Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and earlier today I had a chance to be with the other Members of the Senate and the Ambassador from France to express our solidarity, our condolences about those who lost their lives in the attack last Friday night, and to express America's resolve to work with our French partners to root out ISIL. Let it be clear, our policy is to degrade, defeat, and destroy ISIL wherever it may be, any place in the world. We will retake the properties and lands they currently control, and we will destroy their operation. That is our commitment, and that is what we must do. We will protect U.S. citizens, our homeland. That is one of our most solemn responsibilities. We will do that by having the strongest possible security screening measures for those who enter our country. We will do that by enhancing our intelligence-gathering capacity not only here in the United States because we have taken major steps since the attack on our country on September 11, but we need a seamless system with our allies in Europe and our global partners to share timely information so we can track those who want to do harm to us and so we can apprehend foreign-trained fighters who have joined the terrorists and then go back to Europe or try to enter the United States. We need to know where they are, apprehend them, and get them out of our community. Let me mention a couple of issues that have come to light just recently; that is, our policies with regard to refugees. I want to make it clear that we have to have the most stringent security screening, so that when we are settling refugees, we don't allow anyone with any association to terrorist organizations to be able to enter the United States. I also think it is important that we understand the current procedures and processes that are in place and how it differs dramatically from Europe. In Europe, they literally have millions of refugees who are fleeing Syria and who get into Europe. They usually get in at a border country to the Middle East, over water, and then of course enter Europe and can travel throughout that continent. There is virtually no screening. In the United States, before we will resettle a refugee under the auspices of the United Nations, there is a requirement for an in-person interview, biographic checks, interagency checks, biometric screening, including fingerprinting, initial case review by the Department of Homeland Security before an in-person interview, and it goes on and on and on. My constituents and the Presiding Officer's constituents want to make sure that those security screenings are strong enough to make sure terrorists can't get into the United States, and we have a responsibility to make sure that in fact is the case, but I also point out that millions travel to the United States freely through our borders because it is a small world and people travel. They travel here for vacation, and they travel here for family. We have relationships with many countries, a program known as the Visa Waiver Program, where individuals can travel to the United States without obtaining a visa. It is interesting that if a person has a French passport, they can enter the United States without a visa. So we need to make sure that anyone who attempts to come to America, we know that; that if they are dangerous, we have that information, and as a result we can prevent them from entering our country. I say all of this because I hope that what happened in France will energize us in unity to carry out our most important responsibility, which is to keep America safe and keep Americans safe. We need to do everything we can, whether it is going after terrorists or protecting our homeland, to make sure Americans are kept safe. Madam President, shortly we will be voting on the Congressional Review Act, the regulatory review act which will allow us to vote on two regulations on the Clean Power Plan rules that have been promulgated by the administration. I urge my colleagues to reject these resolutions that would prevent these regulations from going forward. In other words, I urge my colleagues to allow these regulations to go forward that deal with the Clean Power Plan rules. There are four reasons I say that. First and foremost is the public health reason. We have a responsibility for the public health of the people of this Nation, and clean air is critically important. The number of children who suffer from asthma will go up dramatically if we don't clean up our air. Premature deaths will go up. There is a direct cost to our public health as a result of ignoring what we can do for cleaner air in America. Clean air has an effect on our economy. When a parent can't go to work because they have a child suffering from asthma because the air is not clean to breathe, that is a day lost from work. It affects our economy. We also know that if we rely more on clean energy and renewable energy sources, that is stronger for economic growth. It creates more jobs. So for the sake not just of our health but for the sake of our economy, it is important that we take the appropriate steps to make sure we have clean air. Yes, there is also the issue of our environment. Climate change is real. We should follow the recommendations of the experts, not necessarily the politicians. The experts tell us that our activities on Earth are affecting the rate of change in climate, that they affect the stability of the world in which we live, and that we can do something about it for a more positive outcome. The extreme weather conditions that we have seen all too often--I could talk about what has happened in my own State of Maryland and the impact it has had on the Chesapeake Bay. We know that. Scientists are telling us that. It is because the carbon emissions are accelerating as a result of our activities on Earth. Scientists say we can do something about it. Scientists have told us we can do better in the way we generate power in reducing carbon emissions. That is not a heavy lift; it is something we can do. Shortly, the world will meet in Paris to come together, I hope, on a way that we can join, as an international global community, in a strategy to reduce our carbon emissions. The United States must exercise leadership. President Obama has done part of that leadership by the promulgation of these power plan rules. Lastly, this is a matter of national security. We know that we have a limited amount of fossil fuels. We know that. We also know that renewable energy sources are becoming more energy independent, and that is smart for our national security concerns. So for all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution that would prevent these regulations from going forward. I just want to give by way of example what is happening in my own State of Maryland. Maryland is well underway in complying with these rules. We are there. We will be there. We have shown that we can make these types of investments, and by the way, we would create more jobs in doing this. Creating clean power generation will help our economy. As I said earlier, it helped Maryland's economy. So we have been able to move forward in aggressive steps for clean energy production. But Marylanders breathe air that is polluted by the generation of power in other States. We need a national policy. It can't be done just by a State. We need a national policy, and that is what these clean power rules do. I urge my colleagues to follow the best science. Allow America to continue to be the world leader. Do what is right for the public health, for our economy, for our environment, for our future, and reject these efforts that would block these rules. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate Veterans Day and to thank all those who have served our country for their extraordinary bravery and sacrifice. As many of my colleagues know, President Woodrow Wilson first established this holiday--originally known as Armistice Day--on November 11, 1919, to honor the brave Americans who fought and died in World War I. After the end of World War II, Armistice Day was expanded to honor all veterans of our military services, and the holiday's name was changed to Veterans Day. My home State of Maryland has a long and proud military tradition dating to the first militiamen who set foot in the Maryland Colony in 1634; to the War of 1812, where our soldiers famously held Fort McHenry and our national anthem, the ``Star-Spangled Banner,'' was penned; through both world wars; Korea; Vietnam; the Persian Gulf war; and our most recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maryland's veterans and troops represent the best of our State and our Nation. Earlier this year, I had an opportunity to help present a Congressional Gold Medal to former Tuskegee Airman William A. Colbert, Jr., a lifelong Marylander. Mr. Colbert enlisted in the Army Air Force in 1943 and achieved the rank of flight officer at the Tuskegee Army Air Field. While Mr. Colbert never saw combat, he learned to fly with the best and became a full-fledged Red Tail. And as part of the first all-Black combat unit in the U.S. Armed Forces, Mr. Colbert and his fellow servicemen broke through racial barriers without any expectation of fame or fanfare. Their distinguished service and enduring courage played a critical role in the later desegregation of our Nation's military. Mr. Colbert always considered his contribution to the Tuskegee Airmen and his service to our country simply as what he was called to do as a citizen. Mr. Colbert passed away in early June but not before we were finally able to thank him for his extraordinary service to our Nation. While we were able to honor Mr. Colbert, there are thousands of other veterans who remain nameless. That is why on August 5, 2015, I introduced the Korean War Veterans Memorial Wall of Remembrance Act of 2015, S. 1982, along with the senior Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman. Our legislation authorizes the addition of a Wall of Remembrance to the existing Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. The Wall of Remembrance would list the names of members of the Armed Forces of the United States who died in theater in the Korean war, as well as the number of servicemembers who were wounded in action, are listed as missing in action, or who were prisoners of war during the Korean war. Authorizing a wall of remembrance here in the United States is just one way we can help ensure that those who gave the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country in the ``forgotten war'' are no longer forgotten. As America celebrates Veterans Day, we stand united in honoring the acts of selfless service from our Nation's veterans. Our veterans and military men and women and their families need to know that we remember them not just on Veterans Day but every single day of the year. Our veterans have protected our country and defended our values. These Americans are the bravest among us, and we applaud the innumerable sacrifices that they and their loved ones have made for this great country. As we celebrate Veterans Day, our thoughts and prayers are also with ``veterans to be''--the men and women who are currently serving our country, especially those in harm's way.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in a few moments we will have an opportunity to vote on the Congressional Review Act, on the final rule under the Clean Water Act on waters of the United States. Yesterday, I thought we had a rather robust discussion and debate about this, the Barrasso bill, which would have not only prevented the final rule from going forward but also would have changed the underlying bill. Cloture was not invoked. Now we are on the CRA--the Congressional Review Act--that would stop the rule from going forward. Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, I explained to my colleagues why I hope they will reject this motion and allow this rule to go forward. My main reason for saying that is that since 1972, Congress has had a proud record on behalf of public health, on behalf of our environment and protecting the people of this country from the dangers of dirty water. Before the Clean Water Act, we saw rivers that caught fire. In the Chesapeake Bay, we had the first marine dead zones reported. We made a commitment as a nation that we were going to do something about clean water, and Congress in a very bipartisan way passed the Clean Water Act as a commitment to the people of this country that we would take steps to protect their drinking water, to protect their public health, and to protect their environment so that the legacy would be cleaner water for future generations. This Clean Water Act--the reason why we have this rule is because of a couple of Supreme Court decisions which basically unsettled what most people understood to be regulated waters. By a 5-to-4 decision in Rapanos, the Supreme Court's ruling sent it back to EPA to come up with additional regulatory guidance, throwing into question the well- established thoughts that waters generally that flow into our streams, into our wetlands, and into our water supply were regulated waters. So this final rule is a response to the Supreme Court decisions in order to give clarity to those who are affected by the Clean Water Act. So if we reject the rule, we are, in fact, removing clarity and we will go back to the stage where people don't know whether a particular water is regulated under the Clean Water Act. I was listening to my colleagues on the floor give examples of where they say regulation will take place, when, in fact, in agriculture, there is basically no change in the regulatory structure. There are no new permitting requirements for agricultural activities. If we don't go forward with the regulation, the risk factor is that approximately one-half of the stream miles in this country will not be fully protected. That is a huge risk to the public health of the people of this country. Approximately 20 million acres of wetlands will not be regulated. Wetlands are the last frontier to filter water before it enters our water systems, our streams, our drinking water supplies. Do we really want to call into question that type of deregulation of clean water, which is critically important to public health and the drinking water supplies of Americans? If this rule does not go forward, the source of the drinking water of approximately 117 million Americans will be compromised. One-third of the people of this country will see that we are not fully protecting their drinking water, and if we have an episode, they will be asking what did we do in order to protect their basic health. They expect us to make sure that when they turn their tap on, they get safe drinking water, and that when they bathe, they have safe water in order to bathe, and we are not doing everything we can to do that if, in fact, we block this rule from going forward. In reality, what we are doing is saying: No, we are not going to let science guide what goes forward; Congress is going to tell us whether the EPA can regulate our water based upon science. I don't think we want this to be a political decision; I think we want this to be a scientific decision. As I said earlier, agriculture practices are not changed under this final rule. Many have mentioned the court challenge. Any regulation coming up by EPA is going to be subject to court challenge. We know that. And the courts have not been helpful. The 5-to-4 decision left a lot in question. Ultimately, we are going to have to rely upon a court decision. Let's get there sooner rather than later and not go back to the drawing board and delay the necessary regulations for our country. Yesterday on the floor, I quoted from business leaders, environment leaders, small business leaders. Let me share a couple other quotes about why it is important for us to allow this rule to go forward. Let me talk about a business concern. This is a quote from Travis Campbell, president and CEO of Far Banks Enterprises, an integrated manufacturer and distributor of fly fishing products. He says: My company depends on people enjoying their time recreating outside, especially in or near watersheds. Clarifying which waterways are protected under Clean Water Act isn't a nice- to-have, it is a business imperative. Allowing this rule to go forward helps America's businesses, helps our economy. I will give two quotes on the health issue. This is from Dr. Alan Peterson, a family physician in Lancaster County, PA. He said: Because it would protect the streams that are the headwaters of drinking water supplies for 1 in 3 U.S. residents, this rule is a health imperative. Lastly, a person who used to be our health secretary in Maryland, Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, stated: Our nation relies on clean water for basic survival--it's essential for daily activities including drinking, cooking, bathing, and recreational use. When that water is polluted, Americans are at risk of exposure to a number of harmful contaminants. We are pleased that EPA has moved forward with this strong, evidence-based rule that will be vital to protecting the public from water pollution and keeping our nation healthy. For the sake of our public health and the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy, and for the legacy of this Congress to protect the people of this Nation, I urge my colleagues to reject the motion that would stop the final waters of the United States rule from going into effect. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I haven't talked about the popularity of the Clean Water Act, but every poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans support what EPA is doing in protecting our water supply. They are for this rule. They are for a commonsense, science- based way to protect their drinking water. They are for a scientifically based, commonsense way to make sure that their rivers are clean. Whether it is because of their concern for the environment and their children and grandchildren's health or whether it is their concern about our economy, recognizing that clean water is necessary for agriculture and for our activities--recreational activities along our waterways which are critical to our economy--for all of those reasons they support the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to look at the rule. It doesn't regulate new activities in agriculture. It doesn't require anything different than has been historically the role of the Clean Water Act in protecting our waters. It deals with waters that are affecting our water supply. It doesn't deal with isolated ponds. It doesn't deal with ditches. They are not regulated under this law any differently than they were in the past. I urge my colleagues to look at what is in this regulation, not the claims that have been made. The EPA listened to the different interest groups. There were over 400 meetings with stakeholders across the country to provide information, hear concerns, and answer their questions. EPA officials visited farms in Arizona, Colorado, my home State of Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont. The 207-day public comment period on the proposed rule resulted in more than 1 million comments. All of this public input helped to shape the final clean water rule. The act does not require any new permitting from the agricultural community. There is an exemption under the existing Clean Water Act, which is preserved by this final rule. Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching practices--those activities that include plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest products--are exempt. They are not covered under this final Clean Water Act. Soil and water conservation practices and dry land are exempt. Agricultural storm water discharges are exempt. Return flows from irrigated agriculture, construction, and maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land are not covered under the rule. Maintenance of draining ditches is not covered under the rule. Construction or maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads are not covered. When my colleagues come in and say that this ditch is being regulated under the Clean Water Act, it is not the case. Only those flows of water that directly impact our streams, impact our wetlands--those you want to make sure we cover because they affect our drinking water supply for one out of every three Americans, because they affect our public health for those of us who swim in our streams and our lakes, and because they affect those of us who enjoy the recreation of clean water. That is why we have small business owners. That is why we have the businesses that depend upon clean water. That is why we have a lot of people around the country saying: Look, it is in our economic interest to make sure this rule goes forward. The bottom line is, the stakeholders need clarity. This rule will allow that process to go forward so that we can get clarity in the implementation of the Clean Water Act, which was jeopardized not by Congress and not by EPA but by the Supreme Court's decisions. It is our responsibility to make sure that clarity exists. If Congress blocks this clean water rule from going forward, we are adding to the uncertainty that is in no one's interest, whether it is a person who depends upon safe drinking water or the safe environment or a farmer who wants to know what is regulated and what is not. All of that very much depends upon clarity moving forward. EPA listened to all the stakeholders, and it is important to allow this rule to go forward. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to stop the final act from going forward. Let our legacy to our children and grandchildren be safe, clean water for drinking and recreational purposes for our economy. Since 1972, we have had a proud history of allowing and building upon safe and clean water. I urge my colleagues to reject this effort to stop this rule from going forward. I yield the floor. I yield back my time. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me make it clear what this legislation would do. It is true it would stop the final rule on the waters of the United States that has been issued, but it would also change the underlying criteria in the Clean Water Act. So it not only blocks the rule from going forward, it weakens the Clean Water Act. So let me talk a little about both. The final rule on the waters of the United States that has been issued restores clarity to the enforcement of the Clean Water Act. It restores it to what was commonly understood before a series of Supreme Court cases that really raised questions as to which water bodies, in fact, can be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The worst possible outcome is the lack of clarity because you don't know. You don't know what the rules are. The final rule that has been proposed, and that now is final, would restore that clarity to what was generally understood to be waters of the United States. To say it in laymen's terms, it is waters that lead to, in effect, the water qualities of our streams and our waters and our lakes in America. It affects public health. It affects public health directly by the health of our waters of the United States, as well as providing the source for safe drinking waters. So what is at risk? If this final rule is blocked and does not become law, over half of our Nation's stream miles are at risk of not being regulated under the Clean Water Act. Twenty million acres of wetlands are at risk of not being adequately regulated under the Clean Water Act. The drinking source for water for one out of three Americans would be at risk. So this legislation would not only block the implementation of the final rule, it would also weaken the Clean Water Act. It would drastically narrow the historic scope of the Clean Water Act, arbitrarily putting in nonscientific standards for how the rules would be developed. Mr. President, since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, every Congress has tried to strengthen the Clean Water Act, not weaken it. The Clean Water Act was a piece of bipartisan legislation passed in 1972. As Senator Boxer pointed out, it was in response to rivers literally catching fire and dead zones being found in our lakes. In the Chesapeake Bay we had the first marine dead zone that we were trying to respond to. In San Francisco Bay we had PCBs at unacceptably high levels. That is why we passed the Clean Water Act. The legacy of every Congress should be to strengthen the Clean Water Act, to make sure we do have clean waters in the United States. If this legislation were to become law, the legacy of this Congress would be to weaken the Clean Water Act. I don't think we want to do that. As I pointed out, this legislation not only rescinds the final clean water rule, but it really changes the goal of the Clean Water Act. Currently, the goal is to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' That is science based. Instead, it would be changed to protect traditional navigable waters from pollution, which is a far different standard than dealing with the health issues of the waters of the United States. The arbiter of this would be the Department of Agriculture on the hydrological science. They are not qualified to do that. It is not their field. As I will point out in detail, the regulatory structure for agriculture is not changed under this final Clean Water Act. And the bill would ignore hydrological science by requiring a continuous flow of water to be regulated, ignoring the fact that there are seasonal variations where you can have water flows that dry up for a period of time but which are still critically important to the supply of clean water in the United States. It ignores the nexus test, which has been referred to in Supreme Court cases, using adjacent water--next to navigable waters--without any definition of what ``next to'' means. It puts public health at risk. For all of those reasons, we don't want to jeopardize and move backwards on the Clean Water Act of 1972. We want to add to that. This piece of legislation would, in fact, move us in the wrong direction. I just want to, for one moment, talk about the Chesapeake Bay. The people of Maryland and the people of our region know how important it is for our economy--the watermen who make their living off it and the recreational use of the bay. Millions of people every year depend upon the bay for their recreation. It is a way of life for our State and for our region. It is a national treasure--the largest estuary in our hemisphere. And it depends upon receiving clean water supplies that come in from other States, not just Maryland. You can't regulate the clean water of the Chesapeake Bay without having a national commitment to it because it knows no State boundary. That is why we need a strong Clean Water Act. I have heard my colleagues talk about agricultural farmers being against this. Well, farmers will not be harmed by the EPA's final clean water rule. In fact, it actually is good for farmers because it provides certainty and clarity. In developing the rule, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers listened carefully to input from the agricultural community, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State departments of agriculture. As Senator Boxer pointed out, there were over 400 meetings with stakeholders across the country. The act requires a permit if a protected water is going to be polluted or destroyed. However, agricultural activities such as planting, harvesting, and moving stock across streams have long been excluded from permitting, and that won't change under the rule. In other words, farmers and ranchers won't need a permit for normal agricultural activities to happen in or around those waters. The rule does preserve agricultural exemptions from permitting, including normal farming, silviculture and ranching practices. Those activities include plowing, seeding, cultivating minor drainage, and harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest products. Soil and water conservation practices in dry land are preserved. As to agricultural storm water discharges, there are no changes. Return flows from irrigated agriculture, construction, and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land are not regulated under this bill. Maintenance of drainage ditches is not regulated. Construction or maintenance of farm, forest, and temporary mining roads are not regulated. It ensures that fields flooded for rice are exempt and can be used for water storage and bird habitat. The rule also does preserve and expand commonsense exclusions from jurisdiction, including--this is excluded--prior converted croplands, waste treatment systems, artificially irrigated areas that are otherwise dry land, artificial lakes or ponds constructed in dry land, water-filled depressions created as a result of construction activities, and the list goes on and on. The rule does not--does not--protect any types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act. It does not add any new requirements for agriculture. It does not interfere with or change private property rights. It does not change policy on irrigation or water transfers. It does not address land use. It does not cover erosional features, such as gullies, rills, and nonwetland swells. In other words, we have maintained the historic exemptions for agriculture from the Clean Water Act. They are not expanded under this rule. So let me just cite a couple of quotes from people who are directly impacted by what is being done under the clean water rule and, of course, would be affected by the legislation before us. As to the small business community, I quote from David Levine, who is the CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council: The Clean Water Rule will give the business community more confidence that streams and rivers will be protected. This is good for the economy and vital for businesses that rely on clean water for their success. . . . Business owners want a consistent regulatory system based on sound science. That's what this rule provides. Ben Rainbolt, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union: Water is critical to the livelihood of family farms and ranches. The rule employs a commonsense rationale for both clarifying what bodies of water and activities should fall under the Clean Water Act, as well as maintaining the existing exemptions for agriculture. This rule will result in cleaner, safer water for agriculture, rural communities, and all who count on healthy streams and rivers. Andrew Lemley, government affairs representative, New Belgium Brewing: Our brewery and our communities depend on clean water. Beer is, after all, over 90 percent water and if something happens to our source water the negative affect on our business is almost unthinkable. . . . We all rely on responsible regulations that limit pollution and protect water at its source. Over the past 23 years we've learned that when smart regulations and clean water exists for all, business thrives. I particularly like that one because we have all seen the ads on television about clean water. It affects small businesses. It affects all of our businesses. I will conclude with those who depend upon recreation, who strongly support the clean water rule and oppose the legislation that is before us. I will quote from Andy Kurkulis, owner of Chicago Fly Fishing Outfitters and DuPage Fly Fishing Company: Anyone who has ever swam in our beautiful Great Lakes, or fished or boated on our abundant rivers and waters has benefited immeasurably. Now is the time to raise our voices in support of clean water--our economy, and future generations of hunters and anglers, depend on it. I think the verdict is clear. The rule which has been proposed will add to the protections the public deserves for public health and their drinking water. It is a sensible regulation. It is clearly under the authority of the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and certainly the cloture motion so that we don't reject the rule and weaken the Clean Water Act. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President we will have a chance at 2:15 p.m., I believe, for 15 minutes to close the debate, and at 2:30 p.m. we are going to have a vote on a cloture motion. I urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion. I agree with my friend Senator Heitkamp that we need certainty. We have been debating this issue for a long time since the court cases. If this bill were to become law, you are not going to have certainty. It is going to be litigated. Whatever is done, it is going to be litigated. We know that. We have seen the litigious nature of what has happened over the course of the issues. Yes, I want Congress to speak on this. Congress has spoken on this. Congress has said very clearly that we want the test of the Clean Water Act to be to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our Nation's waters. I don't want Congress to say: No, we don't want that. We now want a pragmatic test that could very well jeopardize the Clean Water Act. The bottom line is each Congress should want to strengthen the Clean Water Act, not weaken it. This bill would weaken the Clean Water Act and prevent a rule that has been debated for a long time from becoming law. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion for cloture, and we will have a little bit more to say about this at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to a real champion of clean water in the United States, Senator Boxer.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this legislation does two things. First, it stops the final rule on the waters of the United States, and second, it weakens the underlying Clean Water Act, something I would hope none of us would want to do. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to proceed. Let me tell you what is at risk here. What is at risk is about one- half of our Nation's stream miles from being protected under the Clean Water Act. Their water supply would not be protected. What is at stake here? Twenty million acres of wetlands could go unprotected because of being denied protection under the Clean Water Act. What is at risk here? The water supply for 117 million Americans--1 out of every 3 Americans. The source of their water could very well come from unregulated supplies being exempt from the Clean Water Act. I don't think we want to do that. I agree with my colleagues that we want to have certainty. That is why we want the rule to move forward. But it does more than that--the underlying bill. It also changes the standard that would be judged in deciding what is to be regulated waters. The current law says it is to ``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' In other words, it is science-based. If we need to regulate in order to protect our water supply, we can regulate. That is what we are trying to achieve--regulating waters that end up in our streams, waters that end up in our water supply. If, on the other hand, we take what is being done under this legislation to protect traditional navigable waters from pollution, we are exempting so many of the waters that are critically important. I mentioned a little earlier that it has to have a continuous flow. Well, there are seasonal variations of what enters into our water supply in this country. That would be exempt. I want to dispel two things. First, this bill would remove certainty, not give certainty. The Supreme Court cases caused us to lose our traditional definitions of what was covered under the Clean Water Act. We need that. It returns certainty, which I think is in everyone's interest. The last point is--and I have said it many times, and the Department has confirmed this--this final rule on waters of the United States does not change the regulatory structure for permitting for agriculture. There are no additional requirements. They are exempt. The exemptions that exist today will continue to be exempt. The agency responded to the concerns of the agricultural community as they should. The bottom line is that clean water and agriculture go together, and we all need to work together in that regard. So I urge my colleagues to allow this rule to go forward. I urge my colleagues not to have a legacy of weakening our protections for clean water in America, and that is what this bill would do. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to bring to my colleagues' attention a very disturbing trend that is taking place on us carrying out our constitutional responsibilities. It is up to the Senate, and only the Senate, to confirm--advise and consent--appointments by the President of the United States that require the confirmation of the Senate. I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I am honored to serve on and act as the ranking Democrat, has acted in a very responsible manner in scheduling hearings and taking action on the nominations that have been submitted by President Obama. I thank Senator Corker. He has scheduled these hearings in a very timely way and scheduled markups in our committee so we can make our recommendations to the full Senate. That is not true of the Senate as a body. There are currently 16--16--highly qualified nominees who have been recommended for Senate confirmation, none of whom are controversial, who are awaiting action on the floor of the Senate. Some of these nominees have been waiting as long as 10 months, almost a year for action by the Senate. Let me repeat this: Not one of these nominees is being held up because of challenges to his or her qualifications to assume the responsibilities of the position for which that person has been nominated. In each of these cases they have cleared the committee hurdle by unanimous or near unanimous votes in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So why have we not taken up those nominees for confirmation votes on the floor of the Senate? They are not controversial. They are qualified for the position. The reason is that in each case a Senator has placed a hold on the consideration of that nominee. What does a hold mean? It means a Senator has let their respective caucus know they will not consent to the nomination coming before the Senate either as a unanimous consent request or for a vote on the floor of the Senate. That has been the prerogative of Members of the Senate. They can do that. The way you overcome that is either the Senator eliminates the hold--in these cases each one of the holds have nothing to do with the qualifications of the individual for this position--or the majority leader, Senator McConnell, brings forward the nomination, if necessary uses a cloture motion in order to get this issue resolved. After all, one Senator should not be able to stop a nomination on the floor of the Senate so we cannot carry out our responsibilities of advice and consent. Senator McConnell has been unwilling to do that. I understand the challenges of floor time. I fully do. Ten months some of these nominees have been waiting. These are critical missions for our Foreign Service. The reasons these individuals are being held--let me just give you an example--is because of a Member being upset with the Obama administration for taking the Iran agreement to the United Nations for a vote before action in the Senate--having nothing to do with the nominee we are talking about--or concerns about Secretary Clinton or concerns about the Secret Service but not related to the person who was nominated for the position we are talking about. That is just wrong. We have the constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on Presidential appointments. Let me give some examples that fall into this category of the 16 nominees who are currently waiting for Senate confirmation. We have the Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations. The person who has been nominated for that is Ambassador David Robinson, a career diplomat with 30 years of public service. He has been the Principal Deputy High Representative in Bosnia- Herzegovina, one of the most difficult conflict areas in modern times. He has served both Democratic and Republican administrations. He is a career diplomat. The position we are talking about focuses on prevention and response to mass atrocities and countering violent extremism and election- related violence. I would think that is a high priority for this Senate, to make sure the United States has all hands on deck to deal with these types of international challenges. Ambassador Robinson has served far and wide under dangerous and demanding circumstances. He was the Assistant Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. He served as the Principal Assistant Deputy Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Guyana from 2006 to 2008 and as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana, from 2003 to 2006. He also served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Paraguay from 2000 to 2003. He is a highly qualified individual who has shown a clear dedication and commitment to serving his country. He has been waiting almost 7 months for the Senate to act on his nomination. I wish to cite another example, the State Department's Legal Adviser, Brian Egan. He has served both Republican and Democratic administrations. This a critical mission, the Legal Adviser. Just today, in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we had General Allen, and a discussion ensued as to the legal authority we have in regard to some of our activities. It would be good to have a confirmed legal adviser so we can get those types of answers. Like Ambassador Robinson, Mr. Egan has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. He began his career as a government lawyer in 2005, as a civil servant in the Office of the 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 served as Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence at the Treasury Department. He served on the National Security Council staff. He is a nonpartisan and fair-minded individual who clearly has the skills and the ability to lead the Office of Legal Adviser at the State Department. He has been waiting 9 months for confirmation--9 months. He is a person who has devoted his career to public service. That is no way to treat people who want to give their service to this country in an important role. We need to carry out our responsibility. At the USAID, the Administrator position has not been confirmed. The USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia has not been confirmed. The inspector general of USAID has not been confirmed. These appointments have been in the Senate for some time. I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the refugee crisis. We are approaching the number of people who are dislocated in this world similar to what we had at the end of World War II. The principal agency that deals with this crisis in the United States is the USAID. We know we have conflict areas all over the world, and we have heard over and over again that the way we deal with this-- one of our major tools--is through development assistance. We need confirmed, top management at this agency. The Senate has an obligation to act. None of these nominees are noncontroversial. I want to repeat that. They are not being held by a Senator because of anything to do with their qualifications for the position for which they have been nominated. There have been unrelated issues for a long period of time compromising the critical missions of these agencies. Just as tragically, there are 20 innocent USAID Foreign Service officers who have been held up. These 20 USAID Foreign Service officers are not nominated for Ambassador positions or Assistant Secretary position; these are folks who were plucked from a list of 181 promotions that must be confirmed by the full Senate for the promotions to take effect. In other words, their promotions have not taken effect because of an individual hold by a Senator for reasons unrelated to their performance in office--career diplomats, civil service. These are civil servants who are working hard day in and day out serving their country in both Democratic and Republican administrations. They are not involved in the politics of the Senate, and yet they are the casualties of these politics. These individuals are called upon to serve in challenging and sometimes very dangerous places. We are talking about a Supervisory Program Officer in Cambodia, the Deputy Director for East Africa Operations in Kenya, the Director of the Democracy and Governance Office in Rwanda, a Senior Advisor for Civilian-Military Cooperation, a Resident Legal Officer for the Resident Mission in Asia, an Education Officer in Honduras, a Regional Legal Advisor in El Salvador, a Deputy Controller for Financial Management in El Salvador, a Regional Food for Peace Officer in Ethiopia, a Regional Legal Advisor in Egypt, a Deputy Education and Youth Office Director in Kenya, the Director of the Food for Peace Program in South Sudan, the Democracy and Governance Director in El Salvador, the Economic Growth Team Leader in Zambia, the Economic Growth Office Director in Ukraine, and a Controller for Financial Management in Rwanda. I went through that list because I think everyone would acknowledge that these are people who are serving in very dangerous places. As I mentioned, we had a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with General Allen, who is doing incredible public service for our representative in the Middle East. He said he wanted to thank the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the attention we have given to our diplomats. Often on the floor of the Senate you hear glowing thanks--and I join in that--to the men and women who have worn the uniform of our Nation to defend our freedom. Well, our thanks go equally to our Foreign Service officers who serve in very dangerous positions in order to advance the U.S. principles of democracy and human rights. We know about the casualties we have suffered in that regard. These individuals are entitled to their promotions, and it requires our action. To hold up their promotions for reasons unrelated to their job performance is just plain irresponsible, and we need to take up these nominees. There are ambassadorships that have been open for way too long. I could mention many of the ambassadorships, but I will just mention two--Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago. Sweden, of course, is a strategic ally and an Arctic Council member. Azita Raji has been nominated. She is a businesswoman who has been the vice president of J.P. Morgan Securities. She brings her unique expertise from the business sector to help one of our critical Ambassador positions. Again, she is a noncontroversial nominee who has been held up 10 months. Sweden is a critical partner for the United States. In Trinidad and Tobago, John Estrada has been waiting 180 days for his confirmation. Trinidad is a critical place for the United States as far as drug-smuggling activities that bring drugs into the United States. We need a confirmed Ambassador to lead that fight against drug smuggling into the United States. Again, he is being held up for reasons unrelated to his own qualifications. I could go through all the 16 nominees. I think I have made my point. My point is that I think the public would be surprised to learn that one Senator could block a nomination of a President, and that is used many times unrelated to the qualifications of that individual for the position for which he or she has been nominated. It has happened in the Senate numerous times, as I have just pointed out. I think it is the responsibility of the Senate to say enough is enough. It is time for us to act on these nominees so they can continue their public service in a confirmed position to help us in our war against drugs, to help us in our international diplomacy, to help us in development assistance in order to resolve conflicts, and to provide the very best legal advice to make sure that what we are doing is consistent with our Constitution. To do the services of the people for the people of this country, we have to do our service in the Senate, and that is to take up and vote on the President's nominees to these critical foreign policy positions. I urge my colleagues to allow us to bring these nominees up for a vote so we can carry out our responsibility and so these people can carry out their critically important missions to the security interests of the United States. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week in my hometown of Baltimore, MD, the Western High School class of 1965 will gather to celebrate their 50th class reunion. In honor of this special occasion, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to the experiences of the WHS class of 1965 and commemorate the lasting legacy of Western High School, which continues to produce leaders for the Baltimore community. To this day, Western High School remains a source of pride for the city of Baltimore. Founded as Western Female High School in 1844, it remains the oldest operating public all-girls high school in the Nation nearly 171 years after its doors opened on North Paca Street. Prior to the opening of Western Female High School and its now defunct companion Eastern Female High School, Baltimore City females were without an opportunity to advance their education beyond the basic grammar school level. Female students from across the city were drawn to the academic rigor of Western High School, creating a true magnet school, as we know today. As the city of Baltimore grew, so did Western High School. In 1896, Western High School moved to a larger location on Lafayette and McCulloh Streets, which allowed for the expansion of courses to include clerical courses. Today Western High School resides on a joint campus opened in 1967 with the all-male Baltimore Polytechnic Institute on Falls Road. The WHS class of 1965 graduated from Western in a transitionary period for Western. Two years away from the opening of the current campus, Western High School students attended classes in the heart of downtown Baltimore. With an overpopulated school building that forced administrators to move to a split shift schedule to accommodate all of Western's students, alumnae often participated in work or volunteer opportunities located within walking distance of the school. This proximity to downtown also allowed Western students to participate in the burgeoning civil rights movement in Baltimore City, including the picketing of businesses which refused to serve African Americans. While Western High School students can fondly remember their efforts to fight for social justice in the civil rights movement, the class of 1965 was also struck by the tragic news of President John F. Kennedy's assassination. Even as WHS mourned this news, former Western High School alumna Sarah T. Hughes, then judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and just the third woman to ever serve as a Federal jurist, administered the oath of office to then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson aboard Air Force One. The storied history of Western High School and school motto, ``Lucem accepimus, lucem demus''--``We have received light, let us give light''--has continued to inspire generations of students and countless alumnae of WHS. Among its alumnae include Henrietta Szold, the founder of Hadassah; Trazana Beverley, a 1977 Tony Award Winner; former Maryland State superintendent of schools Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick; current Baltimore City mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; and current Western High School principal Michelle White. As the WHS class of 1965 comes together this week to celebrate their class reunion and years of friendship, I encourage each alumnae to remember the words they were taught at Western High School many years ago and continue to strengthen their own communities.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, ``Here we go again.'' Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has warned us that the Federal Government will bump up against the statutory debt ceiling on Tuesday, November 3. Shortly after that, on December 11, the fiscal year 2016 continuing resolution will expire, bringing the prospects of yet another government shutdown. Absent a budget deal to suspend sequestration and lift the spending caps imposed under the Budget Control Act, we face draconian spending cuts that will harm both our economic recovery and our national security. Meanwhile, authority for the Export-Import Bank has expired already, and authority to spend surface transportation funding will expire at the end of this month. This is no way to run a government. It is time to end this mindless fiscal brinkmanship and negotiate a comprehensive budget deal that resolves all of these issues. The American people demand and deserve no less. But first we must act on the debt ceiling. With respect to the debt ceiling, Treasury Secretary Lew wrote to House Speaker John Boehner on October 15 warning that extraordinary measures to forestall hitting the statutory debt ceiling will be exhausted as soon as November 3. At that point, the Federal Government will have a cash balance of about $30 billion but will be facing obligations totaling as much as $60 billion on certain days. Secretary Lew wrote in his letter: Operating the United States government with no borrowing authority, with only the cash on hand on a given day, would be profoundly irresponsible. As I wrote previously, we anticipate that a remaining cash balance of less than $30 billion will be depleted quickly. In fact, we do not foresee any reasonable scenario in which it would last for an extended period of time. The government makes approximately 80 million payments a month, including Social Security and veteran benefits, military salaries, Medicare reimbursements, and many others. In the absence of congressional action, Treasury would be unable to satisfy all of these obligations for the first time in the history of the United States . . . The creditworthiness of the United States is an essential component of our strength as a nation. Protecting that strength is the sole responsibility of Congress, because only Congress can extend the nation's borrowing authority. Moreover, as you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize any new spending. It simply allows Treasury to pay for expenditures Congress has approved, in full and on time. I couldn't agree with Secretary Lew more. Raising the debt ceiling allows us to pay for what has already been appropriated by Congress for spending. This has nothing to do with how much we are going to spend as a nation; it has everything to do with whether we are going to honor our bills. The United States of America has to pay its bills. Just as when American families use a credit card, when a bill is due, it needs to be paid in a timely manner. At no time in our history has our country been unable or unwilling to pay its debts. Raising our debt ceiling has to be done--not so we can spend more, as Secretary Lew pointed out, but to pay the bills we already have. Default is not an option. Some Republicans, particularly in the House, have suggested that the Federal Government can prioritize its payments to avoid a technical default. Some have dubbed this ``pay China first'' because, as my colleagues know, much of our public debt is held by the Chinese. It is disturbing that our Republican colleagues are considering such a proposal. It simply won't work. The Federal Government makes 80 million to 100 million payments monthly, including Social Security, veteran benefits, military salaries, and Medicare reimbursements. The Treasury Department doesn't have the manpower, the computer capability, or the guidelines to sort out who gets paid when. The Bipartisan Policy Center has prepared a comprehensive analysis of what happens if we hit the so-called X-date without lifting the debt ceiling. As the Bipartisan Policy Center notes, ``The reality will be chaotic,'' with the Treasury Department being forced to pick ``winners'' and ``losers.'' We might have to shut down the entire Justice Department, the Federal courts, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other agencies. These are critically important missions that people in this country depend upon. We might have to suspend tax refunds-- refunds taxpayers desperately need. We might have to stop paying Federal workers, 30 percent of whom are veterans and contractors. As the Bipartisan Policy Center notes, ``On a day-to-day basis, handling all payments for important and popular programs, (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, Military Active Duty Pay) will quickly become impossible.'' Delaying the decision to increase the debt limit jeopardizes our economy and our standing in the world. The mere suggestion that the Federal Government might miss a payment caused Standard & Poor's to downgrade our sovereign credit rating from AAA to AA-plus after the 2011 debt limit standoff. A default is a default. We can't pick winners and losers. If we default on any of our debt, it will affect our creditworthiness and our bond ratings. If we don't transfer the payments to State and local governments--and a large part of our budget depends upon them receiving their Federal share of programs--it will cause State and local governments to default, affecting their bond ratings and increasing the cost of borrowing, a hidden tax--not a hidden tax--an additional tax to the taxpayers of this country. During the last debt limit showdown in 2013, yields for targeted securities in secondary markets rose from 1 basis point in mid- September to over 50 basis points just prior to the resolution of the standoff in October. The Government Accounting Office estimates that the 2013 impasse cost the Federal Government between $38 million and $70 million in added interest payments to service the debt. This is what taxpayers had to pay because Congress did not in a timely way increase the debt limit. So it is not only the default, it is the time we take. We have to act now. We should have acted well before now. If we keep playing with fire, we are going to get burned and burned badly. In addition to lifting the debt ceiling, which needs to be done first, we need to negotiate a comprehensive budget deal. Last week administration officials announced that the fiscal year 2015 deficit was $44 billion--$44 billion--less than the previous year. Last year's deficit was $439 billion. This is still too high, but let's put the number in context. It was the lowest share of our economy--at 2.5 percent--since 2007. As Treasury Secretary Lew pointed out, under the President's leadership, the deficit has been cut by roughly three- quarters as a share of the economy since 2009--the fastest sustained deficit reduction since just after World War II. It is important to remember that the previous administration--the Bush administration--inherited the biggest surpluses in history and promptly squandered them on two ill-conceived tax cuts and a war in Iraq that was paid for on a credit card. Then we had the biggest recession since the Great Depression. This was the situation the Obama administration inherited--from surpluses to deficits to recession. The Obama administration took effective, extraordinary measures to pull the economy back from the brink. Economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, writing for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimated that without the measures taken in late 2008 and early 2009 the peak-to-trough decline in real gross domestic product, which was barely over 4 percent, would have been close to a stunning 14 percent; the economy would have contracted by more than 3 years, more than twice as long as it did; more than 17 million jobs would have been lost, about twice the actual number; the unemployment rates would have peaked at just under 16 percent, rather than the actual 10 percent; the budget deficit would have grown to more than 20 percent of GDP, about double the actual 10 percent, topping off at $2.8 trillion in fiscal year 2011. My point is that the actions taken by the Obama administration pulled our economy out of recession and back to growth. It did it in a responsible manner. So we took emergency measures necessary to stop the economic free fall, and since then we have had the fastest deficit reduction since just after World War II. We are now using a different policy, as we should. I mention that because our Republican colleagues want to cut domestic spending even more. That is not sustainable. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted last year, spending cuts have exceeded tax increases by a 3-to-1 margin already. Put another way, for every dollar of new revenue we have received, we have cut spending by $3.27. We have contracted, particularly on the discretionary domestic side. We need to come together and negotiate a deal that keeps the Federal Government open, not shut. The 2013 shutdown, according to Moody's Analytics, cost the economy $20 billion and 120,000 jobs. Still, the so-called tea party Republicans and Presidential candidates want to shut down the government right before the holidays in a misguided notion that it will somehow prevent Planned Parenthood from providing health care services to low-income women and their families. Two years ago, the same individuals thought that shutting down the government would prevent the Affordable Care Act from being implemented. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. The damage they did--and could do again--is to our economy and our standing in the world. A realistic budget deal will need to protect Federal workers from further harm. Since 2011 Federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction. Federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction. They didn't cause the deficit. They have endured 3 years of pay freezes and two substandard pay increases since then for a total of $137 billion. They lost another billion dollars in pay because of sequestration-related furloughs. Federal employees hired in 2013 and since 2014 are paying an extra $21 billion for their pensions. Each and every Federal worker is being asked to do more with less as agency budgets have been frozen or cut. This is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants who are mostly middle class and struggling to get along as are so many other Americans. Enough is enough. Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76 percent and the private sector workforce has surged 133 percent, but the size of the Federal workforce has risen just 11 percent. Relative to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than one-half the size it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the U.S. population it serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of its various missions and Federal expenditures. Additionally, picking on Federal workers in a budget deal or shutting down the government hurts veterans. Over 30 percent of civilian Federal employees are veterans, compared to 7.8 percent of the non-Federal workforce. The Federal Government hires a lot more veterans--30 percent of our workforce--another reason we should be mindful of what we do to our Federal workforce. Do we really want to cut the pay and benefits for these individuals even more than we have already? Do we really want to force them to work during a shutdown but not pay them on time or force them to stay home involuntarily and have them worry about whether they will be paid at all? Is this how we want to honor the men and women who stood in harm's way to defend our Nation and who continue to serve us? The missions that are carried out by our Federal workforce are great missions, and they perform more work in a smaller workforce. It is time to recognize what they do for our country. Preventing Federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm them; it harms all Americans because Federal workers control our borders and make sure our air and water are clean and our food and drugs are safe. They support our men and women in uniform and care for our wounded warriors. They help our manufacturers compete abroad, discover cures for life-threatening diseases, and prosecute criminals and terrorists. They maintain and protect critical infrastructure, explore the universe, process passport applications, and make sure Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety net programs are functioning properly. When Federal workers do their jobs, they are helping each and every American live a safer and more prosperous life. Our tasks here in Congress should be straightforward. First, we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can continue to pay our bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Second, we need to keep the Federal Government open for business and keep the Federal workers on their jobs. Third, we need to negotiate a comprehensive budget deal that replaces sequestration--a budget that maintains critical Federal investments while spreading the burden of deficit reduction in a fair way and holding Federal workers and their families harmless after subjecting them to so much hardship over the past several months and years. Fourth, we need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, a bank that helps us with a level playing field on international commerce, particularly with small companies, and we must reauthorize our surface transportation program on a 6-year reauthorization. You can't do a major highway, bridge, or transit program with a Federal partner that gives only a couple months of commitment. We need to have a multi-year transportation reauthorization passed. Heretofore, one of the greatest attributes of the American character has been pragmatism. We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end of the day the American people have entrusted us with governing. That means being pragmatic, sitting down, listening to each other, compromising, and providing policies that will stand the test of time. Let us do our job on behalf of all Americans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this past Sunday was the 43rd anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act. In 1972, the Clean Water Act amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. This law was enacted with bipartisan support--I could really say on a nonpartisan issue--because the Congress in 1972 and the administration recognized that clean water was in our national interest. It was important to our public health, it was important to our environment, and it was important to our economy. This law established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States, and it has been the cornerstone of our efforts to protect our Nation's waterways. Several times we have done cost analysis of the cost of regulation versus the benefit of clean water. It is overwhelmingly on the side of the benefit to our community, better health, better environment, and a better economy. On this occasion I would like to speak about the recent efforts to protect America's waterways, such as the EPA's final clean water rule, and why we should defend these efforts and allow nationwide implementation. In May, the EPA released their final clean water rule, which completed another chapter in the Clean Water Act's history. As the Clean Water Act worked to restore the health of our Nation's water resources, we saw the U.S. economy grow, demonstrating that America does not have to choose between the environment and a robust economy. A clean environment helped build a robust economy. Two Supreme Court decisions, however, call on the EPA and the Army Corps to clarify the definitions of the waters of the United States. The EPA's final rule restores some long overdue regulatory certainty to the Clean Water Act. I might tell you, in reviewing this rule, it basically reestablishes the longstanding understanding of what were the waters of the United States and what was subject to regulation. This rule allows the Clean Water Act to continue its important function of restoring the health of our Nation's waters. The rule became effective this August, but immediately following the implementation and on this anniversary, there have been unprecedented attacks on the final rule. As the rule came out, a Federal district court in North Dakota granted a preliminary injunction, blocking its implementation. The EPA continued to implement the rule in all States but the 13 States that filed the suit that led to the injunction. However, in October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided to stay the implementation of the rule for the entire country. This attempt to overturn the clean water rule is dangerous, shortsighted, and a step away from good governance, public health, and commonsense environmental protection. Let me tell you what is at risk. What is at risk are our Nation's streams and 200 million acres of wetlands. Over half of our streams and over 200 million acres of wetland are now at risk of not being under regulation under the Clean Water Act. These protections are needed for drinking supplies for one out of every three Americans. I am very concerned about the impact on all States, but let me just talk for a moment, if I might, about my own State of Maryland. Marylanders rely upon our water as part of our life. We live on the water. Seventy percent of Marylanders live in coastal areas. We depend upon clean water. We are particularly concerned about our drinking supply of water as well as the health of the Chesapeake Bay. We are at risk with the waters of the United States confusion out there because of the Supreme Court decisions and now the stay of this rule by the court. The Clean Water Act and EPA's final rules are essential to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Wetland protections are especially critical to the Chesapeake Bay because the wetlands soak up harmful nutrient pollution. This past Monday, I was in Howard County at a NOAA announcement of the Chesapeake Bay B-WET grant. These are bay, watershed, education, and training funds. These are small dollars that go to institutions to help educate our children. In this case, the Howard County Conservancy received a grant because they bring all of the students from the Howard County public schools to an outdoor experience to rate and judge the streams in our community. The streams, of course, flow into the Chesapeake Bay. They are giving us a report card. I must tell you, that report card is not going to be as good as it should be. Without the protections in the Clean Water Act, it is going to be more difficult to meet the goals we need to in order to protect the Chesapeake Bay and all of the watersheds in this country for future generations. The health of the bay is closely linked to upstream water quality and the restoration and protection of headwaters. It should go without saying that these waters are located in States beyond Maryland's borders. Improvements to upstream water quality are positively correlated with the water quality of the bay. We need a national program. That is what the Clean Water Act is. It is a national commitment because we know that the watersheds go beyond State borders. In Maryland, we set up the Chesapeake Bay Partnership. Yes, Virginia and Maryland are working together, but we also have the cooperation of Pennsylvania, of New York, of West Virginia, of Delaware. Why? Because these States contribute to the water supplies going into the Chesapeake Bay. We need to protect these waters. Protecting of America's waters is critically important to public health. So what is at stake here? What is at stake if we derail the clean water rule? The public health of the people of Maryland and all States around this country. Public health and the environment in my State and the States of my colleagues have become seriously at risk from this decision that hinders this essential commonsense guidance. I hope the court moves swiftly to affirm the rule in its final decision and restores the invaluable protections needed for the drinking supplies of one out of every three Americans. As we recognize the anniversary of the Clean Water Act, I want us to continue to defend this Nation's waters from pollution. This act ensures that every citizen receives the clean water they need and deserve. The EPA's final clean water rule provides further regulatory clarity that we need to ensure the health of our water resources. I urge my colleagues to continue to defend and fight for clean water as we recognize the 43rd anniversary of the Clean Water Act. Every Congress should, as its legacy, add to the protections that we provide for clean water in this country. That should be the legacy of every Congress, but we certainly don't want to hinder that record. Therefore, we need to implement the EPA's clean water rule nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support such action. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to address the situation in Sri Lanka, a country that has endured a brutal civil war and is working to address the difficult issues of accountability and reconciliation. Following the historic elections in January and August, Sri Lanka has a remarkable opportunity to economically integrate with the West and build security ties. This relationship has great potential that we all hope can be realized. But before we move forward on greater economic and security cooperation, Sri Lanka must finally resolve longstanding issues of accountability that have plagued the country since the end of the war and engage in a credible and legitimate effort to reconcile amongst all communities in the country: Sinhalese and Tamil, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist. Efforts by the last government to deal with war crimes allegations were a sham, according to the U.N., according to the U.S. Government, according to the victims and according to the current government in Colombo. Justice has been mostly nonexistent for scores across the country. Many Tamils do not trust the central government to administer a genuine and credible domestic mechanism to provide real accountability for crimes committed during the war. Many Sinhala mothers want to know what happened to their sons who served in the military. Many combatants and civilians remain unaccounted for, necessitating a comprehensive effort to identify all missing persons. On October 1, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed Resolution 25/1, which is focused on accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. This resolution is not perfect, but if fully implemented, it provides the most promising path forward since the end of the war. The resolution leaves open the possibility for international judges and prosecutors in Sri Lanka's judicial mechanism to promote accountability. The current government has made clear that the international role will be limited to providing technical assistance and advice. As the U.S. works with Sri Lanka to implement the resolution, I urge our diplomats to push for the most robust international role in the accountability process. I also urge the Sri Lankan Government to continue to act in good faith to ensure that any accountability mechanism is seen as fair and just by all its citizens. The U.S. led an effort to pass a 2014 U.N. Human Rights Council resolution which mandated a report on war crimes allegations in Sri Lanka. Earlier this month, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released its report which documented ``a horrific level of violations and abuses'' committed between 2002 and 2011. Among the violations committed by Sri Lankan government forces, the separatist Tamil Tigers, LTTE, and pro-government paramilitaries included in the 261-page report include enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, denial of humanitarian assistance, sexual violence, indiscriminate shelling, and the recruitment of child soldiers. The report also recommended a series of measures that Sri Lanka should take to address these issues. For example the report recommends that the Government of Sri Lanka integrate international judges and prosecutors with an independent Sri Lankan investigative and prosecuting body to try those accused of war crimes, implement security sector reform, return land occupied by the military, strengthen witness protection programs, and establish a national reparations policy in consultation with victims and families. Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera spoke a few weeks ago at the 30th session of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. His own very welcome recognition of the depth of the institutional challenges and of past failures is more than enough reason to insist on outside involvement, particularly in investigations and witness protection. Foreign Minister Samaraweera appears genuinely committed to reconciliation. He recently announced the government's support for a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and nonrecurrence to help victims understand what happened and help them attain justice. He emphasized the government's commitment to an office on missing persons based on the principle of the families' right to know what happened to their loved ones. He announced the establishment of an office for reparations for victims. Most notably he acknowledged that any judicial mechanism for accountability will need to be designed through a wide process of consultations involving all stakeholders to include support from the international community. Sri Lanka and its supporters in the international community expect action, not more promises, on each of these fronts. The political will expressed by the government for a democratic future based on human rights and rule of law is something that should be acknowledged and welcomed by the U.S., international community, and all Sri Lankans. We have an obligation to support and foster this vision. As a friend, we also have an obligation to identify shortcomings as they arise throughout the process. Moving forward, the U.S. can take several concrete measures to support Sri Lanka's accountability process through the challenging days ahead. First, the U.S. should work to ensure that the commitments in the current UNHRC resolution are fully implemented. Following the passage of the resolution, the U.S. should push for the most robust international role in the accountability process, to include international judges and prosecutors. Second, the United States can support efforts to ensure witness protection inside of Sri Lanka. This could include the establishment of special security force for witness protection, developed in close coordination with leaders in the Tamil community. Third, the U.S. military should urge its counterparts in the Sri Lankan Armed Forces to play a constructive role in the accountability process. I understand that there are many in the Sri Lankan military who seek to clear the military's name so that the institution can move forward. They should deliver on that commitment. Fourth, the U.S. should continue and expand programs that strengthen civil society voices in Sri Lanka. The country now has a parliament which is more disposed towards incorporating civil society into the policymaking process. These advocates will be critical moving forward on this as well as broader reconciliation efforts. Finally, the U.S. should make clear that any accountability process must include addressing violations committed by all sides in the conflict: LTTE, the Sri Lankan military, and pro-government paramilitary groups. The goal of accountability is not revenge. The goal is to conduct a process where all sides are provided a measure of justice that leads to durable reconciliation and a marked departure from armed conflict. The previous government's policies were a dangerous cocktail that were slowly sliding Sri Lanka back into ethnic and religious strife. Today, Sri Lanka's leaders have an important opportunity to move beyond this divisive past. They say they want it and they have a plan on paper. Now is the time to act. And I am prepared to support the efforts of President Sirisena, Prime Minister Wickramasinghe, Opposition Leader Sampanthan, and all Sri Lankans towards that end. The High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said the credibility of the U.N. Human Rights Council is on the line in Sri Lanka. I agree and would say that the same goes for the United States. Our country has an important responsibility to finish the work of diplomats in recent years and promote the strongest accountability mechanism in Sri Lanka. Our credibility on human rights issues around the world is at stake and will be watched closely by human rights defenders and violators alike.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to address an important event that occurred this week at the United Nations, which is marking the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly, UNGA. Over the weekend, over 150 world leaders gathered at UNGA to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is built on the progress achieved by Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, which were launched in 2000. The Millennium Development Goals brought together nations, businesses, international organizations, and foundations in a focused and coordinated effort to reduce poverty and disease by 2015. By any and every metric, the initial set of MDGs has resulted in tangible, concrete progress. One goal was to cut extreme poverty by half as measured by the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day. That goal was met 5 years ahead of schedule. Meanwhile, maternal mortality was cut nearly in half. We've also made progress in global education, with a 20 percent increase in primary school enrollment in sub-Saharan Africa and a nearly 50 percent decrease in the number of out-of-school children of primary school age. When it comes to combating HIV/AIDS, we've made truly incredible strides over the past 15 years. New HIV infections have dropped by 40 percent between 2000 and 2013, and the number of people living with HIV that were receiving antiretroviral therapy increased seventeenfold from 2003 to 2014. In some areas, like gender equality, we still have a long way to go. But we can cheer the fact that, in 90 percent of countries today, women have greater parliamentary representation than they did just 20 years ago. So there is no doubt that we've seen real growth around the world. Millions of lives have been saved and enriched. But we still have more progress to make. The old Millennium Development Goals have laid the groundwork for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was adopted by the U.N. over the weekend. The new agenda sets out an ambitious global development framework that includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals. These new goals were negotiated with strong engagement by the U.S. government, business leaders, and civil society members over the last 3 years. American and international corporations worked closely with the U.N. because many businesses leaders correctly believe that, to end extreme poverty and open new markets, we must increase government transparency, root out corruption, and accelerate inclusive economic growth. Many of these new goals focus on the areas where we hope to see additional progress, such as maternal and child health, environmental sustainability, and gender equality. But they also focus on good governance and corruption. I am particularly pleased at the addition of goal No. 16, which is to ``promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.'' Including that goal wasn't easy--it was met by resistance from many other countries--but no one can ignore the fact any longer that good governance and anticorruption efforts are critical to development. Truly sustainable and inclusive development depends on governments and institutions that are accountable and transparent and that respect human rights and deliver justice for everybody, not just some. The U.N. has noted that ``lessons learned from MDG implementation showed the importance of incorporating human rights, the rule of law and personal security to ensure progress towards development goals. Effective and inclusive governance and robust institutional capacity are instrumental in achieving this.'' The necessity of incorporating good governance and strong anticorruption measures in sustainable development efforts is most evident when we look at resource rich countries in Africa and the extraordinary development challenges there. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, for example, is a country rich in minerals, water resources, and agricultural potential. And it has experienced high annual economic growth in recent years. Yet most of its people continue to live in extreme poverty. DRC's progress on sustainable development is hindered by minimal central government control over large parts of the national territory, poor transportation and electricity infrastructure, the government's inability to manage and monitor extraction of its natural resources, and broad governance problems including endemic corruption and barely functional state institutions. Without progress on justice and effective and accountable institutions, corruption will continue to infect governments around the world, like the DRC, creating greater economic and political instability, which often leads to violent conflict. The DRC is just one example of why we need goal 16. The desperate refugees streaming into Europe provide another sad example. Most of these people are coming from places where ordinary people have experienced long-term repression and other human rights abuses at the hands of deeply corrupt governments. Consequently, many of these countries are now consumed by violent conflict. Most of the people crossing the Mediterranean in rafts are fleeing wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. The Syrians are the largest group. They are fleeing a deadly combination of their own government's indiscriminate barrel bomb attacks on crowded markets, schools, and clinics; suffocating sieges; and atrocities committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS and other extremist groups. We know that only a minority of migrants arriving in Europe are motivated solely by economic betterment. As the world focuses on the wave of refugees and migrants arriving in Europe, we must not lose our focus on the roots of this crisis. We must pay attention to why these desperate men, women, and children are on the move. The misery of many of these refugees is the direct result of the conflicts and human rights abuses of governments that are ineffective or illegitimate, or both, and mostly likely corrupt. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals is remarkable for the historic inclusion of goal 16. It acknowledges the centrality of good governance and accountable and transparent institutions as prerequisites for sustainable development. If nations across the globe truly embrace goal 16, I am convinced we will also witness far fewer men, women, and children being forced to endure extraordinary misery, violence, displacement, and exploitation as refugees. Surely, that must be our collective goal.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an outstanding civil servant and constituent, Jeffrey F. Paniati, executive director of the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, who is retiring after 32 years of Federal service. Jeff Paniati received his master of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Maryland. He joined FHWA in 1983 as a highway engineer trainee and rose through the ranks to join the Senior Executive Service in 2000 and eventually became executive director in April 2008. The executive director, the number three official in FHWA, is the only civil service position in the agency that requires the approval of the President. As executive director, Jeff assists the Federal Highway Administrator and Deputy Administrator in establishing policies, programs, and priorities for the $40 billion annual Federal aid highway program. As FHWA's chief operating officer, he oversees a workforce of approximately 2,900 transportation professionals and an annual operating budget of $400 million. One of the biggest challenges Jeff faced came just months after he became executive director. The economic collapse in the fall of 2008 brought the country into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, into law. ARRA, also known as the stimulus act, authorized $26.6 billion for road and bridge projects that would create construction jobs to help the economy recover while providing transportation facilities to make our communities safer, greener, more livable, less congested, and economically stronger. This funding was in addition to the regular $40 billion a year Federal aid highway program. At the time, Jeff was the highest ranking FHWA official because the President had not yet nominated a new Federal Highway Administrator or Deputy Administrator. It fell to Jeff, serving as acting Deputy Administrator, to ensure the agency was able to absorb the additional funds, deploy them to State and local officials for shovel-ready projects, ensure proper oversight of record numbers of projects, and help deliver the jobs the country so desperately needed. The result was more than 13,000 highway and bridge projects across the country that put tens of thousands of people to work, in addition to the thousands of projects and jobs resulting from regular program funds. All of this was accomplished within ARRA's deadlines, without any increase in staff by FHWA but with the full cooperation of State and local transportation officials under the familiar Federal-State partnership of the Federal aid highway program. President Obama remarked that there has never been a program of this scale, moving at this speed, enacted as effectively, and meeting such high standards of transparency and accountability. The stimulus provided by implementation of the Recovery Act paved the foundation for the economic growth that has continued to this day. Many people deserve credit for this outstanding accomplishment, including FHWA employees around the country, especially Jeff Paniati. Throughout Jeff's earlier career in FHWA, he accumulated a diverse range of experience in helping to make America's transportation systems work safely and efficiently. He served as chief of the safety design division, a research office helping to advance the state of the art in highway safety. As program manager for Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITS, he led the more than $100 million annual Federal ITS program. He directed day-to-day operations of the ITS Joint Program Office, which focuses on bringing advanced communication and information system technologies to the management and operation of our Nation's surface transportation system. At the time of his appointment as executive director, he was FHWA's associate administrator for operations; in this capacity, he provided national leadership in system management and operations, ITS deployment, and freight management. Throughout Jeff's career, he has worked closely with the Transportation Research Board, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and ITS America--to name just a few of FHWA's many partners and stakeholders. Jeff's extensive experience throughout the agency gave him the background to move FHWA forward. He oversaw the successful implementation of the many program changes required under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, MAP-21, in 2012. Perhaps the most significant change was that MAP-21 shifted FHWA to risk-based stewardship and oversight that redefined FHWA's role in working with its State and local partners. It also gave FHWA the leadership role in transitioning with its partners to a transportation performance management focus that emphasizes a strategic approach by using data to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals. These dramatic changes in operation of the Federal aid highway program required extensive outreach, which Jeff coordinated, to explain the shifts to FHWA's partners and gain their support for them. Jeff played a leadership role in advancing U.S. interests and bolstering international cooperation under the auspices of the World Road Association, where he served as U.S. first delegate and chair of the strategic planning commission. He led an international team in overseeing the work of the association's 15 technical committees and the development of its next strategic plan. He also facilitated efforts to advance special reports on the importance of road maintenance and helped produce a climate change adaptation framework. Jeff's involvement in the association enabled the U.S. to further enhance our international leadership and expertise in the design, delivery, and operation of highway and road networks. Closer to home, Jeff never forgot the importance of giving all FHWA employees the opportunity to advance in their careers. He listened to employee feedback, administered a strategic workforce assessment, established a formal mentoring program, developed the leadership for innovation decisionmaking program and expanded the Leadership Development Academy, and instilled in leadership ranks throughout the FHWA the value of expanding opportunity. Initiatives of this type are valuable to employees and their families, but are also critical to ensuring the FHWA can meet the challenges of the future by helping the agency to recruit and retain the best public servants our Nation has to offer. Through these and other initiatives, Jeff helped make FHWA successful not only in accomplishing its vitally important mission, but in making the agency a better place to work. Among agencies of its size, FHWA has ranked in the top 10 best places to work in the Federal Government among agency subcomponents for the past 3 years. Under Jeff's leadership, FHWA moved from No. 33 in 2009 to No. 5 in 2013, an impressive achievement in a short period of time. Jeff will be retiring this month after 32 years of Federal service to become president and chief executive officer of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. After his long career and especially his 7\1/ 2\ years as executive director, Jeff leaves FHWA a better place, which is good for America. I am proud to represent Jeff and so many other Federal workers. I believe our Federal workforce is the best in the world. We are fortunate to have dedicated, talented, creative, hard- working, and patriotic public servants like Jeff. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Jeff for serving the American public with such distinction and devotion and wishing him much success as he leaves Federal service. We also need to thank his wife, Kim, and his children Chris and Lauren for supporting him in his public career.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the actions of ``12 immortal justices'' of the Frederick County Court in Maryland who refused to discharge the British Stamp Act on November 23, 1765. This first official act of defiance against the British Government's ``taxation without representation'' in the Thirteen Original Colonies-- 8 years before the Boston Tea Party--helped set the stage for the American Revolution that would lead to a free and independent United States of America. The Stamp Act the British Parliament passed in early 1765 exacted revenue from the Colonies by imposing a stamp duty on newspapers and legal and commercial documents. Colonists in Maryland quickly realized that the Stamp Act and other new taxes would severely impede trade in the Colonies and hinder their economic growth. Jonas Green, the publisher of the Maryland Gazette at the time, used his platform as the only news outlet in the colony to stir opposition to the actions of the British Parliament among Marylanders. As protests turned to revolts, plans to distribute stamped paper were delayed, which made stamped paper in Frederick County and Western Maryland unavailable. When the county's clerk of the court refused to carry out the business of the court without stamped paper, Frederick County's 12 justices responded by holding him in contempt and unanimously passing the resolution that would come to be known as the Repudiation Act, allowing business to continue without the use of stamped paper and effectively nullifying the act of Parliament. The text of the Repudiation Act stated: ``that all proceedings shall be valid without the use of stamps . . . and ordering all sheriffs, clerks, counsellors, and officers of the Court to proceed with their several avocations as usual, without delay occasionded from the want of stamped paper, parchment or vellum.'' The justices took this action at great peril to their livelihood and even their lives. Since 1894, Repudiation Day has been marked by the Maryland General Assembly as an official bank half-holiday in Frederick County and by the Frederick Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution with celebratory events. This year, which marks the 250th anniversary of this courageous act of defiance by 12 Maryland justices, will be particularly special with a parade, dedication of an interpretive plaque, educational presentations, and public display of the original court act. In addition, Frederick's Brewer's Alley has collaborated with the Sergeant Lawrence Everhart Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution on the release of the 250th Anniversary Commemorative ``Twelve Immortals Ale'' inspired by the beers of the 18th Century. I commend the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Sons of the American Revolution, Brewer's Alley, the Tourism Council of Frederick County, the city of Frederick, and everyone else involved in the effort to honor the brave actions of these 12 Marylanders and encourage every American to commemorate the 250th anniversary of an event that sparked the first flames of liberty in the American Colonies.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, there are many people who work behind the scenes to help the Senate function. We tend to take them for granted, but we shouldn't. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge one such Senate staffer, Sylvia Oliver, who is leaving at the end of this week. I won't say that Sylvia is retiring because there is a chance we can coax her into returning at some point. But she is leaving her job as coordinator of the Congressional Record in the Office of the Official Reporters of Debates because she wants to spend more time at home with her daughter, Lily, who is a senior in high school. That is a completely understandable and laudable desire. Few people appreciate that even though the Office of the Official Reporters of Debates has embraced the latest information technology, producing the Congressional Record remains a painstaking, labor- intensive process. Even fewer people appreciate that the officials and employees like Sylvia who are responsible for its production typically have to work for several hours each night after the Senate has adjourned making sure the Record is accurate and complete before sending it to the Government Publishing Office. We take for granted that a printed copy of the Record, one of the most important documents in our Nation, will be delivered to our offices the next morning. There are many people who work late into the night without fanfare or accolades to make this possible. They are an invaluable part of what I call the Senate family. Sylvia is a Vermont native and graduated from the University of Vermont. She still visits her mother, Betty Reid, in Barre as often as possible and is close to her siblings, John Reid, Betsy Reid, David Reid, and Sarah Schroeder. She started her congressional service on the House side in 1988 working for then-Representative Jim Jeffords of Vermont. She came with him to the Senate in 1989. She returned to the House for a few years, working as an executive assistant to the House Sergeant at Arms. Then, she came back to the Senate in 1993, where she worked as a scheduler and executive assistant for Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs before assuming her current job with the Office of the Official Reporters of Debates. She is unfailingly professional and polite. We will all miss her, but I know her colleagues in the Office of the Official Reporters of Debates will miss her the most because she is such a kind and gentle and pleasant person. I am proud to have Sylvia as a constituent. She lives near Annapolis; and, true to the rural roots of her Vermont upbringing, she has made her home atop a converted barn. Even though she works long hours in the Senate, she has usually done more each morning before she arrives here than most people accomplish in a week. She maintains a small farm and looks after three horses whose names are Conge, Chance, and Love It. She starts most mornings by mowing acres of pasture, hauling dozens of bales of hay, and feeding the chickens. She also has a small pumpkin patch. But that is not enough for Sylvia--she has a number of bee hives to look after, too. Lily Oliver, who has graciously shared her mother with us, has said, ``My mom is the most beautiful person I know. She makes the world a better place by always treating those around her with compassion and patience. I am so fortunate to have such a strong, genuine, resourceful, mother to emulate throughout life.'' Well, we have been so fortunate to have Sylvia in the Senate family for the past 20-plus years. The American people are so fortunate to have talented and dedicated public servants like Sylvia. I truly believe our Federal workforce is the best in the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sylvia Oliver for her exemplary service and wishing her well as she begins the next chapter in her life with the most important family of all, her own.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on climate change's radical alteration of the Earth's marine environments--particularly in the Arctic--and how these epic changes in the environment strengthen the case of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Competitors of the United States in the global economy are taking advantage of climate change's environmental impact on the Arctic, particularly how the disappearance of Arctic sea ice is opening new shipping lanes and access to the mineral resources in the Arctic seabed. Our competitors' advances in the Arctic are happening at the expense of U.S. national security, energy development, and maritime transit interests, and it is the failure of the United States to join the treaty that is giving those countries a huge advantage of staking a claim in largely unclaimed territory. In the 3\1/2\ years since a partisan effort thwarted the Senate from providing the necessary advice and consent of the Law of the Sea Treaty, the United States has ceded millions in potential economic opportunity in the Arctic, and we have no recourse to dispute the legality of any of the territorial and economic zone expansions countries like Russia are making in the Arctic waters and sea ice. While the economic and territorial claims--including mineral, oil, and gas extraction rights--in the Arctic are not the only reason for the United States to accede to the Law of the Sea Treaty, the situation in the Arctic is arguably the most dynamic due to the impact climate change is having on the Arctic Ocean environment. As long as the United States sits on the sidelines by not being a party to this treaty, our global economic competitors will continue to take leaps and bounds ahead of the United States, accessing the opportunities we are squandering. The Arctic Ocean environment has experienced notable changes that have tracked ahead of the global rise in temperatures. Starting in the mid-1970s, global average temperatures have risen 0.5 degrees Centigrade, with each of the last three decades being successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the 10 hottest years, based on average global surface temperatures, have all occurred since 1998, with 2014 being the hottest year on record. However, many climate scientists are projecting that this year, 2015, will surpass last year as the hottest year on record. Temperature increases at the Poles have been even more significant, and the impacts and consequences are more severe. I show this photograph here that points out that the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that over the past 30 years, the Arctic has warmed at a higher rate than any other region on Earth. Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the extent of permafrost in the Arctic. According to NOAA, in the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the Arctic were 4 degrees Celsius--7 degrees Fahrenheit--warmer than the 1968-to-1996 reference period. Satellite data shows that over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice cover has declined by 30 percent during the months of September--the month that historically marked the end of the summer melt season. In this NASA survey photo from April 2012, you can see for miles toward the horizon how thin the ice is over the Arctic Ocean, and you can see open channels in the ice with icebergs in the background. That is a new phenomenon. That didn't exist many years ago. This image is of the Arctic Ocean in April, 1 month into the spring melt season. It shows just how thin the aerial coverage of Arctic sea is and in some places where the ice has disappeared altogether. While annual variation in ice coverage has always followed the seasons, the melt periods are growing longer annually, meaning that much of the ice is never restored during the colder winter months. The peak melt periods during the protracted melt seasons have opened up new shipping channels that we must start paying greater attention to. A 2013 report in the ``Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' entitled ``New Trans-Atlantic shipping routes navigable by mid-century'' shows how declines of ice in the Arctic's rapidly changing environment will have dramatic changes in international freight movement. Russia is already declaring that the Northern Sea Route through Russian territorial waters will rival the Suez Canal as a faster and more efficient maritime passage between Europe and West Asia and the west coasts of the United States, Canada, and East Asia. Climate, surface temperature, and sea ice data were run through extensive computer modeling at UCLA, and the outcome produced pretty alarming results showing how wide open the Arctic will likely become for trans- hemispheric transit between North America, Europe, and Asia. Historically, Arctic shipping lanes to Western Europe and the North Atlantic, via the Bering Strait, which connect the ports of the Pacific, including Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Alaska, and all of East Asia to Western Europe and the North Atlantic, have depended on ice breakers to clear channels and were only open during narrow summer melt seasons. These northerly routes have historically been across the Russian side of the Arctic. In recent years, the shipping channels have grown shorter in distance as what was once permanent and thick ice located at the Poles has become increasingly thinner with each passing warmer year. Each year, the shipping routes across the Arctic are getting closer and closer to being ``over the top.'' The blue lines I depict on the chart I brought to the floor, this chart--this would not require any ice-breaking ships to assure clear passage during the peak of the summer melt seasons. The red lines are routes that are passable by ships that can either break ice or follow behind ice breakers. As you can see, from 2006 to the present, the ice- breaking routes are very close to traversing directly over the North Pole and all the other routes are in the Russian Kara, Barrents, and Laptev Seas. The modeling data run through this peer-reviewed study, however, projects that in 30 years the Arctic Ocean will reach near open water status, passable by most ships on either the Canadian or Russian side of the Arctic. In the simplest of economic terms, climate change's impact on diminished sea ice in the Arctic will be a major boon to foreign ports at the expense of U.S. ports. The geopolitical consequences of a more open and expansive Arctic Ocean is something we cannot afford to observe from the sidelines. The Arctic's rapidly changing marine environment is influencing the territorial claims our Arctic neighbors Canada, Russia, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway are making, and all these countries are making legal advances under the law of the sea--the treaty we have not ratified. The United States is the only Arctic nation not staking any expanded claims in the Arctic, nor are we willing to challenge the actions of neighbors who may be encroaching on waters we may have claims to. The State Department cannot be blamed for not making claims or challenging our neighbors because it is the U.S. Senate that has failed to give the State Department the ability to rightfully stake claims and challenge the legality of our competitors' claims purely out of unfounded and ideologically partisan opposition to the United States being party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. The law of the sea establishes international conventions allowing our neighbors to expand the reach of their economic zones, providing a framework for parties to the treaty to stake legal claims to mineral, oil, and gas deposits along the Continental Shelf beyond the 200 miles of a country's conventional territorial seas--they can do that under law of the sea, and we cannot; and to enjoy navigational freedom between parties to the convention, making passage through treaty partners' territorial seas easier--they can; we cannot. We have not ratified the law of the sea. It provides legal certainty to their nations' industries operating in these dangerous yet potentially productive waters--certainty that the United States simply cannot validly claim without being party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Once again, they can give certainty to their industries; we cannot. Our Arctic neighbors' exploitation of Arctic resources is happening right now and is as real as climate change's impact on the Arctic ecosystems that is making these foreign economic ventures possible. They couldn't do it before, but now they can do it. The reports our Arctic Coast Guard fleet are making on the dramatic increase of commercial vessel activity in Alaskan waters are testament to this new reality. The Coast Guard has monitored and reported on this growth, all of which has happened in the last decade. Heightened Arctic maritime activity is directly contributing to the declining sea ice. Both the Washington Times and the New York Times, while covering the President's recent trip to Alaska, reported on the increase of commercial and naval fleet traffic transiting through and across the Arctic. In the New York Times story, Coast Guard Commandant ADM Paul F. Zukunft stated: ``We [the Coast Guard] have been for some time clamoring about our nation's lack of capacity to sustain any meaningful presence in the Arctic.'' U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty has been a failure of many Congresses, not just this one. The United States played a critical role in the development of the treaty going back to the 1970s. The United States has the most to gain from being part of this treaty. For example, we shaped the constructs of the treaty to be very favorable to the United States, including giving the United States the only permanent seat on the international council that will oversee and make decisions about seabed mining. Obviously that permanent seat remains vacant and decisions are being made about seabed mining in international waters without U.S. participation. The estimated area of territorial expansion over which the United States can claim sovereignty under the Continental Shelf expansion conventions of the treaty is estimated to be about 291,000 square miles or roughly one and a half times the size of Texas. A broad set of stakeholders, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to environmental organizations, our Nation's military brass, industry-specific trade groups representing commercial fishing, freight shipping, and mineral extraction, all support the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. The combination of changes in the Arctic environment and changes and advancement in the maritime industry technologies is making the benefits this treaty stands to provide the United States greater and greater with each passing year. As long as the United States is outside the convention, our companies are left with two bad choices: Either take their deep sea mining businesses to another country or give up the idea altogether. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and many other countries are already securing their licenses under the convention to begin mining for valuable metals and rare Earth elements. Accompanying the previously mentioned New York Times story is a map depicting the breadth and scope of the international claims that are being made in the Arctic, the most concerning of the claims are the ones that Russia is making. This map demonstrates the urgency for U.S. action to ensure that these emerging opportunities don't pass us by and go to our competitors. The Law of the Sea Convention provides the international framework to deal with these new opportunities. We are the only Arctic nation outside the convention. Russia and other Arctic states are advancing their Continental Shelf claims in the Arctic. Some of these claims encroach on waters that we could have a viable claim to if the United States were a party, but we are not a party to the convention. Yet we will willfully remain on the outside looking in, painfully complicit to let foreign businesses better our U.S. industries. If the United States were a party to the convention, the United States would have a much stronger basis to assert our interests throughout the entire Arctic region. Lastly, the absence of the United States from the treaty weakens our national security. In 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--I was present during that testimony--on how our security interests are intrinsically linked to the freedom of navigation. They testified in favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty ratification. The United States stands to gain considerably more from the legal certainty and the public order this treaty provides on the oceans than any other country. The U.S. Armed Forces need the navigable rights and freedoms provided under the Law of the Sea Convention, granting global access to the world's oceans to ease and expedite movement to combat areas when necessary and to sustain our engaged deployed forces. In 2012, the former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and ranking member Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana made one of the most cogent set of arguments for U.S. accession to the treaty. In conclusion, let me quote what Senator Lugar told us at that time. I think it is still relevant today. He said: The substantial case for Law of the Sea is even stronger today than it was in 2004 when I brought it up as chairman of the committee. . . . Every year that goes by without the United States joining the convention results in deepening our country's submission to ocean laws and practices determined by foreign governments without United States input. Our Navy and our ocean industries operate every day in a maritime environment that is increasingly dominated by foreign decision-making. In almost any other context, the Senate would be outraged at subjecting Americans to foreign controls without United States input. What many observers fail to understand about Law of the Sea is that the convention already forms the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the United States is a party or not. International decisions related to resource exploitation, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the convention whether we join or not. By not joining the treaty, we are abetting Russian ambitions in the Arctic. We are making the job of our Navy more difficult despite the longstanding and nearly unanimous pleas of Navy leaders that the United States participation in Law of the Sea will help them maintain navigational rights more effectively and with less risk to the men and women they command. We are turning our backs on the requests of important American industries that use the oceans and must abide by rules established under this convention, and we are diminishing our chances for energy independence by making U.S. oil and gas exploration in international waters less likely. . . . We will feel these costs more keenly in the Arctic. The decision . . . is whether the Senate should continue to consign the United States to a position of self-imposed weakness in our ability to influence ocean affairs despite the fact that no organization has a greater interest in navigable freedoms, a larger exclusive economic zone, or a more advanced technological capacity to exploit ocean resources. The Senate should enthusiastically affirm the leadership of the United States in this vital area of international relations by giving advice and consent to the Law of the Sea Convention. I took the time to give a long explanation as to why I believe it is important for the Senate to exercise its responsibility to give advice and consent to a treaty that is the Law of the Sea. It is critically important that we take this issue up and that we ratify the treaty. As I said earlier, it is supported by the Chamber, it is supported by our military, and it is supported by businesses. Laws are being made that affect the United States without our participation. By ratifying the treaty, we will have a seat at the table, and we will be able to protect our interests--our commercial interests, our security interests or whether it is the interests of our military. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to the substitute amendment to H.J. Res. 61 imposing a moratorium on Federal funding for Planned Parenthood clinics and their affiliates unless they stop providing abortions. Let's be clear about one thing: the effort to defund Planned Parenthood is not about Federal funding for abortions. Since 1977, it has been well established under the Hyde amendment that Federal funding cannot be used for abortions, except in very narrow circumstances where the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest. The impetus for this amendment stems from the recent release of surreptitiously recorded and heavily edited videos that falsely portray Planned Parenthood's participation in legal fetal tissue donation programs and the subsequent attempts to defund Planned Parenthood on the basis of that intrinsically dishonest campaign. It is not the first time anti-choice advocates have deliberately misrepresented Planned Parenthood. I remember when a Senator stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate 4 years ago and claimed that abortions are ``well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does''. And then his press spokesperson had to acknowledge that what he said ``wasn't intended as a factual statement''. How much of what we are hearing and seeing now isn't ``intended as a factual statement''? Senators certainly are entitled to their sincerely held positions on abortion and contraception, but I think we ought to refrain from saying things we know aren't true, especially on the floor of the United States Senate. The attack on Planned Parenthood, if successful, would have a devastating impact on women and families across this country, especially lower income women and their families. Planned Parenthood health centers are an integral part of our safety net health care system, providing high quality, affordable health care services to 2.7 million patients per year. Every year, Planned Parenthood physicians and nurses provide family planning counseling and contraception to 2.1 million women, perform nearly 400,000 screenings for cervical cancer and nearly 500,000 breast exams, and provide nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Banning Federal funding for Planned Parenthood would put millions of women at risk of having no place to go for basic, preventive health care. For many women, family planning clinics such as Planned Parenthood provide the only basic health care they receive. In fact, 6 in 10 women who access care through a family planning health center consider it their main source of health care. More than half of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in rural areas, health professional shortage areas, or medically underserved areas, putting women living in those areas at particular risk of losing access to health care services. It isn't just Planned Parenthood that is under attack; it is also the one out of every five women in this country who has relied on Planned Parenthood for health care at some point in her lifetime. Earlier this week, I also voted against invoking cloture on another assault on women's reproductive health--H.R. 36, an unconstitutional attempt to impose a nationwide ban on abortions when the ``postfertilization age'' of the fetus is determined to 20 weeks or greater, with extremely limited exceptions. More than 40 years ago, in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that women in this country have a constitutional right to abortion services and that no legislature may ban abortion prior to viability, which is exactly what H.R. 36 attempts to do. Previous attempts to impose previability bans on abortion have been repeatedly struck down by the courts, and last year, the Supreme Court refused to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permanently blocking Arizona's 20- week ban. Nevertheless, anti-choice advocates continue their relentless efforts to undermine women's reproductive rights and health in any and every way possible. The cloture votes on H.R. 36 and today's amendment to defund Planned Parenthood are simply the latest attempts. In addition to imposing an unconstitutional previability ban on abortion, H.R. 36 threatens doctors with criminal penalties, including up to 5 years in prison, for attempting or performing an abortion in violation of the bill's onerous restrictions, which is clearly intended to intimidate and discourage doctors from providing abortion care. The bill also puts the health of pregnant women at risk by allowing an exception to the 20-week ban only in the very narrow circumstance where an abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. Therefore, under H.R. 36, a pregnant woman who develops a serious medical condition or complication after 20 weeks would be barred from terminating her pregnancy, no matter how serious the risk to her health, unless the abortion is deemed necessary to prevent the woman's death. In addition, H.R. 36 would not allow an exception in the heart- wrenching situation in which a severe fetal anomaly is discovered late in a woman's pregnancy, despite the fact that these conditions are often only detectable around 20 weeks. H.R. 36 also lacks a reasonable exception to the 20-week ban for victims of rape and incest. Adult women who have been raped would be required to report the assault to law enforcement or undergo compulsory medical treatment or counseling at least 48 hours prior to receiving an abortion, meaning that the rape survivor must have at least two appointments with two different providers in order to access the care she needs. H.R. 36's treatment of minors who have survived rape or incest is even more extreme. For minors who have been the victim of rape or incest, H.R. 36 would require proof that the crime was reported to law enforcement or the appropriate government agency in order to qualify for an exception to the 20-week ban. These extremely narrow exceptions completely ignore the fact that the majority of sexual assault survivors do not or are not able to report their assaults to law enforcement for a variety of compelling reasons. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC--estimate that only 35 percent of sexual assaults or rapes were reported to the police in 2010. It is simply unconscionable to subject survivors of rape and incest to these burdensome and unnecessary requirements in order to receive the care they need. We are 6 days away from a government shutdown; yet we have spent most of this week on misguided attempts to ban legal abortions and defund Planned Parenthood--and to link the Planned Parenthood issue to whether the Federal Government will remain open for business--even as it has been obvious to everyone that such attempts would fail. A government shutdown is a completely avoidable crisis, and using floor time this time to attack women's health care and reproductive rights instead of negotiating a bipartisan plan to fund the government is both unacceptable and irresponsible. The American people deserve better. They deserve a budget that supports a strong national defense and growing economy, not the threat of another government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to join with me in opposing these latest attacks on women's reproductive rights and access to high quality, comprehensive health care services. Recognition of the Majority Leader