing the likelihood that they will transmit the disease to their babies. As a result, since 2000, new infections among children have fallen by 58 percent. Because of our investments in HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, health systems throughout Africa have been strengthened, allowing millions to gain access to medications and more advanced treatments. Life expectancy in nations like Rwanda and Kenya have dramatically increased, and health facilities have been modernized. These steps are just some of the ways in which we have made remarkable progress to stop HIV/AIDS in its tracks. We are, without a doubt, on our way to an AIDS-free generation. This is something that can happen in our lifetimes. In mid-September, more than 150 world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Goal 3 includes a target to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other communicable diseases by 2030. This is a bold commitment that requires strong leadership from the United States. To achieve this goal, the United States must continue to invest in and provide strong funding for our global health programs, especially PEPFAR. As my colleagues know, PEPFAR is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease internationally and represents the very best of America and our commitment to global humanitarian values. Thanks to PEPFAR, 7.7 million men, women, and children worldwide are receiving anti-retroviral treatments. In 2014, PEPFAR supported HIV testing and counseling for more than 56.7 million people and provided training for more than 140,000 new health care workers to help combat HIV on the ground. Through PEPFAR, we have been able to reach 5 million children who have been orphaned or made vulnerable due to HIV/AIDS. PEPFAR has also dramatically improved outcomes for pregnant women and their babies, reducing the transmission of HIV from mother to child. In 2014, PEPFAR supported HIV testing and counseling for more than 14.2 million pregnant women worldwide. For the nearly 750,000 pregnant women who tested positive for HIV, PEPFAR's anti-retroviral medications allowed 95 percent of their children to be born HIV-free. We have made extraordinary progress; however, there is still much work to be done. Currently, there are more than 22 million people living with HIV who are not yet on treatment, and HIV is still the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age worldwide. We are on our way to an AIDS-free generation, but we can't rest on our laurels now. We need the commitment and leadership of partner countries-- reinforced with support from donor nations, civil society, people living with HIV, faith-based organizations, the private sector, and foundations--to make an AIDS-free generation a reality. On this World AIDS Day, we recognize the progress we have made and recommit ourselves to continuing to combat HIV/AIDS both at home and abroad.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I yield back.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and for her leadership with regard to the nomination of Gayle Smith to be the Administrator of USAID. This is the U.S. Agency for International Development. I mention that because we are talking about a national security position. Our national security depends on having a strong military, but it also depends upon having a strong position in international development assistance in dealing with our diplomacy. The director of USAID is a critical member of our national security team. We couldn't have a stronger person for that position than Gayle Smith. I wholeheartedly support her confirmation. I thank Senator Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for the manner in which this nomination has been brought forward. He has been a strong proponent of Gayle Smith, and I thank him very much for his help in getting this nomination to the floor. I said that I couldn't find a stronger person to fill this position. She is currently a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director at the National Security Council, where she is responsible for global development, democracy, and humanitarian assistance issues. She was previously a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, cochair of the Enough Project, and the cofounder of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network. During the Clinton administration, Gayle Smith served as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the NSC, so she has broad experience over a long career in Foreign Service and in serving in regard to development assistance issues. For over 37 years of her professional career she has served in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. She has worked as a journalist and as a consultant to aid groups. She has worked as a senior adviser to the Administrator and Chief of Staff for USAID/East Africa. She has served twice on the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President. She has been hailed as a strong and effective advocate on global development issues. She was voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve as a ranking member, by a unanimous vote. I am very pleased that we are now able to vote tonight for her confirmation to be the Administrator of the USAID. I have already pointed out that this is a position critically important to our national security, but let me also point out that the world is facing a host of humanitarian crises--including food insecurity and displacement in Syria, the Europe migration crisis, the Rohingya refugee crisis of Southeast Asia, and the millions of people who are displaced and starving in South Sudan, which require American leadership and assistance. Growing humanitarian needs worldwide are outstripping available resources. The Administrator of USAID is a key leadership post in the effort of the United States to shape the world's reaction to crisis and instability. I would go into a bit of detail on just one of the crises that the Administrator of USAID faces so that everyone can truly understand the scale we are talking about. As a result of the war in South Sudan, 1.5 million people are internally displaced. More than 730,000 have crossed borders into Sudan, Ethiopia, and Uganda as refugees. The number of people facing severe food insecurity has almost doubled since the start of the year, from 2.5 million to an estimated 4.6 million people, including approximately 874,000 children under the age of 5. This is just one example and I could give you many more examples why it is critically important that we have a confirmed Administrator for USAID. Gayle Smith is the right person for the right time to serve our country. I encourage my colleagues to support her nomination. This is a person who will serve our country, continue to serve our country well, and I am proud to support her. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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