Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss my bill, S. 2035, the Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. The legislation I have filed, S. 2035, the Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act, will help alleviate some of the fears of Federal workers when the Federal Government shuts down. I am pleased to have Senators Reid, Baldwin, Carper, Gillibrand, Hirono, Kaine, Leahy, Mikulski, Shaheen, and Warner as original cosponsors. The bill is simple and straightforward. It requires that all Federal workers furloughed as a result of any lapse in appropriations that may begin as soon as October 1 will receive their pay retroactively as soon as it is practicable. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. Federal workers don't want government shutdowns. They don't cause government shutdowns. They are dedicated public servants who simply want to do their jobs on behalf of the American people. They shouldn't suffer because some Republicans want to shut down the Federal Government in the misguided notion that it will somehow prevent Planned Parenthood from providing health care services to low-income women and their families. Two years ago, these 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. As the Congressional Research Service has reported, in ``historical practice,'' Federal workers who have been furloughed as a result of a shutdown have received their pay retroactively ``as a result of legislation to that effect.'' The language in the Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act is similar to the language used to provide pay retroactively to workers furloughed in previous shutdowns. I am pleased that it is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. The Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act includes a new provision that allows exempted employees, those who are required to work during a shutdown, to take authorized leave. They, too, would be paid retroactively as soon as possible after the lapse in appropriations ends. During previous shutdowns, exempted employees have been prohibited from taking leave for any reason, including planned surgery or major family events, such as a wedding, that may have been scheduled weeks or even months in advance, causing many of them to lose money on nonrefundable plane tickets, hotel deposits, et cetera. I am using the process permissible under rule XIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to place S. 2035 directly on the legislative calendar. I am doing that to expedite consideration of the bill so that the hardworking middle-class Federal employees know they will be treated fairly if there is another shutdown. They shouldn't have to worry about whether they will be paid when a partisan gridlock prevents them from doing their jobs. Since 2011, Federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction. They have endured a 3-year pay freeze 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. And each and every Federal worker is being asked to do more with less as agency budgets are frozen or cut. This is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants, mostly middle class and struggling to get by like 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 to 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 that it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce, the size of which has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal spending. I would make the additional point that shutting down the government hurts veterans. Over 30 percent of the civilian Federal employees are veterans, as opposed to just 7.8 percent of the non-Federal workforce. In Texas, veterans comprise, for example, 37.5 percent of the civilian Federal workforce. In Kentucky it is 33.9 percent; in Florida it is 38.9 percent; in South Carolina it is 41.7 percent. Is this how we are going to honor the men and women who have stood in harm's way to defend our Nation, by telling them to stay home involuntarily and having them worry about whether they will be paid? Preventing Federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm them; it harms all Americans because Federal workers patrol 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, they discover cures for life- threatening diseases, they prosecute criminals and terrorists, they maintain and protect critical infrastructure, they explore the universe, they process passport applications, they make sure Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety net programs are functioning properly. When Federal workers do their job, they are helping each and every American live a safer and more prosperous life. Our tasks here in Congress are simple: We need to keep the government open for business and keep Federal workers on the job. Later this year, we will need to raise the debt ceiling so we can continue to pay our bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the United States Government. We need to return to regular order around here and negotiate a comprehensive budget deal to replace the 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. One of the great attributes of the American character is pragmatism. Unlike what some other Federal workers actually do, here in Congress balancing the budget is not rocket science. We know the various options. Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the Prophet Isaiah: ``Come let us reason together.'' That is what we need to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end of the day the American people have entrusted us with governing, with being pragmatic. Let's do our job so Federal workers can continue to do their job on behalf of all Americans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the next vote we are going to take on the Iran agreement will fundamentally change the resolution before us. It is out of compliance with the review act. The Iran review act gives Congress three options: approve the agreement, disapprove the agreement or take no action. This amendment would provide conditional approval of the Iran agreement. Let me make clear to our colleagues that the framework of the agreement is to provide Iran sanctions relief in exchange for stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. That is the yardstick. It provides for inspections and enforcement, preserving our options if Iran participates in terrorism, human rights, and ballistic missile violations, and the bottom line is whether Iran is in better or worse shape to acquire a nuclear weapon under this agreement. I reached my judgment on it, as did 100 Senators. I opposed the agreement, but this amendment takes us in a different direction. This amendment says that if Iran recognizes Israel and releases four hostages, that sanctions relief will be granted to Iran. I hope Iran does recognize Israel, but I must tell you I would have no confidence in their statement or trust in their statement if they issued a statement recognizing Israel. Senator Stabenow has already talked about whether this is the most effective way to bring back our hostages. One can challenge that. So this conditional approval gives up any of the disapproval resolution on the nuclear part of the agreement. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Let me remind our colleagues that this is September 17. This is the 60th day of the congressional review, the last day of the congressional review. Quite frankly, this vote is a political exercise, and this issue is way too important for us to be engaged in a political issue on the review. We have worked very hard over 60 days to get information. The committee has worked very hard. We are very proud of the record of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in this regard. We shouldn't be participating in this political battle. It is clear this Iran agreement will be implemented. Now it is time for this body to stop taking show votes and instead pivot to the serious work of addressing the problems with the deal. This means making sure we are working with the Government of Israel on a security package that will now enable Israel to defend against conventional and terrorist threats from Iran; it means making sure we are working with our partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council to make sure we are collectively prepared to counter destabilizing any Iranian activities; it means making sure we are prepared to counter Iranian terrorism, ballistic missile proliferation, and human rights abuses; it means making sure we are working effectively with our European allies to prepare for Iran potentially cheating on the deal. Let's turn to the serious work we have in front of us and recognize that we all need to be together to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons State. We stand for Israel's security, we stand for the return of our hostages, but let's also make sure we have the strongest possible decision to make sure we prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons State. Let's work together. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Senator Corker and I have been in agreement for 53 days of the 60-day review. And he is absolutely correct that 58 Senators disapprove of this agreement and don't think it should go forward. He and I are in agreement on that. We both believe we could have done better and we should reject the agreement, but 42 Senators believe we should go forward. I thought the colloquy that took place just a few moments ago on the floor between Senator Carper and Senator Flake was the way we should have completed this issue, then have a final vote with a 60-vote threshold. That is where I thought we were headed when we went into the August work period. We have understood the process, and Americans know where every Member of the Senate stands on this agreement. Americans also understand the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. And they certainly understand the 67 votes necessary to override a veto. This agreement is moving forward. We all know that. We should all be talking about how to move forward on the agreement. What I don't understand is the next vote. I don't understand why the majority leader decided to bring forward an amendment to change a resolution of disapproval into a resolution of conditional approval. To me, that is totally inconsistent with the review act, and it is counterproductive for those who either support or disapprove of the agreement. It is not fitting and not consistent with the work done during the first 53 days of the review, where we worked very hard in committee so that every Member of the Senate could get as much information available to make their individual judgments whether to vote for or against the agreement. And 58 voted for, 42 against. This vote I don't understand, and I would urge my colleagues-- befitting the Iran review and the Senate's responsibilities here, we should be voting no on the amendment that is offered by the majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have an additional minute so he can yield to me.

Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator will yield, do the people who are suggesting that this amendment be voted on recognize that they are making this a conditional approval vote and therefore that if Iran were to recognize Israel, if this were to become law and if Iran were to recognize Israel and release the four hostages, that the agreement would go forward? Do they understand this is not one of the options provided under the Iran review act and it is inconsistent with the discussions I think we have always had as to what the votes would be on the floor of the U.S. Senate?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for the chairman of the committee.

Mr. CARDIN. If the chairman will yield, I understand the frustration. There is a lot of frustration on not getting votes when we want to get votes. But I remind the chairman that every request for a vote on the Iran review act came from the Republican side of the aisle. There were none from the Democratic side of the aisle. We had votes on Republican amendments. If you recall correctly, it was a Republican effort that ultimately led to no option other than to cut off further amendments by the majority leader. Let me also suggest that on two occasions we have attempted to allow for a final vote with a 60-vote threshold so that we wouldn't have to use any filibuster. The Democratic leader consented to a motion to proceed without the necessary cloture vote because we don't want this to be procedure, and I think everyone wants to vote and has voted their conscience.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I understand we have 60 minutes under Democratic control. I would ask unanimous consent that up to 7 minutes be available to Senator Merkley, up to 7 minutes to Senator Manchin, up to 6 minutes to Senator Donnelly, up to 18 minutes to Senator Franken, and up to 5 minutes to Senator Hirono, and up to 10 minutes to Senator Markey.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, could I ask my friend to yield to me for 2 minutes? And I apologize to my colleague, but two of my favorite members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--

Mr. CARDIN. Through the Chair, two of my favorite members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who have been critically important to us having this debate on foreign policy--Senator Kaine and Senator Corker--they are two Members I deeply respect. Let me just make this observation. I think Senator Corker is absolutely correct. As a result of Senator Kaine and Senator Corker-- and I am proud of the role I played--the Members of the United States Senate have had more information about a major foreign policy issue than in the history of this country. We have had the exposure to classified briefings. We have had the incredible opportunity to try to understand the JCPOA and to make our independent judgments on that. So I think this process has worked the way it should work. I share disappointment that we couldn't go to a vote on the merits with a 60-vote threshold because I think that was what was anticipated, and we all understood it was going to take 60 votes to move this. I think it would have been better if we went directly to that type of a vote rather than what has gone forward. So I just want to underscore that. The other point I want to underscore--and I agree with Senator Corker and Senator Kaine--is that many Members of the Senate, in a relatively short period of time, made a decision. They didn't think it was a close call, so they made their judgments. In reality, it was a lot more Republicans than Democrats. But that was the case. A lot of Members took a lot of time to try to understand this and really labored on the issue. I know that because I made my official position known just about a week ago, and I know in talking to many colleagues the process they went through. I don't question the motives of any Member. I think each Member is trying to do what they believe is in the best interests of our country. I know the two Senators--I know them personally. I am just making my own observations. I know that is how they believe also. But I do think the process we set up lent itself to getting the material, waiting for the hearings, listening to the administration make their point, reading the classified documents, trying to understand how the IAEA interacts in the review process--that it was important to understand all of that before drawing a conclusion. I applaud most Members of the Senate who dove into it in order for that to be the case. I needed to make that point. I can tell you this: With Senator Corker and Senator Kaine, I really feel blessed to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I think our country is well served by both. I know that we are going to work together to provide our country the strength it needs to deal with the international challenge and to carry out the responsibility of the Senate. I thank the Senator for yielding. I yield back.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that shortly we will have a chance to vote. I would have preferred the vote to be on the final passage of the resolution with the 60-vote threshold. I regret that was not agreed to. I will vote what I think is in the best interest of our country, to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state, and our best chance to avoid a military option. I have already indicated that I intend to oppose the agreement and I have given my reasons on the floor and I will not repeat them at this moment. But I wish to speak about what happens after this vote is over and whatever votes take place next week, with the deadline being next Thursday. At that time, I hope everyone here recognizes that it is important for us to put division aside. I wish to remind some of my colleagues of what happened 14 years ago on a vote with Iraq, the authorization for force. I voted against that resolution. And when that vote was over, Democrats and Republicans, proponents and opponents, joined together to support our troops and our mission under the leadership of President Bush to give America the best chance for its foreign policy to succeed. So when the votes are over, I hope that Democrats and Republicans, proponents and opponents of the plan will work towards congressional involvement. Working with the President gives us our best opportunity to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state and gives us the least risk of using a military option. I say that because my colleague from Maryland outlined that very clearly. A military option--although we must have that option in our quill--a military option will not solve the problem and it has a lot of collateral consequences. I hope we can work together, because that is what is in the best interest of the U.S. Senate. That is what is in the best interest of the United States of America. I look forward to working with Senator Corker and all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the U.S. Senate to see how Congress can work together with our President so that we can achieve that goal. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in a solemn ceremony today, a new visitor center and museum was opened at the site near Shanksville, PA, where 40 courageous Americans were killed 14 years ago tomorrow attempting to regain control of United Airlines Flight 93 from four hijackers. The 9/ 11 Commission Report makes it clear that the hijackers intended to crash Flight 93 either into the White House or the U.S. Capitol Building. Our individual and collective memories of that horrific day remain fresh, and the pain is still very real. But in the minutes, hours, days, and years following the attacks, Americans have showed their amazing propensity for bravery, sacrifice, selflessness, and compassion in an incredible variety of ways. Today, American men and women in this country and abroad stand at the ready to thwart the plans of those who wish to do us harm. We have an obligation to support them and their families during their missions, as well as when their missions end. Congress has a special obligation to care for those still living with the emotional and medical burdens of the attacks. As we begin to craft a new budget for our country, I will work to ensure full funding for the programs that support the first responders who risked their health in the effort to help others. Others have said that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 didn't test the American character; they revealed it. The terrorist attacks were intended to crush the American spirit; instead, they galvanized it to new strengths. We came together as a nation to grieve. We came together as a nation to bury our dead and to care for those who were hurt. We came together as a nation to rebuild. And we came together as a nation to pursue those who were responsible for the attacks and bring them to justice. We have accomplished a great deal with respect to those missions, but we have so much more to do. We must never become complacent. We must never lose our resolve. We have a larger mission. President John F. Kennedy was on his way to deliver a speech at the Trade Mart in Dallas when he was assassinated on November 22, 1963. He was going to say: We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vison of ``peace on earth, good will toward men.'' That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: ``except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'' Being ``watchmen on the walls of world freedom'' is an awesome responsibility. There are times when the responsibility seems more of a burden than a privilege. There are times when the world's problems seem absolutely intractable and we grow weary of it all. There are times when we as Americans disagree whether or how we should meet that responsibility. Today, both houses of Congress are involved in a debate about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action--JCPOA--with respect to Iran, a State sponsor of terrorism with nuclear ambitions. We have serious disagreements about whether to support the JCPOA. It is important, as we debate this issue, to remember that no one among us is clairvoyant or has a total grasp of the truth; no ideology or philosophy has a monopoly on wisdom. No party has complete political acumen. And no group has exclusive rights to use the word ``patriot''. If we want to honor the men and women on Flight 93 and on the three other hijacked jets, if we want to honor the people in the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, if we want to honor the brave first responders who were climbing up the steps of the Twin Towers as people were streaming down the steps, and if we want to honor the service men and women who have given their lives in defense of our Nation, let us remember that what unites us as Americans is far more important than what divides us on particular issues, even an issue as existentially crucial as restraining Iran's worst intentions and lawlessness. We are all Americans, each with the desire to see our families, our communities, and our Nation prosper, and to promote the American ideals of peace and freedom and justice to every corner of the Earth. About 100 miles east of Shanksville, there is another field consecrated by the blood of Americans who gave ``the last full measure of devotion''--Gettysburg. As President Abraham Lincoln said, it is our responsibility to dedicate ourselves ``to the unfinished work'' which others ``have thus far so nobly advanced''. It is our responsibility to dedicate ourselves to the ``great task'' remaining before us, and that task is ``a new birth of freedom''. As we remember and mourn those who died in the 9/11 attacks and those who have died since that dreadful day 14 years ago serving as ``watchmen on the walls of world freedom'', let us meet our awesome responsibility united, as Americans, all of us patriots in our own way, acknowledging that it is our privilege and it is our destiny.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kaine for his leadership on the review act. I know the statements and his position are heartfelt and ones that he comes to with full passion. I thank the Senator very much for his contribution. I am now pleased to yield to Senator Sanders. The two of us came to the Senate together. We served in the House of Representatives. He is one of the most passionate voices in this country. It is an honor to have him here on this issue. I yield to Senator Sanders.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to my friend from Texas, and I couldn't agree with him more about the need for us to work in a bipartisan manner to strengthen America's foreign policy. I believe in the independence of Congress, and I very much support, along with Senator Corker, the review we are doing. I think this is critically important to the American people. We are having our debate, as we should. I do think, though, that while we are an independent branch, when this debate is over, we have to come together and work in the best interests of America, and I look forward to broad support in Congress to do everything in our power to make sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. I think we can, in a positive way, as we move forward. I mentioned yesterday when I was on the floor about things we can do. Yes, there is disagreement on whether to vote for or against the resolution of disapproval, but I hope there is no disagreement that we need to work together with a broad consensus of Congress to give this country its strongest possible position moving forward, whether this agreement is approved or not. With that, Mr. President, I yield to one of the important members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the junior Senator from Delaware, who has spent a lot of time on this issue. He has been a very constructive member of our committee, very instrumental in the passage of the Iran review act. Senator Coons.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons. I know he went through a very deliberative process in reaching his conclusions. I know of his commitment to preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapons capacity, his strong support for regional security in the State of Israel. I know the process he went through because we had many conversations during the August recess. I know his statement is heartfelt, and I know he did what he thought was best. I just want to underscore that and thank him for his counsel and friendship. I am going to yield to Senator Kaine. Before I do that, I think it is important to point out that we are here today in this review in a very open and transparent way in large measure because of Senator Kaine. Senator Corker filed a review statute--I guess it was now several months ago--and through conversations with Senator Kaine he was able to get a framework that ultimately led to the passage of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act by a 98-to-1 vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I was proud to be part of that effort, working with Senator Corker, but it would not have been possible without Senator Kaine. He was the one who recognized that we needed to find a common path--a nonpartisan path--for a transparent review that protected not just the role of the United States Congress, but the executive and legislative branch, and I applaud him for those efforts. Senator Kaine is a very valuable member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one of our most trusted members in so many areas of foreign policy, and I am proud to have him as my friend and colleague. I yield the floor to Senator Kaine.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend Senator Corker for his leadership but, more importantly, thank him on behalf of the Senate for standing up for what I think is the appropriate role of the United States Senate in reviewing a major foreign policy issue. I have had the opportunity to serve with four different chairmen in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since I have been in the Senate: Senator Corker, Senator Menendez, Secretary Kerry, and Vice President Biden. All four fought for the Senate having the appropriate role in establishing foreign policy. We are a country that believes our system of democracy serves our country the best; that is, with separation of branches of government. We don't have a parliamentary system. We have an independent Congress-- a Congress that is expected to provide independence in its reviews of the laws of our country and the policies of our Chief Executive, and that is exactly what we are doing in this debate. I thank Senator Corker for his extraordinary leadership of our committee. I know I speak for both Democrats and Republicans in saying that we support the independence of the Senate in reviewing our work. Senator Durbin--I listened to his comments. Senator Durbin is a dear friend of mine. The two of us have fought together on human rights issues around the globe. We have fought for civil liberties in the United States. We have worked together on so many important issues, including in the Middle East. I deeply respect his views. There are Members on both sides who have reached different conclusions, but we are all committed to making sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state, and we honestly believe our view is the best way for that to be accomplished. I don't challenge any other Member's decision, and I certainly don't question their resolve against Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state or their support for our regional allies. I think each has demonstrated that throughout their career. Some of us have come to different conclusions. I strongly believe we must prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. It is a game-changer in the region. We have already heard from my colleagues that Iran is one of the principal purveyors of terrorism in that region. It would accelerate an arms race that already has too many arms in its region. It would make it so much more difficult to confront Iranian policy if they possess a nuclear weapon. President Obama is right to say we will not let that happen and that all options are on the table to make sure that doesn't happen, and Congress is right to say we support all options being on the table to make sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. That is a goal we all have. In this independent review, some of us believe the best way to accomplish that is to move forward with the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration. Others believe that is not the case. I wish to second what Senator Corker said about the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I was proud to be part of putting that bill together and gaining broad support in the Congress and the support of the administration. I think it put us in a much stronger position in negotiating in Vienna. I think the fact that we had set up the right way for a congressional review--that it was going to be a transparent review, a critical review--put our negotiators in the strongest possible positions in Vienna. I also think it provided the right type of review, so that after the agreement was reached, information would be made available to us, we would have an open process, the American people would learn more about it, and we would be in a better position to make our own judgment. It was clear in the review act that no action is required. We can't pass resolutions of approval or disapproval. I wish to mention one thing, though, that I disagree with Senator Corker, but maybe in the end we will come together on this issue. I wasn't part of the original negotiations on the review act. I came into it and was able to resolve the differences between the White House and the Congress and many Members of Congress, but it was clear, in talking to the architects of this legislation, that they always anticipated there would be a 60-vote threshold for the passage of this resolution in the Senate. I agree with Senator Corker that we shouldn't have to use filibusters and we shouldn't have to have procedural votes; that we should have a vote on the merits. I thought Senator Reid's suggestion was the right way to go. I hope we can find a way that we can avoid the procedural battles and be able to take up this issue and let every Member vote their conscience as to whether to support or disapprove of the resolution. I told the people of Maryland after the review--let me say how this review went. We had 2\1/2\ weeks of review before the recess, and Senator Corker worked our committee unmercifully as far as what we did. We had hearings, we had briefings, we had classified briefings, we had Member meetings, and to the credit of the Members of the committee, all 19 showed up. These meetings went on for about 4 hours each. So we were back-to-back-to-back in our briefings and in trying to understand what was in the agreement for the 2\1/2\ weeks we were here. I then went back to Maryland, as I am sure my colleagues went back to their States, and had a chance for the first time to meet with Marylanders and to talk with Marylanders, to express and talk with them and get their views, and to evaluate whether I thought it was best to go forward. It was a close call, but I decided I could not support the agreement. I just wish to share why I cannot support the agreement--and Senator Corker mentioned this: It places Iran, after a time period, in the position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being able to break out to a nuclear weapon in compliance with the agreement. Being legal, they can get to that point. At that point, they have already gotten sanctions relief, so they are in a much better financial position to be able to withstand any pressures that could be put on Iran. We know they want to become a nuclear weapons state. They have tried in the past. We know that. That has pretty well been documented. We have no reason to believe they are going to change their intentions. So if they want to become a nuclear weapons state and they make the calculation that we really don't have a sanctioned way to stop them-- because at that point their economic strength is strong enough and sanctions take too long to really bite and take effect--it would not be an effective deterrent to erase the breakout. Here is the key point of concern to me--and I acknowledge to all my colleagues that I don't know what is going to happen in the future. This is a close call, but I think there is a higher risk of potential military operation if we go forward with this agreement because we don't have effective sanctions once they have been removed. That concerns me because I don't think a military option is a good option. I don't believe it will eliminate the threat, and it has a lot of collateral issues involved with the military operation. I acknowledge that if we do not go forward with this agreement, there is a risk. There is no question about it. There is high risk in either direction. But if we were to reject the agreement, what would happen? Well, no one can tell for sure. No one can tell for sure. There is a risk factor. In my conversations with our European allies, they certainly want us to approve this agreement--don't get me wrong--but they know they have to work with the United States. They know Europe and the United States need to be in this together, and for their companies to be able to get full access to Iran, they have to work with the United States on a sanctions regime. They understand that. Iran also understands that if we reject this agreement and they were to rush out to try to develop a nuclear weapon, it would ignite unity in the international community of action against Iran. They know that. They have to make that calculation. Iran also wants sanctions relief from the United States. I can't predict the future, but I believe all parties will want a diplomatic solution. I understand that is not going to be easy, and maybe we will have to mix it up a little bit and put some other issues on the table. We have a lot of issues with Iran. We know about their terrorism, their interference in the region, et cetera. It may give us that opportunity. My point is, no one can predict the future. I came to that conclusion, and I understand others came to different conclusions. There are other concerns I have with the agreement, including the 24- day delay. That doesn't concern me on known sites. It concerns me on undeclared sites and whether that will be adequate based on our intelligence information. I am concerned about the possible military dimension that there isn't any consequence, as I see it, in the agreement if there is not an accurate account of what happened in the past. I wish it was more clear. I don't think the arms embargo relief should have been in this agreement. I must say, I am concerned with the language in the agreement that talks about the United States and Iran with mutual respect and normalization. I don't know how we can have mutual respect for a country that actively foments regional instability and advocates Israel's destruction, kills innocents, and shouts ``Death to Americans,'' so I came to the conclusion that I couldn't support the agreement. Others came to opposite views. Each of us did what we thought was best, and I respect that this is a vote of conscience. I do want to point out one comment that was made a little bit earlier by my colleague about the Iraq war. I voted against the Iraq war. It was not a hard vote for me because, quite frankly, I didn't see the intelligence information that would have justified the authorization for use of military force. But it was a controversial vote. In my congressional district, it was an extremely unpopular vote, and the reactions were not too much different than the reactions we are getting today in regards to this particular agreement with Iran. I voted against that, along with a lot of my colleagues. When that vote was over and it was a done deal and we pursued our military operations in Iraq, I joined with all my colleagues and the administration to give us the best possible chance for America to succeed because that is our responsibility. That is our system. Our system is independent review. But when the review is over, it is time for us to come together. So, yes, I have been talking to my Republican colleagues. I have been talking to my colleagues who are voting for the agreement and those who are voting against it as to how we can work together in a responsible manner when this debate is over so the United States can be in the strongest possible position, working with the administration, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. Working together, I think we can help the administration have a stronger position, knowing the independence of Congress. The administration has said and we can underscore that all options are on the table to make sure Iran will not become a nuclear weapon power. The administration has said and we can underscore that there is a need for a regional security strategy so that our partners know of our commitment to the region against whatever happens with Iran. The administration has suggested and we can reinforce that our closest ally in the region, Israel, will have the security it needs as a partner with the United States. The administration has stated and we can reinforce that we will be active and pursue terrorism by Iran if they increase their terrorism or attempt terrorism against the United States. We can speak to that. We can make sure that we are better informed and that we have the information we need to see whether Iran is using their sanctions relief so that we can act timely with the administration to protect U.S. interests. I think we can speak with a strong voice when this debate is over, and I hope that during the next 2 weeks the debate that takes place on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives reflects the best tradition of the Congress in our independent review and our firm commitment to work on behalf of America. We must stand firm in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We must agree to counter Iranian support for terrorism and confront Iranian violations of ballistic missile protocols and international human rights obligations. Congress and the administration cannot dwell on past disagreements. Together we must find a functional bipartisan approach to Iran. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the administration to achieve such a result. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which we will celebrate today, August 6. I want to spend a few minutes talking about Freedom Summer, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the civil rights challenges we still face today, and how Senators can work together to make this a more perfect union and guarantee equal justice under the law to all Americans, as promised by our Constitution. On January 23, 1964, the States ratified the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other [Federal] election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.'' Freedom Summer was a campaign in Mississippi to register Black voters during the summer of 1964. In 1964, most Black voters were disenfranchised by law or practice in Mississippi, notwithstanding the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1870. The 15th Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by . . . any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' The national uproar in response to the deaths of three civil rights workers--James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael ``Mickey'' Schwerner--helped lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Southern States, however, continued to impose barriers on African- American citizens' right to vote even after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The following summer, Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders led a series of voter registration marches from Selma to Montgomery, AL. Ultimately, the marchers were met with force on March 7, 1965, known as Bloody Sunday, at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Montgomery, AL. Television news reports shocked the conscience of Americans, who could not believe that their fellow citizens were ruthlessly beaten by the police while exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances. A few days later, President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress and called for the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, ended his speech with the old refrain from the civil rights movement: we shall overcome. Congress did act and pass the Voting Rights Act, as this week we celebrate the 50th anniversary. So as we celebrate the anniversaries of these landmark pieces of civil rights legislation, we are reminded that there is more work to be done. Today I must urge my colleagues to address the recent pernicious efforts to restrict the franchise and limit access to the fundamental right to vote. This past weekend, The New York Times Magazine ran an article entitled ``Overcome,'' about a systematic effort by a small group of activists to dismantle the protections in the Voting Rights Act. I commend this article for review by my colleagues. Two summers ago, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, invalidating the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance provisions of the act. Congress must act to reverse the decision by the Supreme Court which overturned several important precedents. As much as we wish it wasn't so, racism has not disappeared from America and there continue to be individuals and groups who would use our voting system to deliberately minimize the rights of minority voters. Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 after building an extensive record that made a compelling case for the continued need to protect minority voters from discrimination. I strongly agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissent that ``in truth, the evolution of voting discrimination into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as preclearance remains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.'' I am deeply disappointed that the Court put voting rights in jeopardy by ignoring reality and disregarding the power of Congress to enforce the 15th Amendment of the Constitution by appropriate legislation. I am a proud co-sponsor of Senator Leahy's legislation, S. 1659, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015. The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 responds to current conditions in voting today by restoring the full protections of the original, bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was last reauthorized on a bipartisan vote by Congress in 2006, but significantly weakened by the Supreme Court in 2013. Following the Shelby County decision 2 years ago, several States passed sweeping voter suppression laws that disproportionately prevent minorities, the elderly, and the youth from voting. The Leahy bill provides the tools to address these discriminatory practices and seeks to protect all Americans' right to vote. The Leahy bill establishes a targeted process for reviewing voting changes in jurisdictions nationwide, focused on measures that have historically been used to discriminate against voters. The process for reviewing changes in voting is limited to a set of measures, such as voter IDs, that have historically been found to have the greatest discriminatory impact. Congress should also take up and pass the Democracy Restoration Act, DRA, S. 772, which I have introduced. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in Federal elections to approximately 5.8 million citizens who have been released from prison and are back living in their communities. Notwithstanding the 15th Amendment, many States passed laws during the Jim Crow period after the Civil War to make it more difficult for newly-freed slaves to vote in elections. Such laws included poll taxes, literacy tests, and disenfranchisement measures. Some disenfranchisement measures applied to misdemeanor convictions and in practice could result in lifetime disenfranchisement, even for individuals that successfully reintegrated into their communities as law-abiding citizens. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did sweep away numerous State laws and procedures that had denied African Americans and other minorities their constitutional right to vote. For example, the act outlawed the use of literacy or history tests that voters had to pass before registering to vote or casting their ballot. The act specifically prohibits States from imposing any ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.'' In 2015, I am concerned that there are still several areas where the legacy of Jim Crow laws and State disenfranchisement statutes lead to unfairness in Federal elections. First, State laws governing the restoration of voting rights vary widely throughout the country, such that persons in some States can easily regain their voting rights, while in other States persons effectively lose their right to vote permanently. Second, these State disenfranchisement laws have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities. Third, this patchwork of State laws results in the lack of a uniform standard for eligibility to vote in Federal elections, and leads to an unfair disparity and unequal participation in Federal elections based solely on residence. Finally, studies indicate that former prisoners who have voting rights restored are less likely to reoffend, and disenfranchisement hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into their community. The legislation would restore voting rights to prisoners after their release from incarceration. It requires that prisons receiving Federal funds notify people about their right to vote in Federal elections when they are leaving prison, sentenced to probation, or convicted of a misdemeanor. The legislation is crafted to apply to Federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is consistent with congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by a large coalition of public interest organizations, including: civil rights and reform organizations; religious and faith-based organizations; and law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. In particular I want to thank the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the NAACP for their work here. I also urge Congress to take up legislation that I have introduced in the past with Senator Schumer, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. Voter suppression and intimidation are still very much alive in our Nation. From misleading and fraudulent information about elections to voter intimidation and robocalls designed to suppress the vote, deceptive voting practices are often aimed at depriving minority communities of their voice in our democracy. The U.S. Constitution guarantees and protects the right of every American citizen to vote, and we have a duty to protect and ensure that right. Unfortunately, we have seen a resurgence of deceptive voter practices in recent years. In 2006, during my own election to the Senate, thousands of minority voters in Maryland were targeted for misleading information designed to suppress their vote. Nationwide, there have been numerous reports of efforts to suppress the minority vote by putting out wrong information about election dates and location of polling places, along with suggestions that voters who had outstanding parking tickets would be arrested if they tried to vote. This legislation is designed to protect voters across the Nation from election fraud and voter intimidation by creating criminal penalties for deceptive voting practices and by giving individual voters the right to take action. If deceptive practices are found to have occurred before election day, the U.S. Attorney General can take corrective action to halt distribution of such information and to set the record straight. After Federal elections, the Attorney General also would be required to report to Congress on the allegations of deceptive practices and the actions taken to correct such practices. Let me also mention another issue relating to civil rights, which is the right to serve on a Federal jury. My view is that after release from prison, ex-offenders should be given both rights and responsibilities. So in addition to restoring the right to vote as we seek to reduce recidivism and successfully integrate ex-offenders back into the community, I would also permit ex-offenders to perform the civic duty of serving on a jury of their peers. This legislative change is a part of my BALTIMORE Act, S. 1610, the Building and Lifting Trust In Order to Multiply Opportunities and Racial Equality. I introduced this legislation after the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore while in police custody. It also includes my End Racial Profiling Act, ERPA. Next month the NAACP, which is headquartered in Baltimore, and other civil rights groups will conclude its Journey for Justice march at the U.S. Capitol as part of their Justice Summer campaign. This historic 860-mile march from Selma, AL to Washington, DC, will mobilize activists and advance a focused national policy agenda. This policy agenda seeks to protect the right of every American to a fair criminal justice system and uncorrupted and unfettered access to the ballot box. In particular, the march will call for the enactment of the Voting Rights Advancement Act and the End Racial Profiling Act. Congress should take up and pass these two critically important pieces of legislation. It would be the appropriate way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the great moral challenges of our time--human trafficking. The term human trafficking involves crimes of forced labor, sexual exploitation, debt bondage, forced marriage, and the sale and exploitation of children. Trafficking in persons destroys people and corrodes communities. It distorts labor markets and undermines stability and the rule of law. It is fueled by greed, violence, and corruption. There are at least 21 million victims of human trafficking in the world--and over 5 million of them are children, according to the International Labor Organization, ILO. Forced labor alone generates more than $150 billion in profits annually, making it one of the largest income sources for international criminals, second only to drug trafficking. Trafficking victims range from women enslaved as domestic workers in countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Singapore to Nepali construction workers building stadiums for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. It also ensnares Rohingya and Cambodian men and boys on Thai fishing boats working to put fish in European and American grocery stores. It includes countless Venezuelan women and girls, some lured from poor towns in the interior to urban centers, who are then subjected to sex trafficking. Even in our own country, cases of human trafficking have been reported in all 50 States. Traffickers take advantage of conflict, the collapse of state institutions, and even natural disasters--like the recent earthquake in Nepal--to prey on vulnerable civilians. We are witnessing terrorist groups like ISIL and Boko Haram that proudly build their ``states'' on the trade in and enslavement of women and children. There has been some progress. This year marks the 15th anniversary of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The TVPA, and the annual Trafficking In Persons, TIP, Report it mandates, have played a major role in raising global awareness of human trafficking and galvanizing both civil society and governments to address both labor and sex trafficking crimes. The report analyzes the efforts of foreign governments, and our own, to comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons, as set out by the TVPA. The TIP Report has been widely regarded as the ``gold standard'' for trafficking information, and as an essential tool for ensuring continued progress against the scourge of human trafficking. The value of the TIP Report, and the United States' credibility on this critical issue, relies heavily on the integrity of that report. On Monday, July 27, the Department of State released the 2015 TIP Report. I have great respect for the small, dedicated staff at the Department of State's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking, as well as our numerous embassies around the world that help collect credible information for the report. Nevertheless, I was struck by the strong response to the 2015 report by outside country experts and frontline advocates who have worked in the trenches on human trafficking for years. They raised significant questions about the integrity and neutrality of the 2015 TIP Report and the decision to upgrade Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and Malaysia, among others. We need to listen carefully to their views. Of particular concern is the upgrade of Malaysia, which I want to discuss briefly. Malaysia has a serious human trafficking problem, which is why the State Department downgraded Malaysia last year to a Tier 3 country in the TIP Report, a level that includes the worst human trafficking offenders in the world. In Malaysia, the use of forced labor is pervasive in agriculture, construction, electronics, and textile industries, and the sex trade industry. This year, the State Department upgraded Malaysia to the Tier 2 Watch List on the grounds that the government had made significant efforts to comply with the minimum standards to combat human trafficking. Those efforts by the government included beginning to reform its flawed victim protection regime, along with its legal framework, and consultations with civil society. The Malaysian authorities increased the number of investigations and prosecutions--although the low number of convictions remained disproportionate to the scale of the problem. The 2015 TIP Report states that the Malaysian Government had three convictions of traffickers in 2014, a substantial decrease from the nine convictions reported in the 2014 TIP Report. While Malaysia has taken small steps that seem to indicate some recent progress, these steps do not appear to me to be sufficient to justify an upgrade. Evidence of the trafficking problems in Malaysia continued outside of the 2015 TIP reporting period, which ended on March 31, 2015. For example, in May 2015, mass graves believed to contain bodies of 139 Rohingya trafficking victims were found in abandoned jungle camps along Malaysia's northern border, along with pens likely used as cages for the victims. Malaysia is a party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, negotiations. The juxtaposition of the administration's pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in the case of Malaysia and the upgrade of Malaysia's TIP tier ranking at the same time has raised concerns among some observers regarding the integrity and veracity of the 2015 ranking process. I look forward to hearing more from the administration in the days ahead about the considerations taken into account for the TIP ranking process and, in particular, the decision to upgrade Malaysia. That is why Chairman Corker and I scheduled a hearing on this issue in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Archibald MacLeish, the writer and former Librarian of Congress, said: There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American Dream. We owe it to the millions of men, women, and children around the world who suffer from the horrifying depredations of modern slavery to maintain America's leadership, reputation, and resolve in the fight against human trafficking.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Korean War Veterans Memorial and the legislation I am introducing along with Senator Boozman. This legislation authorizes the addition of a ``Wall of Remembrance'' to the Korean War Veterans Memorial, without the use of public funds. The Korean War, often referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' began on June 25, 1950. During the three-year course of the war, some 5.7 million Americans were called to serve, and by the time the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than 36,000 Americans sacrificed their lives, 103,284 were wounded, 7,140 were captured, and 664 were missing. To honor the Americans who served during the Korean War, on October 28, 1986, Congress passed H.R. 2005, Public Law 99-572, authorizing the construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial located in West Potomac Park, southeast of the Lincoln Memorial and just south of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. For those of you who have visited this memorial, it is quite a moving experience. But unlike some other memorials, it does not list the names of those who died while serving their country. My legislation authorizes the addition of a Wall of Remembrance to the existing Korean War Veterans Memorial. 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 service members who were wounded in action, are listed as missing in action, or who were prisoners of war during the Korean War. The Wall would also list the number of members of the Korean Augmentation to the U.S. Army, the Republic of Korean Armed Forces, and other nations of the United Nations Command who were killed in action, wounded in action, are listed as missing in action, or were prisoners of war. Korean War Veterans Memorials that display the names of a nation's fallen soldiers can be found across the globe. Authorizing a Wall of Remembrance here in the United States is just one way we can help ensure that those who died while serving our country in the ``Forgotten War'' are no longer forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Korean War Veterans Memorial and the legislation I am introducing along with Senator Boozman. This legislation authorizes the addition of a ``Wall of Remembrance'' to the Korean War Veterans Memorial, without the use of public funds. The Korean War, often referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' began on June 25, 1950. During the three-year course of the war, some 5.7 million Americans were called to serve, and by the time the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed in July 1953, more than 36,000 Americans sacrificed their lives, 103,284 were wounded, 7,140 were captured, and 664 were missing. To honor the Americans who served during the Korean War, on October 28, 1986, Congress passed H.R. 2005, Public Law 99-572, authorizing the construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial located in West Potomac Park, southeast of the Lincoln Memorial and just south of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall. For those of you who have visited this memorial, it is quite a moving experience. But unlike some other memorials, it does not list the names of those who died while serving their country. My legislation authorizes the addition of a Wall of Remembrance to the existing Korean War Veterans Memorial. 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 service members who were wounded in action, are listed as missing in action, or who were prisoners of war during the Korean War. The Wall would also list the number of members of the Korean Augmentation to the U.S. Army, the Republic of Korean Armed Forces, and other nations of the United Nations Command who were killed in action, wounded in action, are listed as missing in action, or were prisoners of war. Korean War Veterans Memorials that display the names of a nation's fallen soldiers can be found across the globe. Authorizing a Wall of Remembrance here in the United States is just one way we can help ensure that those who died while serving our country in the ``Forgotten War'' are no longer forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit, with my colleague Senator Collins, a resolution designating the week beginning September 13, 2015, as ``National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week.'' The Senate has passed a similar resolution each year for the past seven years, and National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week holds special significance this year as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA. Direct support professionals play an incredibly important role in providing essential community supports to millions of Americans with disabilities. These dedicated workers assist individuals with disabilities with daily life activities such as dressing, eating, and bathing, and they help ensure that people with disabilities can be active participants in their communities. Let me share with you the story of Ed Wainwright, Jr., a direct support professional who was recognized this year for his incredible work and dedication when he was given Maryland's Direct Support Professional, DSP, of the Year Award by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR. Ed works for New Horizons Supported Services in Upper Marlboro, MD, and has been a direct support professional for over 6 years. He and his staff provide essential support to 33 individuals with disabilities. Ed's primary job is to teach and reinforce practical life skills for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities by integrating strategic goal setting with daily living, with the goal of achieving self- sufficiency. Ed is committed to helping individuals with disabilities realize their full potential. For example, Ed once worked with a man who had suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident as a youth. After the accident, he could not walk, and the prognosis for regaining his mobility was poor. After work, Ed would often take this young man to the gym with him to help rebuild his strength, on Ed's own time and using his personal gym membership. Recognizing this young man's creative abilities, Ed also took it upon himself to research and apply for a grant to help pay for his college expenses. Thanks in large part to Ed's commitment and dedication, that young man is a now graphic designer and, as he continues to work on his rehabilitation, taking steps again is a real possibility. As Ed's story demonstrates, the job of a direct support professional is not easy. The hours are often long, and the wages are low. The job can be physically laborious, as well as emotionally draining. The reward for direct support professionals, however, is that they are able to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and help fulfill the promise of the ADA by making it possible for these Americans to participate in their communities to the fullest extent possible. Today, we have the opportunity to recognize the millions of direct support professionals who provide essential services to individuals with disabilities, to thank them for their commitment and dedication, and to express our appreciation for the critically important work they do every day throughout our country. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Collins in expressing our appreciation for our country's direct support professionals and supporting the resolution designating the week beginning September 13, 2015, as ``National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week.''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, man made climate change has evolved from a critical threat to an unavoidable reality. The reality of climate change has already shown its grim effects on our environment and our health. Today, I would like to speak about the impacts of climate change on this country's economic engine: our businesses. As temperatures and sea levels rise and as weather patterns become more severe, the costs of doing business go up. Droughts and heat waves drive up energy costs and have put incredible pressure on global food production. On a warming planet, floods and other natural disasters damage infrastructure and private property, driving up insurance premiums and increasing the cost of doing business. All of this creates uncertainty for investors, who increasingly want to know how climate change will affect the companies in which they invest. American companies are beginning to notice. General Mills' Chief Sustainability Officer Jerry Lynch said, ``The best available science tells us all the changes we are making to the planet as a human species are what's causing this.'' Last year, General Mills announced its commitment to increasing sustainability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chains. Even oil companies realize what is happening: ExxonMobil's William Colton, Vice President of Corporate Strategic Planning, said, ``The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action.'' ExxonMobil officials subsequently announced the company would put $600 million into algae farms that would turn sunlight into automotive fuel. Its new focus shows that corporations across all economic sectors are realizing something vital: the negative effects of climate change hurt their bottom line. This week, some of America's largest companies such as Apple, Coca- Cola, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, Google, PepsiCo, and Walmart are standing with the Obama Administration to launch the ``American Business Act on Climate Pledge''. By signing this pledge, companies demonstrate an ongoing commitment to having a climate action plan. The ongoing shift in official corporate climate policies from a burgeoning number of other large and small businesses demonstrates that taking action on climate makes strong economic sense. If these bastions of capitalism can develop and commit to climate action plans, why has not the Republican Party devised its own action plan? Denial simply will not cut it. The involvement of American businesses in climate policy is a welcome development but they must move even further by disclosing the risks they face from climate change to investors. These risks, which are passed on to shareholders, hit nearly every industry imaginable, from obvious choices like the oil and gas sector, to healthcare and financial services and transportation and hospitality. Disclosing climate risk through the Securities & Exchange Commission's, SEC, corporate reporting measures enhances transparency and allows investors to make smarter decisions, ultimately protecting and increasing shareholder value. As we continue to deplete our scarce natural resources and send their harmful byproducts back into our air, water and land, the cumulative impacts are changing the world. The rate of this change is accelerating; the status quo is untenable. By providing honest climate risk disclosure and establishing climate action policies to mitigate and reduce that risk, American companies are acting in everyone's best financial interests. Profit-driven corporate superpowers like Apple, Coca-Cola, and Walmart are taking concrete steps to reduce the impact of climate change. The message they are sending is clear: adapt, or fall behind. Other companies now have the opportunity to join in what American businesses do best: innovating and leading the rest of the world by their example. It is increasingly obvious that taking action to combat climate change is economically prudent. But more important, it is also the morally correct thing to do. I encourage more in the business community to take a stand on the right side of human history.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first I want to thank Senator Boxer. It is a privilege to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee with Senator Boxer, under her and Senator Inhofe's leadership. The bill we reported out, a 6-year bill, is a bill that deals with the surface transportation needs in this country. It was put together in a very bipartisan manner. It respected and reflected different views. I had certain views with regard to alternative transportation programs. Not everybody agreed, but we were able to come together on that issue so we can help local governments with their priorities. We need a 6-year bill. The Senator is absolutely right. I must tell the Senator, I could not agree with her more. We have been talking since the last extension, the extension before that, and the extension before that, that we need to have a 6-year reauthorization. The Senator was able, working with Senator Inhofe, to deliver a bill that does that. We have yet to see a 6-year bill from the House of Representatives. We are prepared to make the hard decisions. We are prepared to sit down with our House colleagues and work out the differences, but we need a 6-year reauthorization, not another short- term extension. They are talking now about 3 months. Another short-term extension provides no predictability. I have programs in Maryland, and I know the Senator from California has programs in her State, that you cannot plan with a 3-month partnership with the Federal Government. You need to have the multiyear commitments. What Senator Boxer was able to do in the Environment and Public Works Committee--we need to duplicate that and get this done and get a bill to the President's desk. It is more important than the recess. I thank my colleague for taking the floor and for her extraordinary work in that regard. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this week--tomorrow, to be precise--we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which then-President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law on July 30, 1965. I take great pride in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, which fall under the Social Security Act, because they are so successful, but also because--as I think most of my colleagues know--the headquarters for both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and for CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are located in Maryland. The men and women who work at SSA and CMS are doing incredible service to carry out some of the most important programs in our country: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. For the past 50 years, our seniors and our most vulnerable citizens have been able to rely upon Medicare to provide access to affordable, high-quality health care. Let me underscore how important Medicare is to our country, to our seniors and those who suffer with disabilities. It allows them to be able to get quality health coverage, affordable care, without having to deal with the difficulties of obtaining and paying for private insurance. Private insurance makes money by insuring people who make fewer claims. As you get older, your health care needs become more intense. Therefore, private insurance companies aren't exactly excited to have people who make a lot of claims in their health insurance pool. That is why we developed Medicare. We developed it so our seniors would be able to have quality coverage. Before we had Medicare, one out of every two seniors had no health insurance. Our seniors are now able to get health care coverage. Today, only 2 percent of adults aged 65 and older lack health insurance. Before we had Medicare, nearly 60 percent of seniors' health care costs came out of their pockets. Today, that is down to 13 percent. So we have seen significant improvement over time. Before we had Medicare, 1 out of every 3 women aged 65 or older lived in poverty. Today, that number is 1 out of 10. All of the indicators that we have show that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security have accomplished their objectives. Now we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. With regard to the Medicare Program, those seniors who have disabilities and who qualify are allowed to have full coverage--again without having to worry about being discriminated against in the private insurance marketplace. In Medicaid, 33 million children are covered, more than 1 out of every 3 in our Nation. Over time we have improved these programs. The Medicaid program has been improved by the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, a bipartisan bill that was passed by this body. It significantly improved access to care for our children, particularly our low-income children. We have also improved access to coverage through the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has strengthened and improved Medicare and expanded Medicaid Programs to cover more low- income Americans. To date, thanks to the ACA, 9.4 million Medicare beneficiaries have saved more than $15 billion just on prescription drugs. In Maryland alone, our seniors have saved more than $230 million on their prescriptions. I am particularly pleased that over the 50-year history of Medicare, we have changed the program, improved it, and built upon it over time. When it was first enacted, it was there mainly to cover seniors' needs when they were injured and ill. It was an insurance program for when they got sick or had an injury. Well, we have changed that focus to a wellness program to keep seniors healthy. I am particularly proud that when I was in the House of Representatives, I authored the bill that expanded Medicare to cover preventive health care, including screenings for colorectal cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis, and mammographies. Those tests were added in legislation that I authored in the House of Representatives. We have come a long way since then, culminating with the Affordable Care Act that eliminated all the copays for preventive health care. Today, Medicare is keeping our senior population healthier. Seniors know that their preventive health care is covered and that they can detect diseases at an earlier stage and live healthier lives as a result. Over the past five decades, our Nation has seen incredible, positive change as a result of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. On the 50th anniversary of the passage of this landmark legislation, let us celebrate the progress we have made and work together to try to find ways to build upon that progress by further improving our Nation's health care system to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable, high-quality health care and are able to live healthy, productive lives. This is particularly timely because I believe next week we are going to see an attack on women's health care. I urge my colleagues to recognize the historical discrimination we have had against women's health care in this country. We dealt with that in the Affordable Care Act, some of the historical discriminations against women. But we need to be very careful about this because there is going to be an attack on Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is particularly important for women's health care needs. Yes, it does deal with contraceptive services--that is very important for women--but it also deals with preventive health care, screenings, and primary health care. So many women get their health care needs met through Planned Parenthood. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, as we celebrate how we have been able to make progress in providing affordable, quality health care to all Americans--whether they are our seniors, our disabled population, our children, those of low income, those groups who have been historically discriminated against--I urge that we look to try to build upon those programs and make them even stronger and not weaken the programs that are available. President Johnson's Vice President, Hubert H. Humphrey, famously said that ``the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.'' While we still have work to do, we are closer to passing that moral test because of the creation of Medicare and Medicaid 50 years ago and, more recently, the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Let's continue to make progress so that all Americans have accesses to affordable, quality health care. I suggest the absence of a quorum.