Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I wish to be identified with Senator Wicker's comments, and again I thank all the participants, the eight Members who took their time to participate on behalf of the United States. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. First, the Senator was able to meet with the President of Azerbaijan. We thank him for that. He was able to adjust his calendar to do that and we appreciate it because it was very important to hear the message the Senator gave on the floor of the Senate. Azerbaijan is an important ally to the United States. They have issues they need to deal with on human rights. We were clear about that. We met with the NGO community while we were there. But I think the Senator's leadership and the way the Senator balanced that presentation was very important. There is also the energy issue with Azerbaijan that is very important to us in that region as an energy source for Europe. It is an important, strategic country. And, yes, they do have issues on human rights. We did meet with the NGOs and we will continue to voice those concerns. I am glad the Senator from Mississippi mentioned Chisinau and Moldova. We also on the way visited Georgia, and Georgia and Moldova have some common interests: They are both moving toward Europe with the association agreements. They recognize their economic and political future is with Europe and they both have Russian troops in their country, and they are both very much concerned about what is happening in Ukraine. We got tremendous interest about what we did in Baku on taking on the Russians directly about their violations of the OSCE principles in their activities in Ukraine. Moldova, as you know, is in the Transnistria area which borders the Ukraine. There are Russian troops there, and the independence of Moldova is very much impacted by Russia's presence in Transnistria. Even though there is no border between Moldova and Russia, they still have that real threat that Russia could use its force to try to dictate policy in Moldova. And Georgia, of course, with the territories being controlled by the Russians--you saw what happened there, the bloodshed--is a country that is very much concerned about being able to control their own destiny. They want to be independent and they don't want to be dominated by Russia's intimidation. I think our presence in both of those countries was a clear signal that the United States stands for an independent Georgia and an independent Moldova. We want them to make their own decisions. We believe their future is clearly with integration into Europe. They believe their future is with integration into Europe and we will continue to be very supportive of those activities. I have one more comment in regard to our work in Baku. There were a lot of issues that were taken up through declaration. For example, our delegation brought forward a resolution on the 10th anniversary of the Berlin conference dealing with antisemitism. Congressman Smith and myself were both involved in the original Berlin issues. My colleague has already put into the Record the resolution concerning Russia and Ukraine. I must tell you I was so proud of my participation in this forum. I think the United States learned a lot more about the OSCE during the Ukraine crisis when they saw it was the OSCE mission that was on the ground giving us independent information about what was happening in Ukraine, the importance of our participation, and what Senator Wicker said in the beginning, our work here knows no political boundaries. This is not a partisan effort. It has been Democrats and Republicans working over the last 40 years to use the Helsinki principles to advance good governance, economic opportunity, and human rights throughout not just the OSCE countries but globally. It has been a real pleasure to work with Senator Wicker on these issues and I thank him for his dedication and leadership. There has been no stronger voice on the floor of the Senate in regard to human rights issues. I have been on the floor listening to Senator Wicker as he talked about individual cases of human rights violations in Russia and other countries. He speaks his mind on these issues and I am proud to be associated with him on the Helsinki Commission.

Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the Senator mentioning Congressman Smith's resolution on child sex trafficking. That was a separate resolution that was approved by the parliamentary assembly. The Helsinki Commission has been in the forefront on trafficking issues. The Trafficking in Persons Report that is prepared annually is used by the State Department and is known globally as the document on evaluating how States have proceeded on trafficking issues. The work started in the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE, to the leadership of our commission and Congressman Smith who has been our champion. It led to the passage of legislation in 2000 that had the Trafficking in Persons Report and followed up with this year's parliamentary assembly on child sex trafficking. I do congratulate Chairman Smith and our delegation for continuing the sensitivity. The OSCE now has a special representative in trafficking. So you do provide technical assistance in each of our participating States to deal with the trafficking issue. I wanted to point out that we do a lot of our work in the three committees, and one of those committees is where Senator Harkin was extremely valuable in pointing out that the original document prepared by the committee did not mention the very important human rights concerns of people with disabilities. There is no stronger voice in the Senate than Senator Harkin with regard to the rights of people with disabilities. I must tell you, I heard from many of my colleagues in the parliamentary assembly how honored they were that Senator Harkin was in that room to bring this issue to the attention of the parliamentary assembly, to give it its proper attention, and the matters he brought forward were overwhelmingly adopted at the parliamentary assembly. If I might yield for Senator Harkin to talk a little bit about the work he did in that group.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have the honor of being the Senate chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and the ranking Republican Member is Senator Wicker. We join with our House colleagues in the work of the Helsinki Commission. I mention that because this past week, from June 28 through July 2, the 23rd Annual Parliamentary Assembly was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in which over 300 parliamentarians participated. We had a very strong representation from the Senate and the House of Representatives representing the United States. I was proud to join with Senator Wicker and Senator Harkin as well as Congressman Smith, Congressman Aderholt, Congressman Gingrey, Congressman Schweikert, and Congressman Schiff in representing U.S. interests. By way of background for some of my colleagues who may not be familiar, the Helsinki Commission is a U.S. participant in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This followed up on the Helsinki Accords which took place in 1975, when all the countries of Europe--including the Soviet Union--joined the United States and Canada and agreed to principles that recognized the importance of good governance, human rights, and economic opportunities, as well as territorial security, in order to have stability within the OSCE participating States. The United States has been an active participant in this process. I think we saw the value of the OSCE directly when Russia invaded Crimea, and the OSCE mission there was our eyes and ears on the ground and helped restore some semblance of order in Ukraine as it now is moving forward. In our work in Baku, we were representing the United States on some extremely important issues, and I will talk about some of those issues and my colleagues on the floor are going to talk about issues they championed. But I must say, Russia sent a very strong delegation to Baku to represent their country. On behalf of the U.S. delegation, I brought forward a resolution in regard to violations entitled: ``Clear, Gross and Uncorrected Violations of Helsinki Principles by the Russian Federation.'' This resolution became the principal debate of the 23rd Parliamentary Assembly. We held a plenary debate. We don't normally do that. We normally debate issues in different committees, but the entire assembly debated the issues concerning Russia's activities within Ukraine because of the seriousness of this matter. Russia violated all 10 core principles of OSCE. We had that in the resolution. We were very clear about that. We believe that the best way to bring about compliance with these universal values is to put a spotlight on those who are violating them. In Russia's invasion into Ukraine and taking over Crimea and in their interference in Eastern Ukraine, they have violated each of the 10 core principles including: sovereign equality, refraining from the use of force, inviolability of frontiers, territorial integrity of states, peaceful settlement of disputes, nonintervention in internal affairs, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, cooperation among states, and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law. Our delegation brought that forward. Russia countered with justifications we found totally unacceptable, but it was a very spirited debate. Many amendments were offered to our resolution because by the time we debated the resolution and the time we filed it, there had been some changes in Russia's behavior. So the resolution was actually made stronger through the amendment process, which is what we intended at the time. Russia made various pleas to try to delete various sections of our resolution. By an overwhelming vote of the parliamentarians of Europe, Central Asia, the United States, and Canada, we passed this resolution that the United States brought forward pointing out the clear violation of Russia's commitments under the OSCE in its activities in Ukraine. It passed by over a 3-to-1 vote among the parliamentarians. We were very proud of the work we had done to bring forward that clear statement on behalf of the parliamentarians of the OSCE. I am extremely proud of the role my colleagues played. We were involved in many other issues. Senator Wicker was one of the key spokesmen on several issues relating to our involvement within the OSCE. He was involved in bringing out our involvement in Afghanistan, which is of continued interest. In addition to the 57 participating countries of the OSCE, we have partners of cooperation. These are countries not located within our geographical bounds but which have interests in the OSCE. Afghanistan is one of our partners for cooperation. We just finished a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on our Mediterranean partners, which includes Tunisia, Algeria, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and we worked with Morocco--all partners for cooperation. So the reach of Helsinki is far beyond just Europe and Central Asia. In this parliamentary assembly, we took up issues that involved many of these other matters. Mr. President, I yield for my colleague Senator Wicker for comments he might wish to make with regard to the work we did in Baku.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Wicker and Senator Harkin.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, 15 years ago this week three American citizens--the brothers Ylli, Agron and Mehmet Bytyqi--were transferred from a prison to an Interior Ministry camp in Eastern Serbia. At that camp, they were executed and buried in a mass grave with dozens of Albanians from Kosovo. Today, I again call upon the Serbian authorities to bring those responsible for these murders to justice. Belgrade has given us assurances in recent years that action will be taken, but no clear steps have actually been taken to apprehend and prosecute those known to have been in command of the camp or the forces operating there. The three Bytyqi brothers went to Kosovo in 1999, a time of conflict and NATO intervention. Well after an agreed cessation of hostilities in early June, the brothers escorted an ethnic Romani family from Kosovo to territory still under Serbian control, where that family would be safer. Serbian authorities apprehended the brothers as they were undertaking this humanitarian task and held them in jail for 15 days for illegal entry. When time came for their release, they were instead turned over to a special operations unit of the Serbian Interior Ministry, transported to the camp and brutally executed. There was no due process, no trial, and no opportunity for the brothers to defend themselves. There was nothing but the cold-blooded murder of three American citizen brothers. Serbia today is not the Serbia of 15 years ago. The people of Serbia ousted the undemocratic and extreme nationalist regime of Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, and the country has since made a steady, if at times difficult, transition to democracy and the rule of law. In 2014, Serbia began accession talks to join the European Union, and in 2015 it will chair the OSCE, a European organization which promotes democratic norms and human rights. I applaud Serbia on its progress and I support its integration into Europe, but I cannot overlook the continued and contrasting absence of justice in the Bytyqi case. The new government of Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic has pledged to act. It must now generate the political will to act. The protection of those responsible for this crime can no longer be tolerated. The surviving Bytyqi family deserves to see justice. Serbia itself will put a dark past behind it by providing this justice. Serbian- American relations and Serbia's OSCE chairmanship will be enhanced by providing justice. It is time for those responsible for the Bytyqi brother murders to lose their protection and to answer for the crimes they committed 15 years ago.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing that will provide the Department of Interior the necessary and appropriate authority to seek compensation from responsible parties who cause injury to public resources managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service like National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, and other Service facilities. The proposal would allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, to recover costs for assessing injury and to restore, replace, or acquire equivalent resources without further Congressional appropriations. The National Park Service, NPS, under the Park System Resource Protection Act PSRPA--16 U.S.C. 19jj, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NMSA-- 16 U.S.C. 1431, currently have similar authorities and its time USWFS were afforded this authority as well. The Service Resource Protection Act, RPA, would enhance the protection and restoration of USFWS resources found on National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other Service lands, should injury or harm occur. The RPA is a proposed statute that specifically protects all living and non-living resources within Service lands and waters. Any funds collected to compensate for injury or destruction of Service resources would be used to rectify that specific harm without further Congressional appropriation. Under this authority, damages could be used to reimburse assessment costs; prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed. Currently, USFWS Service manages more than 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge lands and 71 National Fish Hatcheries. The sum of USFWS's acres is greater than those lands and water resources managed by the NPS and NOAA combined. USFWS has significant land based management responsibilities that are quite different from NOAA, in addition to marine and estuarine areas USFWS manages. Compared to National Parks, Refuges allow for a broader range of activities--such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife dependent activities. The large size of the USFWS's resource portfolio and the unique and varied stressors on these resources makes it imperative that the USFWS have the appropriate authority to seek damages from responsible parties who degrade or destroy USFWS resources and property. Unlike NPS and NOAA, USFWS does not have the authority to recover damages, e.g., monetary compensation, from responsible parties to assess and restore injured resources without prior Congressional appropriation. Today, when Service resources are damaged or destroyed, the costs for repair and restoration of these resources falls upon the appropriated budget for the affected Refuge, often at the expense of other Refuge programs. Competing priorities can leave Service resources languishing until the refuge obtains appropriations from Congress to address the injury. This may result in more intensive injuries, higher costs, and long-term degradation of publicly-owned Service resources. When bad actors harm public resources managed by USFWS the responsibility for remedying the problems caused by bad actors should not fall to the taxpayer to solve. More over the fact that currently to repair damages to USFWS resources may require earmarks in the budget to ensure these problems are resolved is doubly unfair in that such budget requirements take resources away from other worthwhile projects that are unrelated to fixing the problems caused by irresponsible actors. It is patently unfair for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of solving the mistakes and negligence of others. The public expects that Refuge resources--and the broad range of activities they support--will be available for future generations. Our bill ensures that persons responsible for harm, not taxpayers, should pay for any injury they cause. While the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration program established under the Oil Pollution Act and CERCLA establishes a unique process for the USFWS to seek damages in limited circumstances involving oil spills and or the release of hazardous substances. These laws do not apply to situations when toxics materials and regular solid waste are dumped on or near a refuge that are not formally defined as hazardous substances and the USFWS is not authorized to recover funds to address injury from the responsible party in these situations under existing statute. Additionally, for injuries caused by actions or mechanisms other than a `spill' of oil or release of a hazardous substance, such as illegal cutting of vegetation, destruction or vandalism of real property and facilities, e.g., kiosks, visitor centers, fire and abandoned debris, the USFWS has no statutory mechanism to recover costs for assessing and restoring the public's resources. In contrast, NPS and NOAA have statutory authority to recover civil damages for these types of injuries, and the funds go to the agencies for assessment and restoration. USFWS manages 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 Wetland Management Districts, covering over 150 million acres, and accounting for 25 percent of public lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior. The agency is also responsible for 71 National Fish Hatcheries and a National Conservation Training Center, which would also be covered by the proposed legislation. Management of the Refuge System prioritizes wildlife conservation and habitat management, but encourages the American public to enjoy the benefits of these lands. In the organic legislation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, activities such as hunting, fishing, photography, wildlife observation, environmental education and interpretation were identified as priority public uses on Refuges. Found in every U.S. State and territory, and within an hour's drive of most metropolitan areas, National Wildlife Refuges: attract approximately 45 million visitors each year; protect clean air and safe drinking water for nearby communities; protect more than 700 bird species, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 1,000 fish species; offers hunting on 322 refuges and fishing on 272 refuges; and generates more than $1.7 billion for local economies, creates nearly 27,000 U.S. jobs annually, provides $543 million in employment income, and adds more than $185 million in tax revenue. The fiscal year 2014 appropriated budget for the Refuge System is approximately $72 million dollars, but it is estimated that the current operations and maintenance, O&M, backlog tops $3 billion dollars. The National Fish Hatchery System has a backlog in excess of $300 million. Because the Service does not have statutory authority to pursue recovery of damages from responsible parties, the cost of replacing or restoring injured Refuge or Hatchery resources typically gets included in the O&M project list, and requires tax-payer funding to fix. This legislation would allow the Service to recover damages directly from the person or persons that harmed the resource, thus removing this additional financial burden from taxpayers. The legislation is not intended to generate revenue for the Service; instead, it aims to be budget neutral. Any funds collected to compensate for resource injuries will be used to rectify that specific injury without the need for Congressional appropriation. Under this authority, damages would be required to reimburse assessment costs; prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed. By way of example, NPS has recovered damages on cases ranging from $125.00--$10 million dollars for assessment and restoration of injuries to resources on their lands. However, a direct comparison between USFWS and NPS is of limited value, since the two agencies have dissimilar missions and allow for different activities on their lands. The Refuge and Hatchery systems also manage many more individual land units and twice the acreage of the NPS. USFWS administers several laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, that provide for penalties and fees as part of civil or criminal proceedings. The RPA is a civil authority that would allow the Service to recover compensation in the form of monetary damages for costs associated with assessment and restoration of injured resources. It is intended to make the public whole: it is not meant to be punitive towards the person or persons who caused the injury. As part of the Annual Uniform Crime Report, AUCR, Service Law Enforcement has identified several categories of crimes in which they have prosecuted individuals for criminal violations and received associated fines. These fines are remitted to the U.S. Treasury and do not provide any means to assess injury or recover restoration costs associated with repairing or replacing resources. The Service has used Tort law to recover damages on occasion, but many of our cases do not meet the dollar threshold for pursuing a civil lawsuit by the Department of Justice. As a result, even though cases may be criminally prosecuted, most of them are not pursued as a potential civil claim. However, if the Service had RPA authority, we could use a civil process to recover costs for assessment and restoration. The AUCR provides many examples of areas where the Service could use the civil authority under RPA in conjunction with other criminal procedures. In 2010, 39 arson offenses were reported on Service lands. Monetary loss to the government resulting from these cases totaled almost $850,000, but neither restoration funds, nor repair of the public's resources resulted from these prosecutions. Similarly, over 2,300 vandalism offenses, totaling $314,000 in monetary loss were documented. Other reported offenses number in the thousands and could lead to recovery of damages for many field stations: These include, illegal off-road use (n=2,234), trespass (n = 8,163), and other natural resource violations (n = 4,628). In these instances, the Service must choose between using tax-payer funded, appropriations to pay for assessing, repairing, replacing or restoring structures, habitat and other resources injured by the responsible party or for other important Refuge needs. It is time to shed taxpayers' cost burden of repairs and restoration due to damage caused by the unlawful behavior of negligent individuals and give the USFWS the authority it need to collect damages from those responsible to do the work to right what's wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to speak on behalf of our service men and women suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. Tomorrow--June 27--is National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Day, so designated by the U.S. Senate in a unanimous action 2 years ago. I am calling on all of my colleagues in this body to redouble our efforts to help veterans and servicemembers who are struggling with PTSD each and every day. I remain committed to provide all necessary assistance to people who have this problem as the result of their faithful military service because it is one of the solemn obligations we have as a nation. For this reason I supported Senator Heitkamp's bi- partisan resolution designating June as National Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder--PTSD--Awareness Month. With the military drawdown currently underway, I am concerned that our Nation will not adequately address the PTSD-related issues that many of our veterans and servicemembers face. I find it deeply troubling that, on average, 22 veterans commit suicide every day. Furthermore, veterans who have post-traumatic stress are at greater risk for drug abuse and alcoholism. The abuse of these substances often amounts to a form of a self-medication because the servicemember or veteran is unable or unwilling to seek help. I strongly believe that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Awareness Day is an important step in highlighting these issues. Our challenge is to help every veteran suffering from these invisible wounds seek help and cope with their very real injury. There is a perceived stigma that makes veterans reluctant to seek help and feeds negative perceptions which can cause employers not to hire veterans. Educating veterans and the public about this affliction and the support networks available will bring to light a very real and deadly epidemic among servicemembers. Too often we say ``thank you'' to servicemembers and veterans without really knowing what we are thanking them for, because we don't bother to understand their struggles. Addressing this disconnect would make a world of difference in helping this population mitigate the effects of post-traumatic stress. The work being done today to address this issue proves that post- traumatic stress does not have to be a permanently disabling condition. Within my own State of Maryland, organizations such as Fort Detrick's Army Medical Research & Materiel Command are making amazing advances in developing post-traumatic stress treatments that were unimaginable just a few years ago. As for present treatments, the Warrior Canine Connection is an excellent example of an organization that is helping veterans here and now. This organization, located in Brookeville, provides therapeutic working dogs to veterans and servicemembers, and it also conducts research that strives to further improve upon the positive effects that these service animals have on the veterans and servicemembers. The Warrior Canine Connection has helped countless veterans relieve the symptoms of post-traumatic stress, enabling them to regain their status as healthy and productive members of our society. I am not at all surprised that these servicemembers and veterans have bounced back wonderfully after being treated for their post-traumatic stress. If a soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine is able to excel on the battlefield, then I see no reason why that same person should not be able to excel in the classroom, in a hospital, or in the boardroom. I refuse to believe that our veterans and servicemembers are ``damaged goods'' because of their military service. One only needs to look at our history to see that our society benefits greatly when we provide our veterans and servicemembers with the assistance they need to transition successfully to civilian life. During World War II, American servicemembers encountered some of the most difficult combat conditions in human history. Yet when World War II veterans returned home, did they become a burden to their nation because of those combat experiences? Not at all. Returning World War II veterans spearheaded the work that made our country more prosperous than it had ever been. Veterans can be the engine to a great economy that sustains a flourishing middle class. I believe World War II veterans were able to succeed in the civilian workforce because after the war, they returned to a society that understood and genuinely respected their military service. This week I had the privilege of visiting the Veterans Health Care System in Baltimore, MD. America cannot break our promise to those who have sacrificed so much to protect our great Nation. We have seen bipartisan progress toward correcting the systemic problems facing our veterans' health care system, and I am encouraged by the additional staff and resources being deployed in Baltimore. Most Maryland veterans are receiving quality health care at world-class facilities close to home. But the wounds inflicted by this national breach of trust will take more time to heal as we renew and fulfill our commitment to care for the health and well-being of our veterans. I am continually in awe of the extraordinary men and women serving at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center who make it their daily mission to provide the highest level of support to our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families. A testament to their commitment is the Department of Defense Deployment Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD, which has developed an intensive, 3- week, multi-disciplinary treatment program called The Specialized Care Program. This program is designed for servicemembers experiencing PTSD or experiencing difficulties readjusting to life upon redeployment after serving in Operations IRAQ or ENDURING FREEDOM. This program is for patients who have had other treatments for PTSD, or perhaps depression, but who continue to experience symptoms that interfere with their ability to function. In light of the upcoming July 4 holiday, providing assistance to veterans who have served our Nation so diligently must be a priority. As we celebrate our Independence Day, we must also address the needs of those who have defended our liberty and have allowed it to thrive. Without the men and women who fought for the United States' freedom in 1776 and those who bravely do so today, our country simply would not exist. With this in mind, we as Americans ought to support our veterans to the best of our abilities and present them with the necessary assistance and resources they may require. Whether we succeed in this endeavor will be a significant measure of our Nation's fidelity towards our veterans and its moral character. I am committed to making sure this population receives treatment for post-traumatic stress, should they need it. The United States is the strongest nation in the world because of our veterans and servicemembers. We owe it to bring them back home not just in body, but in mind and spirit, as well.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on June 7, 1776, Virginian Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion in the Second Continental Congress to declare the 13 American colonies' independence from Great Britain. Four days later, Congress established a committee--the Committee of Five--to draft a statement proclaiming and justifying American independence. The Committee consisted of John Adams (Massachusetts), Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania), Thomas Jefferson (Virginia), Robert Livingston (New York), and Roger Sherman (Connecticut) and assigned the duty of writing the first draft to Thomas Jefferson. The Committee left no minutes so we aren't sure how many iterations of the document were drafted before the Committee presented the final version to Congress on June 28, 1776--an action immortalized by the artist John Trumbull in a painting that hangs in the Capitol Rotunda. On Monday, July 1, 1776, the Committee of the Whole debated the Lee Resolution. Jefferson wrote that they were ``exhausted by a debate of nine hours, during which all the powers of the soul had been distended with the magnitude of the object.'' The Committee of the Whole voted 9- 2 to adopt the Lee Resolution. The following day--July 2, 1776-- Congress heard the report of the Committee of the Whole and declared the sovereign status of the American colonies. The Declaration of Independence was given its second reading before Congress adjourned for the day. On July 3, 1776, the Declaration received its third reading and final edits. The text's formal adoption was deferred until the following morning--July 4, 1776. That evening, the Committee of Five reconvened to prepare the final ``fair copy'' of the document, which was delivered to the 29-year-old Irish immigrant printer John Dunlap, with orders from John Hancock to print ``broadside'' copies. Dunlap worked into the night setting the type and running off 200 or so broadside sheets--now known as the Dunlap broadsides--which became the first published copies of the Declaration of Independence. Twenty-six of the original Dunlap broadsides--or fragments of them--are extant. Here in Washington, the Library of Congress has two and the National Archives has one. In January 1777, Congress commissioned publisher Mary Katherine Goddard to produce a new broadside of the Declaration of Independence that listed the individuals who signed it. And so, here we are 238 years later, preparing once again to celebrate the birth of our Nation and the document that proclaimed it. We will have appropriate celebrations from the National Mall to small towns across America. We will gather with families and friends in communities large and small to relax and refresh ourselves. And we will reflect on the blessings of liberty that have been bequeathed to us. We must never take those blessings for granted. Americans have fought and died to defend them and people around the world have fought and died to obtain them. We cannot calculate what we owe to Thomas Jefferson and the Committee of Five. But, as Abraham Lincoln summoned all Americans in 1863 at Gettysburg, we can dedicate ourselves to the ``great task remaining before us . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' The stakes are high, for as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt remarked in his fireside chat on May 26, 1940, ``We defend and build a way of life, not for America alone, but for all mankind.'' That is our unique and solemn responsibility as Americans, and our cherished privilege. I wish all of my colleagues, my fellow Marylanders, and all Americans a happy and safe Fourth of July.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Freedom Summer and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to talk for a few minutes about how Senators can work together to make this a more perfect Union and guarantee equal justice under the law to all Americans. 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.'' 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.'' The Freedom Summer voting rights initiative was led by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, SNCC, with the support of the Council of Federated Organizations, COFO, which included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, the Congress of Racial Equality, referred to in this preamble as the CORE, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SCLC. Thousands of students and activists participated in 2-week orientation sessions in preparation for the voter registration drive in Mississippi. In 1962, at 6.7 percent of the State's Black population, Mississippi had one of the lowest percentages of Black registered voters in the country. Tragically, three civil rights volunteers lost their lives in their attempts to secure voting rights for Blacks. Andrew Goodman was a White 20-year-old anthropology major from Queens College who volunteered for the Freedom Summer project. James Chaney was a 21-year-old Black man from Meridian, MS, who became a civil rights activist, joining the CORE in 1963 to work on voter registration and education. Michael ``Mickey'' Schwerner was a 24-year-old White man from Brooklyn, NY, who was a CORE field secretary in Mississippi and a veteran of the civil rights movement. On the morning of June 21, 1964, the three men left the CORE office in Meridian, MS, and set out for Longdale, MS, where they were to investigate the recent burning of the Mount Zion Methodist Church, a Black church that had been functioning as a freedom school to promote education and voter registration. The three civil rights workers were beaten, shot, and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, after being turned over by local police. The national uproar in response to these brave men's deaths, which occurred shortly before enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helped build the momentum and national consensus necessary to bring about passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. So as we celebrate the anniversaries of these landmarks pieces of civil rights legislation, we are reminded that there is more work to be done. As former Senator Ted Kennedy used to say, ``Civil rights is the great unfinished business of America.'' One year ago this week 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 erroneous decision by the Supreme Court which overturned several important precedents in a fit of judicial activism. 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 pleased that the Judiciary Committee held a hearing this week on potential legislative responses to the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, and I hope Congress can take up and pass a legislative fix before the midterm elections. Congress should also take up and pass the Democracy Restoration Act, DRA, S. 2235, 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. After the Civil War, Congress enacted and the States ratified the 15th Amendment, which provides that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' Unfortunately, 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. Shortly thereafter Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which swept 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.'' Congress overwhelmingly reauthorized the act in 2006, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Congress is now working on legislation to revitalize the VRA after recent Supreme Court decisions curtailed its reach. In 2014, 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. In 35 States, convicted individuals may not vote while they are on parole. In 11 States, a conviction can result in lifetime disenfranchisement. Several States require prisoners to seek discretionary pardons from Governors, or action by the parole or pardon board, in order to regain their right to vote. Several States deny the right to vote to individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors. States are slowly moving to repeal or loosen many of these barriers to voting for ex-prisoners. An estimated 5,850,000 citizens of the United States, or about 1 in 40 adults in the United States, currently cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction. Of the 5,850,000 citizens barred from voting, only 25 percent are in prison. By contrast, 75 percent of the disenfranchised reside in their communities while on probation or parole after having completed their sentences. Approximately 2,600,000 citizens who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised due to restrictive State laws. In six states--Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia--more than 7 percent of the total population is disenfranchised. Studies show that a growing number of African-American men, for example, will be disenfranchised at some point in their life, partly due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities. Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised as well. Congress has addressed part of this problem by enacting the Fair Sentencing Act to partially reduce the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions. Congress is now considering legislation that would more broadly revise mandatory sentencing procedures and create a fairer system of sentencing. While I welcome these steps, I believe that Congress should take stronger action now to remedy this particular problem. 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 narrowly 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 on this legislation. This legislation is designed to reduce recidivism rates and help reintegrate ex-prisoners back into society. When prisoners are released, they are expected to obey the law, get a job, and pay taxes as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into their community. With these responsibilities and obligations of citizenship should also come the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, after overwhelming approval and strong bipartisan support in Congress. The legislation expanded the Prison Re-Entry Initiative, by providing job training, placement services, transitional housing, drug treatment, medical care, and faith-based mentoring. At the signing ceremony, President Bush said: ``We believe that even those who have struggled with a dark past can find brighter days ahead. One way we act on that belief is by helping former prisoners who have paid for their crimes. We help them build new lives as productive members of our society.'' The Democracy Restoration Act is fully consistent with the goals of the Second Chance Act, as Congress and the States seek to reduce recidivism rates, strengthen the quality of life in our communities and make them safer, and reduce the burden on taxpayers. More recently, in a February 2014 speech, Attorney General Eric Holder called on elected officials to reexamine disenfranchisement statutes and enact reforms to restore voting rights. I urge Congress to continue the fight to protect and expand civil rights in this country, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Freedom Summer and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as we strive to make this a more perfect union.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I strongly support the bicameral, bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA. This long over-due reauthorization will help Americans to develop the skills necessary to participate in today's global economy. I would be remiss if I did not commend the leaders of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--especially Senators Harkin, Alexander, Murray, and Isakson--for their hard work on crafting this important jobs bill which will benefit job seekers and their families, employers, and the economy. Their House counterparts--Representatives John Kline, George Miller, Virginia Foxx, and Rubeen Hinojosa of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce--also deserve our praise and thanks. Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, in 1998. It expired in 2003, but Congress has relied on annual appropriations bills to extend WIA's authorization 1 year at a time. These appropriations bills often have made modest policy changes. Some of the policy changes have been retained in subsequent years but continuity isn't guaranteed. This patchwork approach to improving our workforce education and development system is far from ideal, especially as the labor market changes rapidly in response to the global economy. As our Nation continues the long, arduous climb out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, effective education and workforce development opportunities are vital to sustaining a building and sustaining a vibrant middle class. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act will allow local workforce investment boards to create a system which prepares workers for the 21st-century labor market and helps employers find the skilled labor needed to compete and create good jobs here in the United States. Let me provide a report on the workforce development progress we have made in Maryland. The Workforce Investment Network for Maryland is comprised of Maryland's 12 workforce investment area/workforce investment boards. The network reports assisting more than 216,000 Marylanders with job placement assessment, job search workshops, resume preparation, and myriad other services from July 2012 to June 2013. Nearly 16,000 job seekers completed job training programs, with several thousand receiving nationally recognized certificates and credentials. Through an aggressive outreach process, the Workforce Investment Network for Maryland engaged more than 7,700 businesses and was able to match nearly 44,000 jobs seekers with employers. In Maryland, our local workforce investment boards know how to respond to the needs of the local community. The field of cyber security is projected to grow by 41 percent over the next 8 years, and jobs in this expanding field pay a median hourly wage of $38 per hour. Maryland is a hotbed of activity in the cyber security field since it is home to the U.S. Cyber Command, the National Security Agency, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Navy Fleet Cyber Command, and hundreds of Federal contractors and private technology companies. In an effort to address the lack skilled cyber security workers and increase the number of qualified workers in the pipeline, a three-way partnership--the Pathways to Cybersecurity Careers Consortium--was created to bring together the efforts of six workforce development agencies, three community colleges, and the local business community. The partnership, led by Anne Arundel Workforce Development Corporation, was awarded a $4.9 million community-based job training grant to create the Pathways to Cyber Security Program. The grant was intended to assist 1,000 new, dislocated, underemployed, recently separated veterans, and incumbent workers in obtaining cyber security certifications identified as critical industry shortages by regional businesses and government agencies. I am proud to report that nearly 1,150 workers have received training in the program, 755 program participants have received cyber security certifications, and 721 program graduates have been hired by an employer or improved their skills with an existing employer. Some of the graduates of the cyber security programs have begun to work with a number of Federal agencies in my home State. As I have traveled across Maryland, I have seen firsthand the positive effect of effective programs in action. This past March, I had the opportunity to visit students at Chesapeake College's Continuing Education & Workforce Training Culinary Arts Program. The students in the culinary arts program learn the principles of food preparation, obtain a nationally recognized safe food handling certificate, and finish the program ready to enter the workforce in local area hotels and restaurants. Having tasted a number of dishes the students prepared, I can tell you their training is going well. I was impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of the students. One of them travels more than 2 hours by bus, one way, to attend class each day. I am confident these men and women will continue to hone their skills and enhance their employment prospects. Our Nation's at-risk youth present special challenges we must overcome. Aaron Sierak, a resident of Aberdeen, MD, dropped out of high school during his junior year. After he became discouraged about his future and expressed a desire to change, he learned about the Reconnecting Youth dropout recovery program run by the Harford County Public Schools in partnership with the Susquehanna Workforce Network. The Susquehanna Workforce Network helped Aaron obtain his GED, enroll in Harford Community College, and obtain a Pell grant to help cover the cost of his first year of tuition. Aaron now plans to obtain an associate's degree and registered nursing certification so he can find work in a high-demand--and rewarding--occupation. The Workplace Innovation and Opportunity Act improves upon the existing youth services that helped put Aaron back on a path to economic mobility and a middle-class livelihood. WIOA places a priority on out-of-school youth by requiring that 75 percent of youth services funding at the State and local level be targeted to career pathways for youth, dropout recovery efforts, and education and training programs that lead to the attainment of a high school diploma and a recognized postsecondary credential. The Workplace Innovation and Opportunity Act is bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will improve our workforce development system and help put Americans back to work, preparing workers for the 21st-century workforce and helping businesses find the skilled employees they need to compete and create even more domestic jobs. WIOA creates a streamlined workforce development system by eliminating 15 existing duplicative programs. It applies a single set of outcome metrics to every Federal workforce program under the act. It creates smaller, nimbler, and more strategic State and local workforce development boards. It integrates intake, case management, and reporting systems and strengthens program evaluations. And it eliminates the ``sequence of services.'' Finally, WIOA empowers local boards to tailor services to their region's employment and workforce needs with on-the-job, incumbent worker, and customized training and pay-for-performance contracts. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2022 the supply of United States workers with postsecondary education--including 6.8 million workers with bachelor's degrees and 4.3 million workers with a postsecondary vocational certificate, some college credits, or an associate's degree--will fall short of the demand for workers with those credentials by 11 million. This mismatch will impede our economic growth and harm our international competitiveness. It also represents a huge lost opportunity for millions of hard-working Americans and their families. To maintain our position as the world's economic leader, we need to educate and train our workers to fill the skilled jobs of the knowledge-based economy. And the workforce development system needs to pivot from short-term crisis intervention to long-term human capital development. WIOA does that, and the substitute amendment the Senate has passed demonstrates that here in Congress, we can come together to work on legislation that will boost the economic recovery and help all Americans.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing that will provide the Department of Interior the necessary and appropriate authority to seek compensation from responsible parties who cause injury to public resources managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service like National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, and other Service facilities. The proposal would allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, to recover costs for assessing injury and to restore, replace, or acquire equivalent resources without further Congressional appropriations. The National Park Service, NPS, under the Park System Resource Protection Act PSRPA--16 U.S.C. 19jj, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, NMSA-- 16 U.S.C. 1431, currently have similar authorities and its time USWFS were afforded this authority as well. The Service Resource Protection Act, RPA, would enhance the protection and restoration of USFWS resources found on National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other Service lands, should injury or harm occur. The RPA is a proposed statute that specifically protects all living and non-living resources within Service lands and waters. Any funds collected to compensate for injury or destruction of Service resources would be used to rectify that specific harm without further Congressional appropriation. Under this authority, damages could be used to reimburse assessment costs; prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed. Currently, USFWS Service manages more than 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge lands and 71 National Fish Hatcheries. The sum of USFWS's acres is greater than those lands and water resources managed by the NPS and NOAA combined. USFWS has significant land based management responsibilities that are quite different from NOAA, in addition to marine and estuarine areas USFWS manages. Compared to National Parks, Refuges allow for a broader range of activities--such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife dependent activities. The large size of the USFWS's resource portfolio and the unique and varied stressors on these resources makes it imperative that the USFWS have the appropriate authority to seek damages from responsible parties who degrade or destroy USFWS resources and property. Unlike NPS and NOAA, USFWS does not have the authority to recover damages, e.g., monetary compensation, from responsible parties to assess and restore injured resources without prior Congressional appropriation. Today, when Service resources are damaged or destroyed, the costs for repair and restoration of these resources falls upon the appropriated budget for the affected Refuge, often at the expense of other Refuge programs. Competing priorities can leave Service resources languishing until the refuge obtains appropriations from Congress to address the injury. This may result in more intensive injuries, higher costs, and long-term degradation of publicly-owned Service resources. When bad actors harm public resources managed by USFWS the responsibility for remedying the problems caused by bad actors should not fall to the taxpayer to solve. More over the fact that currently to repair damages to USFWS resources may require earmarks in the budget to ensure these problems are resolved is doubly unfair in that such budget requirements take resources away from other worthwhile projects that are unrelated to fixing the problems caused by irresponsible actors. It is patently unfair for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of solving the mistakes and negligence of others. The public expects that Refuge resources--and the broad range of activities they support--will be available for future generations. Our bill ensures that persons responsible for harm, not taxpayers, should pay for any injury they cause. While the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration program established under the Oil Pollution Act and CERCLA establishes a unique process for the USFWS to seek damages in limited circumstances involving oil spills and or the release of hazardous substances. These laws do not apply to situations when toxics materials and regular solid waste are dumped on or near a refuge that are not formally defined as hazardous substances and the USFWS is not authorized to recover funds to address injury from the responsible party in these situations under existing statute. Additionally, for injuries caused by actions or mechanisms other than a `spill' of oil or release of a hazardous substance, such as illegal cutting of vegetation, destruction or vandalism of real property and facilities, e.g., kiosks, visitor centers, fire and abandoned debris, the USFWS has no statutory mechanism to recover costs for assessing and restoring the public's resources. In contrast, NPS and NOAA have statutory authority to recover civil damages for these types of injuries, and the funds go to the agencies for assessment and restoration. USFWS manages 556 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 Wetland Management Districts, covering over 150 million acres, and accounting for 25 percent of public lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior. The agency is also responsible for 71 National Fish Hatcheries and a National Conservation Training Center, which would also be covered by the proposed legislation. Management of the Refuge System prioritizes wildlife conservation and habitat management, but encourages the American public to enjoy the benefits of these lands. In the organic legislation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, activities such as hunting, fishing, photography, wildlife observation, environmental education and interpretation were identified as priority public uses on Refuges. Found in every U.S. State and territory, and within an hour's drive of most metropolitan areas, National Wildlife Refuges: attract approximately 45 million visitors each year; protect clean air and safe drinking water for nearby communities; protect more than 700 bird species, 220 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 1,000 fish species; offers hunting on 322 refuges and fishing on 272 refuges; and generates more than $1.7 billion for local economies, creates nearly 27,000 U.S. jobs annually, provides $543 million in employment income, and adds more than $185 million in tax revenue. The fiscal year 2014 appropriated budget for the Refuge System is approximately $72 million dollars, but it is estimated that the current operations and maintenance, O&M, backlog tops $3 billion dollars. The National Fish Hatchery System has a backlog in excess of $300 million. Because the Service does not have statutory authority to pursue recovery of damages from responsible parties, the cost of replacing or restoring injured Refuge or Hatchery resources typically gets included in the O&M project list, and requires tax-payer funding to fix. This legislation would allow the Service to recover damages directly from the person or persons that harmed the resource, thus removing this additional financial burden from taxpayers. The legislation is not intended to generate revenue for the Service; instead, it aims to be budget neutral. Any funds collected to compensate for resource injuries will be used to rectify that specific injury without the need for Congressional appropriation. Under this authority, damages would be required to reimburse assessment costs; prevent or minimize resource loss; abate or minimize the risk of loss; monitor ongoing effects, and/or restore, replace, or acquire resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed. By way of example, NPS has recovered damages on cases ranging from $125.00--$10 million dollars for assessment and restoration of injuries to resources on their lands. However, a direct comparison between USFWS and NPS is of limited value, since the two agencies have dissimilar missions and allow for different activities on their lands. The Refuge and Hatchery systems also manage many more individual land units and twice the acreage of the NPS. USFWS administers several laws, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, that provide for penalties and fees as part of civil or criminal proceedings. The RPA is a civil authority that would allow the Service to recover compensation in the form of monetary damages for costs associated with assessment and restoration of injured resources. It is intended to make the public whole: it is not meant to be punitive towards the person or persons who caused the injury. As part of the Annual Uniform Crime Report, AUCR, Service Law Enforcement has identified several categories of crimes in which they have prosecuted individuals for criminal violations and received associated fines. These fines are remitted to the U.S. Treasury and do not provide any means to assess injury or recover restoration costs associated with repairing or replacing resources. The Service has used Tort law to recover damages on occasion, but many of our cases do not meet the dollar threshold for pursuing a civil lawsuit by the Department of Justice. As a result, even though cases may be criminally prosecuted, most of them are not pursued as a potential civil claim. However, if the Service had RPA authority, we could use a civil process to recover costs for assessment and restoration. The AUCR provides many examples of areas where the Service could use the civil authority under RPA in conjunction with other criminal procedures. In 2010, 39 arson offenses were reported on Service lands. Monetary loss to the government resulting from these cases totaled almost $850,000, but neither restoration funds, nor repair of the public's resources resulted from these prosecutions. Similarly, over 2,300 vandalism offenses, totaling $314,000 in monetary loss were documented. Other reported offenses number in the thousands and could lead to recovery of damages for many field stations: These include, illegal off-road use (n=2,234), trespass (n = 8,163), and other natural resource violations (n = 4,628). In these instances, the Service must choose between using tax-payer funded, appropriations to pay for assessing, repairing, replacing or restoring structures, habitat and other resources injured by the responsible party or for other important Refuge needs. It is time to shed taxpayers' cost burden of repairs and restoration due to damage caused by the unlawful behavior of negligent individuals and give the USFWS the authority it need to collect damages from those responsible to do the work to right what's wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse and I be allowed to speak in a colloquy with other Members or to yield time during that 30 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Senator Whitehouse is exactly right. We were together in the hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, where we had many previous administrators from the Environmental Protection Agency. There were those who served under Democratic administrations and Republican administrations.

Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator will yield for one moment, I also want Senator Hoeven to understand the history. Shortly after the Supreme Court decision many of us filed because there needed to be clarification. We had urged Congress to do that. But it was opposition from the Republicans that prevented us from considering that legislation. They blocked us from considering a congressional clarification as to the Supreme Court decision, and now we are faced with a situation in which the administration is doing what it must do; that is, to provide, under its own authority, where it can act, clarification that it so desperately needed. As Senator Whitehouse has said, what this regulation is about is clarifying the confusion by the Supreme Court decision as to what is regulated or not. As a result, landowners don't know whether they can do this or not. They don't know. That is the worst of all worlds, when you don't have certainty as to how you need to act, and that does cause speculation that in many cases is not true. But they don't know what the rules are. So, quite frankly, what the administration rule is patterned after is a lot of discussion we had in the Congress of the United States shortly after the Supreme Court decision as to trying to codify the practice before the Supreme Court decision. There didn't seem to be a lot of people upset with the manner in which the EPA was regulating the waters of the United States prior to the two Supreme Court decisions in 2001. That is what the regulation is aimed at--getting us to before the point of the Supreme Court decision and where Congress was trying to legislate but blocked by Republicans shortly after the decision. I think Senator Whitehouse is exactly right. What we should be doing now if we have concerns is expressing them. First, it might be helpful to read the regulation and see what is in it and what is not in it, what is regulated and what is not regulated. If there are things in here we think are wrong, that is what a comment period is about. Let's wait until we get the final regulation and then, yes, we will have a debate, I am sure, at that time, which is appropriate, and then we can debate exactly what the regulation says.

Mr. CARDIN. Let me finish my point. Here is the point. This is a proposed regulation. So if you think further clarification is needed, there is an extended comment period. If you think we need to make further clarifications on issues--what we are trying to get at are practices that affect water that will go into our streams and rivers and in my case end up in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which in trying to clean up the bay we have to deal with. The success of the Chesapeake Bay Program is that all stakeholders are involved. We use the best science. We need everyone doing their fair share. Therefore, if your activities contribute to water flowing into the Chesapeake Bay watershed through our streams and rivers, yes, you are regulated under the Clean Water Act. But if you have a self- contained ditch that is not involved in that and are using it for irrigation, absolutely not. If you participate in the conservation programs, you don't have to worry about a new set of regulations. That is what this does. Our true leader on this has been Senator Whitehouse. I thank him very much on the climate change issues, on the environmental issues. He has been on the floor every day. I want to make sure my colleagues have a chance to express their views on this issue. It is critically important. I yield for my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. CARDIN. I was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the proposed rule for the waters of the United States, and I am somewhat curious as to where they get a lot of their information because if they read the proposed rule--and I point out that this is a proposed rule--it specifically excludes from waters of the United States certain ditches, wastewater treatment plants, ponds, et cetera. I am going to get into the specifics. But if you listen to their points on the floor, you would think all ditches are covered under the proposed rule--which is now subject to comment--and that is not the case. I would urge those who are interested to please read the proposed rule and determine for yourself the fact that it does not include many of the examples given by the opponents in clarifying the waters of the United States. Last week I had a roundtable discussion with a group of scientists and concerned citizens dealing with the progress we have made in the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is critically important--not to just those who live in the watershed; it is the largest estuary in our hemisphere. There is more coastline on the Chesapeake Bay than on the entire west coast of the United States. It is a national treasure and has been declared that by many Presidents. It is iconic to Maryland and supports a diversity of aquatic life which is important to our lives and to our economy. Mr. President, $1 trillion of our economy is based on the Chesapeake Bay. Starting in the 1980s, we recognized that we had a responsibility to do what we could to preserve and clean up the quality of the water within the Chesapeake Bay. Starting with Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and now expanding to Delaware, West Virginia, New York, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government, we have a Chesapeake Bay agreement. The most recent, the fourth one, was recently signed. It recognizes that we have a real challenge to deal with the quality of the water in the bay. We have asked our farmers to do more, and we have provided help to them in the farm bill for conservation practices. We have asked developers to do more by preserving more pervious surfaces and dealing with the loss of acreage of forest land. We have asked local governments to do more as far as dealing with wastewater treatment facility commitments. We have had a partnership between the government and private sectors. All stakeholders are involved because we believe we all have responsibilities. We are not asking one segment to do it alone. All of us are working together. But, quite frankly, the regulation of the waters of the United States directly affects the success we are going to have in cleaning the Chesapeake Bay. So the issue we are talking about with the waters of the United States and clarifying that has a direct impact. I might also tell you that climate change has a direct impact. Those of us who live in the watershed area, yes, we can do our responsibility for reducing our carbon footprint, but we need to get our country engaged in reducing our carbon footprint. We need to do that for many reasons--we need to do that for public health; we need to do that for national security. Let me remind my colleagues that the Naval Academy, the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Pax River--all critically important to our national defense--are located on our coasts in Maryland and are subjected now to more flooding as a result of sea level increases which, in part, are the result of our activities with climate change. All we ask is that we follow the science. Le me talk for a moment about waters of the United States because I heard what my colleague said. I have to take us back to 2001 when the Supreme Court issued two decisions concerning the navigable waters and the waters of the United States and added confusion. What this administration is trying to do, what we are trying to do is restore the authority that we all thought was in the law before the two Supreme Court decisions. That is all we are doing--trying to go back to what everyone understood were the regulations of the waters of the United States because the freshwater supply coming into the Chesapeake Bay is critically important to the health of the Chesapeake Bay. So if water goes into the streams, it goes into the bay, and that is of concern to us, and that needs to be regulated under the Clean Water Act. I will quote from the preamble of the proposed regulation that has been submitted. The preamble says: The SWANCC and Rapanos decisions resulted in the agencies evaluating the jurisdiction of waters on a case-specific basis far more frequently than is best for clear and efficient implementation of the CWA. This approach results in confusion and uncertainty to the regulated public and results in significant resources being allocated to these determinations by federal and state regulators. That is why we had this proposed rule--to clarify the law that gives certainty. How many times have I heard from my constituents: Let us know what the rules are so that we can do our business. That is exactly what this proposed rule is all about. The National Farmers Union issued this statement: NFU has long advocated for increased certainty surrounding Clean Water Act requirements for family farmers and ranchers in the wake of complicating Supreme Court decisions. Today's draft rule clarifies Clean Water Act jurisdiction, maintains existing agricultural exemptions and adds new exemptions, and encourages enrollment in U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation programs. That is their quote. The reason that is--there are 56 conservation practices that are specifically exempt from this regulation, so if farmers are participating in these conservation practices, they don't have to worry about the issues to which some of my colleagues referred. Let me quote from the proposed regulation itself. The regulation says that the following are not waters of the United States: waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons; prior converted cropland; ditches that are excavated, and it gives certain conditions; ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through another water, to the waters of the United States, so we have exempted ditches; certain artificially irrigated areas are exempted; artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land; artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools created by excavating and/or diking dry land; small ornamental waters created by excavating and/or diking dry land; water-filled depressions; groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems; and gullies and rills and non-wetland swales. If you listen to my colleagues, they would tell you that if, as a farmer, you have a ditch on your property that is just on your property, that you are using for irrigation on your property, it would be subject to this regulation. It would not be. It is specifically exempt. Here is the point.

Mr. CARDIN. Four from Republican administrations--and as was pointed out in the hearing where we were talking about the Clean Air Act, it was passed by bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Nixon, and it was a proud moment. We have done many analyses that show the regulations issued under clean water and clean air pay back dividends far in excess of compliance costs, such as 40 to 1. There are people who can breathe and not have to worry about an asthma attack because we have clean air. There are those who don't get sick because of pathogens that may be in our drinking water or people getting sick just bathing on our shores. We reduced that, and the number of premature deaths we have eliminated. The public health benefit of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act pays back multiple dividends to people of this country, and that is why this has never been a partisan issue. Quite frankly, the Chesapeake Bay Program--the partnership--has never been a partisan issue in Maryland. Some of our strongest benefactors--the people who have caused us to have this type of unity--have been Republican leaders in our State, along with Democratic leaders. We don't even know the party it ought to be. This has been a public calling because we know the seriousness of the issue. The Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of nonpartisan activities in order to protect the public health of the people of this country, and it is extremely disappointing that there is no cooperation at all.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would have no objection as long as equal time is added to the block that follows for the Democrats.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it is our understanding that Democrats control the next 32 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2014, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``CLOSED/TS: Iraq Update.''

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Global Development Lab and the legislation I am introducing along with Senators Boozman, Coons, and Isakson that codifies the Global Development Lab and provides the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, with the flexibility it needs to make the Lab the gold standard in global development innovation. This year, the Office of Science & Technology and the Office of Innovation & Development Alliances at USAID were abolished to pave the way for the Global Development Lab--a new approach to invest, test, and bring to scale more effective solutions to the world's biggest development challenges. The Global Development Lab partners with entrepreneurs, experts, nongovernmental organizations, NGOs, universities, and science and research institutions to solve development challenges in a faster, more cost-efficient, and more sustainable way. The lab utilizes a pay-for- success model, which uses science, technology, and innovation-driven competitions to expand the number and diversity of solutions to development challenges. This means that instead of issuing grants or contacts, USAID can give a competitor an award only after the objectives of the competition have been achieved. The lab already has an impressive 32 cornerstone partners. These partners are businesses, NGOs, foundations, universities, and governments--all of whom are committed to sharing information and expertise and to bringing innovative development projects to scale. I am pleased that two Maryland-based organizations, Johns Hopkins University and Catholic Relief Services, are cornerstone partners of the Global Development Lab. Catholic Relief Services intends to work with the lab on food security, global health, climate change, energy, and information and communications technology, and it is already using geographic information systems in Haiti to map schools and education programs across the country to better improve education interventions. Johns Hopkins University plans to partner with the lab on improving health care and access to clean and affordable water and energy. The Global Development Lab makes sense: America has a proud history of achieving unprecedented gains for humanity through science and technology. Evidence has shown that when we harness American science, innovation and entrepreneurship, we achieve the greatest leaps in social and economic development. For example, ninety percent of new HIV infection in children is a result of mother-to-child transmission at birth. When newborns receive antiretroviral drugs at a clinic or hospital within 24 hours of birth, their chances of contracting HIV go from 45 percent to less than 5 percent. In regions where pregnant mothers do not have adequate access to medical facilities, getting newborns antiretroviral treatment is challenging. In response to this challenge, Dr. Robert Malkin and his students at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering and Duke's Global Health Institute--also Cornerstone Partners--designed the Pratt Pouch, a low- cost foil pouch that preserves a premeasured dose of antiretroviral medication for up to a year without requiring refrigeration. The pouch ensures accurate pediatric dosing and can be given to mothers to take home with them before birth. Mothers then simply tear open the pouch and squeeze the medication directly into their newborn's mouth, eliminating the need for a syringe and a health professional and ultimately reducing the likelihood of mother-to-child transmission of HIV at birth. This type of innovation is exciting and is exactly what we hope to see more of as we scale up the Global Development Lab and empower it to be the world's most innovative incubator of global development projects.