Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I would like to discuss global hunger. From April 28 to May 2, people across the United States and across the globe are participating in the Live Below the Line campaign to raise awareness for global hunger and to show support for the critical programs that seek to alleviate hunger. Participants in the Live Below the Line campaign, including many of my constituents in Maryland, are subsisting on $1.50 a day to demonstrate the challenges faced by millions of people each day. Right now, more than 1.2 billion people involuntarily live on less than $1.50 a day for food and drink. Children are particularly vulnerable to hunger and undernourishment. Studies show a child's entire life is shaped by whether or not she or he receives proper nutrition during the first 1,000 days of her or his life. And tragically, 3.1 million children under the age of 5 die each year as a result of poor nutrition and hunger. When we think of global hunger, we often think of Sub-Saharan Africa where 223 million people, 24.8 percent of the population, face food insecurity. Or we think of Asia, where more than 500 million people suffer from hunger. In Laos, for example, 50 percent of children under the age of 5 are chronically malnourished. And in Burma, it is estimated that about 35 percent of children are undernourished and stunted. But hunger is not just a problem for developing countries. Families across America and in my home State of Maryland are also struggling. According to the latest U.S. department of Agriculture report on Household Food Security in the United States, 12.5 percent of all households in Maryland were food insecure between 2009 and 2011, and more than 27 percent of children in Maryland are living in poverty. Proper nutrition is not just important to individual health, it is critical to the long-term health and success of nations. Poor nutrition and rampant hunger results in a less healthy and less productive workforce, hampers economic development and growth, and ultimately perpetuates the cycle of hunger and poverty for successive generations. It should not be that way; every child should have the opportunity to grow up healthy and strong. Thanks to organizations like the World Food Program USA and the United Nations World Food Program, who together work to solve global hunger, the number of hungry people in the world has fallen by 17 percent since 1990. And in 2013, the World Food Program provided 24 million school children in 60 different countries with meals at school. This not only reduces undernourishment and hunger, but also incentivizes school attendance. We need more programs like this, and we need more people to be aware of this issue, both here in the United States and abroad. With the world population expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, transforming how people farm and what people eat is the only way, I believe, to ensure food security for future generations. We are making great strides in global food security, particularly through the U.S. Feed The Future Initiative, which focuses on building sustainability and resilience into communities by transforming how people farm and what people eat. In 2009, then-Secretary of State Clinton said, We have the resources to give every person in the world the tools they need to feed themselves and their children. So the question is not whether we can end hunger. It's whether we will. Ending global hunger and poverty will not happen tomorrow, but if we continue to coordinate with our global partners, harness the power of the private sector and the NGO community, and use our development aid in the most effective and transparent way possible, we will have much better outcomes. The United States must be relentless in striving to assure that no one goes hungry.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President. I have been on the floor several times, and many of my colleagues, particularly on this side of the aisle, have been here to talk about a growing trend in America; that we see a concentration of wealth and a shrinking middle class. If you are a business owner, you should be very concerned about that. The growing middle class is what buys the products that go to the restaurants that keep our economy going. Time and time again we have asked to proceed on legislation that would allow us to help the growing middle class. This is not our first effort with the minimum wage. Many States have passed increases in the minimum wage. It is time for our Federal Government to do the same, to help a growing middle class. The last effort was on behalf of gender equity, paycheck fairness, where we sought to have a fair shot for women in the workplace, so they don't have to work extra time to make the same income as a man for equal work. A woman receives on average about 77 percent of what a man does in the same job. So we tried to move forward with a fair shot for women with paycheck fairness. But, no, the Republicans said, no, we are not even going to consider it. We are not even going to take that up. We are hearing some of the same arguments now in regard to proceeding on the debate on the minimum wage. My friend from Texas talked about the Affordable Care Act. We are proud the Affordable Care Act gives a fair shot for all Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care. Millions of Americans today have quality health insurance coverage they didn't have before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. It is working. We now know that insurance companies cannot discriminate against women or anyone based upon preexisting conditions. Those days are over. There is now a fair shot for health care access-- access for all Americans. We know small business owners now can get competitive plans and they can choose among a lot of different types of plans, a fair shot for small business owners to be treated equally with larger companies in regard to the insurance marketplace. We have done that. We have expanded Medicaid to close that coverage gap known as the doughnut hole for prescription drug coverage, and there are no longer any copayments on preventive health care. We extended Medicare because we want a fair shot for our seniors for their security, and that is why our caucus defends the Social Security system, knowing how important it is for our seniors. Yes, we do fight for our children. A fair shot for our children means we support Head Start and we support help for higher education because we know that is the ticket to economic growth. In a few moments--in a few moments--we will have a chance for a fair shot for working families in this country by moving to consider the minimum wage law. We haven't adjusted the minimum wage law for a long time. I heard my friend from Texas talk about job issues. Every time we have increased the minimum wage our economy has grown, and there is a reason for that. This legislation will put $34 billion into the economy, will help grow the economy, and will lift 2 million Americans out of poverty. Think about this. If someone works 40 hours a week and they receive the minimum wage, there is not a State in this country where they can get affordable housing. People cannot support their family on the minimum wage in the United States of America. By passing the Minimum Wage Act, we give 28 million Americans a raise. This is a fair shot for all workers in this country. Let me dispel some of the rumors that are out there. The average age of a person on minimum wage is 35 years old. We are not talking about college students. We are talking about people trying to support a family on the minimum wage, and they cannot do it. Many have children. The majority are women. It is time we answer this inequity in our system. We haven't had an increase in the minimum wage--in fact, if we look at what it was in 1968, this increase will basically get us back to where we were in 1968. It will help our economy. We have heard these projections before; that every time we do this it will kill jobs. It doesn't do that. Look at the history. Look at what has happened with the previous increases in the minimum wage: Our economy has gotten stronger. It has grown stronger. So it is time to give a raise to American workers. It is time to help a growing middle class. It is time we give a fair shot to working families in America. I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed on this debate. Don't continue a filibuster. Let's give America a fair shot, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, known as the DRA. I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Booker, Harkin, and Sanders as original cosponsors of this legislation. As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. 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 Fifteenth 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. It took Congress and the States nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.'' 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 where an individual lives. 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 or 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. Eight percent of the African-American population, or 2 million African-Americans, are disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, approximately 1 in 3 of the next generation of African- American men will be disenfranchised at some point during their lifetime. Currently, 1 of every 13 African-Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate 4 times greater than non African-Americans. Nearly 8 percent of African- Americans are disenfranchised, compared to less than 2 percent of non- African-Americans. In 3 states more than 1 in 5 African-Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions: the rates are Florida at 23 percent, Kentucky at 22 percent, and Virginia at 20 percent. Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based on their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. If current incarceration trends hold, 17 percent of Latino men will be incarcerated during their lifetime, in contrast to less than 6 percent of non-Latino white men. When analyzing the data across 10 States, Latinos generally have disproportionately higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to their presence in the voting age population. In 6 out of 10 States studies in 2003, Latinos constitute more than 10 percent of the total number of persons disenfranchised by State felony laws. In 4 States, California, 37 percent; New York, 34 percent; Texas, 30 percent; and Arizona, 27 percent, Latinos were disenfranchised by a rate of more than 25 percent. Native Americans are also disproportionately disenfranchised. 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 bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election. The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to Federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. 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 ultimately 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 therefore urge Congress to address the issue of disenfranchisement and support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Democracy Restoration Act, known as the DRA. I want to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Booker, Harkin, and Sanders as original cosponsors of this legislation. As the late Senator Kennedy often said, civil rights is the ``unfinished business'' of America. 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 Fifteenth 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. It took Congress and the States nearly another century to eliminate the poll tax, upon the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964. The Amendment provides that ``the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.'' 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 where an individual lives. 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 or 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. Eight percent of the African-American population, or 2 million African-Americans, are disenfranchised. Given current rates of incarceration, approximately 1 in 3 of the next generation of African- American men will be disenfranchised at some point during their lifetime. Currently, 1 of every 13 African-Americans are rendered unable to vote because of felony disenfranchisement, which is a rate 4 times greater than non African-Americans. Nearly 8 percent of African- Americans are disenfranchised, compared to less than 2 percent of non- African-Americans. In 3 states more than 1 in 5 African-Americans are unable to vote because of prior convictions: the rates are Florida at 23 percent, Kentucky at 22 percent, and Virginia at 20 percent. Latino citizens are disproportionately disenfranchised based on their disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system. If current incarceration trends hold, 17 percent of Latino men will be incarcerated during their lifetime, in contrast to less than 6 percent of non-Latino white men. When analyzing the data across 10 States, Latinos generally have disproportionately higher rates of disenfranchisement compared to their presence in the voting age population. In 6 out of 10 States studies in 2003, Latinos constitute more than 10 percent of the total number of persons disenfranchised by State felony laws. In 4 States, California, 37 percent; New York, 34 percent; Texas, 30 percent; and Arizona, 27 percent, Latinos were disenfranchised by a rate of more than 25 percent. Native Americans are also disproportionately disenfranchised. 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 bill authorizes the Department of Justice and individuals harmed by violation of this act to sue to enforce its provisions. The bill generally provides State election officials with a grace period to resolve voter eligibility complaints without a lawsuit before an election. The legislation is narrowly crafted to apply to Federal elections, and retains the States' authorities to generally establish voting qualifications. This legislation is therefore consistent with Congressional authority under the Constitution and voting rights statutes, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. 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 ultimately 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 therefore urge Congress to address the issue of disenfranchisement and support this legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the ongoing crisis in Syria. Last month marked the 3-year anniversary since the brutal conflict began. According to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139, which was unanimously accepted in February of this year, the conflict has resulted in the death of over 140,000 people in Syria, including at least 10,000 children. UNICEF reports that Syria is among the most dangerous places on Earth to be a child, pointing to high child casualty rates, brutalizing and traumatic violence, deteriorating access to education, and health concerns. The number of children suffering in Syria more than doubled in the third year of the conflict. The crisis is only getting worse. Hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians are under fire by government and opposition forces in violation of internationally accepted Laws of Armed Conflict. These war crimes are truly devastating, and to escape the violence, millions of refugees have flooded into neighboring Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, while thousands more remain internally displaced inside Syria Last year I visited the Kilis refugee camp in Turkey which is currently sheltering more than 14,000 Syrian refugees. I witnessed first-hand the remarkable bravery of the Syrian refugee population. Many of these families relocated several times within Syria before ultimately making the heart-wrenching decision to leave their country in order to seek food, medical attention, and safety outside of Syria. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has registered more than 2.6 million Syrian refugees with women and children making up more than 80 percent of the refugee population. By the end of this year, the United Nations estimates that the number of refugees could increase to 4 million. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Syria Humanitarian Resolution of 2014, which urges all parties in Syria to allow for and facilitate immediate, unfettered access to humanitarian aid throughout the Syrian Arab Republic. This legislation calls for the safety, security, independence, and impartiality of humanitarian workers and demands freedom of movement to deliver aid. I remain deeply concerned by the instability of the entire region, as violence spills over into neighboring countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified that, ``In Syria, the ongoing civil war will probably heighten regional and sectarian tensions.'' The influx of Syrian refugees to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq is putting a strain on those countries' resources. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic reports that pro-government forces have murdered, tortured, assaulted, and raped civilians in Syria. Anti- government groups have also engaged in murder, execution without due process, torture, hostage-taking, and shelling of civilian neighborhoods. But nowhere is the brutality of this war more evident than in the events of August 21, 2013, when the Syrian Army, under the direction of President Assad, launched a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs. This attack left over 1,400 innocent Syrian civilians dead-- many of whom were children. Assad's criminal use of chemical weapons against his own people is morally reprehensible and violates internationally accepted rules of war. The international community cannot stand by and allow the murder of innocent men, women, and children to go unchallenged. We must bring Assad and all other perpetrators of gross human rights violations in the Syrian conflict to justice. It is clear that we must take action. Last week I introduced, the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2014, S. 2209 along with Senators Rubio and Kaine. My bill strongly condemns the ongoing violence, the use of chemical weapons, the targeting of civilian populations, and the systematic gross human rights violations carried out by both the Syrian government and opposition forces. My legislation requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress with a description of violations of internationally recognized human rights abuses and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Syria. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary to report to Congress on efforts by the Department of State and USAID to ensure accountability for these violations and provide a review of the facts concerning any prosecution in the case of Syrian crimes that could be defined under universal jurisdiction. This Monday marked the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. Unfortunately, we have not learned the lessons of the past. We must do better to not only see that sort of atrocities never again occur under our watch, but to ensure that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes are held accountable for their actions. Ignoring the crisis in Syria is both morally wrong and counterproductive to our National security and that of our allies. War tactics employed in Syria by government and some opposition forces fly in the face of the rules of war. For the sake of our National security interests and regional stability, we cannot turn a blind eye to these heinous acts. I strongly believe that there are times when the international community must come together to end atrocities, protect innocent lives from crimes against humanity and hold accountable the groups that perpetrate them. The Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2014 sends a strong message to the international community that the United States is firmly committed to bringing all perpetrators of international crimes in Syria to justice. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. It is not just my wife, I also have two beautiful grandchildren, granddaughters, and they are going to do just fine, but I want to make sure they are treated fairly in the workplace--and I want all people treated fairly in the workplace. I thank Senator Shaheen. As I said, equal pay for equal work. Paycheck fairness is truly an American value. I thank all our leaders here. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Mikulski, my colleague from Maryland, for her extraordinary leadership on pay equity issues, on this particular issue of paycheck fairness, and for the work she has done throughout her whole career as a real leader on gender issues. As Senator Shaheen pointed out, today is Equal Pay Day, and the reason for that is women, on average, earn about 77 percent of what a man earns for doing the same work. We are not talking about different work, but we are talking about doing the exact same work that women are discriminated against in the amount of compensation they receive. So on average women have to work 3 additional months every year to earn the same amount of money a man earns for doing the same work. That is not right and it needs to change. Today I was at the White House with the President and some of our colleagues. Lilly Ledbetter was there. I know the Presiding Officer recalls that Lilly Ledbetter has been one of the real leaders on pay equity. She worked at Goodyear for over 20 years, and after being there for two decades she found out from one of her coworkers--who anonymously passed along information to her about what people were making--that for 20 years she was receiving less compensation for doing the exact same work her male counterparts were doing. She had no idea about this. There was no justification for the difference. So she decided she would do something about it, not just for herself but for those who are in the workplace and should be treated fairly. So she filed an action and she took this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but guess what the Supreme Court did. They said: Lilly Ledbetter, you are right. You were discriminated against. You were paid less because of your gender, but guess what. Because it has been going on for so long, you don't have any remedy. Now that is absolutely ridiculous, that 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court. That cost Lilly Ledbetter hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost compensation as a result of that discriminatory action. So Congress took action and changed that, and I was proud to be part of the Congress that cast that vote. It was the first bill signed by President Obama shortly after he took office, and I remember the pride we all had that we were able to take a major step forward on behalf of an enforceable right for women to be paid equal pay for equal work. But the job wasn't done. Tomorrow we can take another giant step forward by advancing, and I hope enacting, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this legislation so we can continue to make progress down this road of equal pay for equal work. In the White House today President Obama took action on his own. As he has said he would, he used his Executive power to do what he can to advance the cause of equality in this country. So he signed two Executive orders. The first is what we call the sunshine executive order that will require Federal contractors to allow their employees to share information about their salaries. They can no longer take retaliatory action because coworkers share their salary information. The second Executive order will require contractors to provide information to the Department of Labor as to what their salary and compensation amounts are based on gender so there can be a record to make sure employers that are doing work for the Federal Government and that are benefiting from the U.S. taxpayers are doing the right thing as far as equal pay for equal work. These are two very important changes the President has instituted through the use of the power of the White House. We can do something permanent about it by the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. That is our responsibility, and I hope we will get that done. It will make a better America. As we pointed out, yes, it is about women being treated fairly in the workplace, it is about my two granddaughters being treated fairly in the workplace, but it is also about our economy and it is about our values. It is all of the above. I might also mention that it affects retirement security. Because women aren't paid as much, they do not have as much money when they retire. They are more strapped when it comes to how they spend their money. They have less money available for their retirement security. Women over the age of 50 receive only about 56 percent of what men of similar age receive in pension benefits because they haven't earned as much. A good part of that is because they are not being paid fairly in the workplace. Paycheck fairness will certainly help. We want to give a fair shot to every woman in this country. Many are the sole support for their families. Eliminating the wage gap will provide $450 billion of additional income into our economy. You know what that goes for. It goes to buy a new car or help pay for their children's education. It provides the wherewithal so women can go out and pay their rent, their mortgage payments, the wherewithal to take care of their families. They can even put money away for retirement so they have the security they need after they retire. It helps to grow a middle class in this country, and that is what we all should be about. So paycheck fairness helps give women a fair shot of equal pay for equal work. It requires employers to demonstrate that wage disparities between men and women holding the same position and doing the same work are not related to their gender. That seems simple enough. Doing different work, obviously the pay is different. Same work, why is there a difference? The bill ensures the remedies available to victims of gender discrimination are similar to the remedies available to those who are discriminated against based upon their race or national origin. We have in place a way we can correct this. We know how to use those tools. Let us also use them for those who have been discriminated against in their pay because of their gender. The legislation updates the Equal Pay Act to make it more in line with class action procedures available under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This gives us an effective remedy to take care of a class of workers who have been discriminated against in the workplace, and it also prohibits employers--this is very important--from punishing or retaliating against workers who share salary information. That is what the President did today with the stroke of his pen for those companies that do business with the Federal Government. We can make it universal in the workplace. We can shine a light on what is happening. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed: ``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' We strive for greater transparency in our government because we know that will help provide a better government. So we allow our workers to share information without fear that they will be discriminated against or that actions will be taken against them by their employer. Our mission as Senators is clearly written in the first few words contained in the preamble of the Constitution. Our mission is to ``form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' Paycheck fairness is essential for our carrying out that mission. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on these issues and so many other issues in the Senate. I listened to the Senator's comments and I fully concur in the information the Senator has brought forward, that paycheck fairness is not just a matter of fairness for women, it is a matter of fairness for our country. Not only will women benefit, our economy will benefit and our country will benefit by making sure that equal pay for equal work is what happens in our country. I thank the Senator, and I yield.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, the numbers are in--over 7 million Americans have enrolled through the health exchanges around the Nation. When we passed the Affordable Care Act 4 years ago, projections were that we would hit the 7 million mark of enrollees at the close of the first year of enrollment. We have exceeded those numbers. We have exceeded those numbers even though we had a very rough rollout of the exchanges and people were frustrated when they couldn't get information as quickly as they wanted. But Americans wanted insurance, and they knew they could get affordable coverage, so they stuck with it and now we know that, in fact, over 7 million have enrolled. When we see the final numbers, those numbers are going to go up because there were a lot of people in the process of signing up online on March 31 and the processing has not been completed. So we will see more. Plus, we have the Medicaid expansion, which is going to bring millions more with health insurance coverage than we had before. Over the last 4 years we have seen incredible progress and help going out to all Americans with their health coverage and their health costs. No longer do we have preexisting conditions. A family who has a child with asthma doesn't have to worry whether that asthma will be considered a preexisting condition to full coverage. A woman does not have to worry about having a child being a preexisting condition to full coverage. Parents can keep their adult children on their insurance policies until the age of 26. There are no longer any caps on insurance. Many Americans thought they had insurance coverage only to go through a serious illness and find their insurance had a cap that did not cover all the expenses. No longer do families have to worry about being forced into bankruptcy because of an illness or an injury. Our seniors now have much stronger coverage under Medicare, with preventive care covered without any deductibles. Prescription drug coverage is now more complete with that so-called doughnut hole--that coverage gap--being filled. And the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has been extended by a decade. Small business owners have a choice of the types of plans they want. They do not have to worry about one person in their employment getting sick during the year and causing an astronomical increase in their premiums. They also have help and affordability in paying for their health insurance for their employees. Community health centers have been expanded and offer such coverage as prenatal care. In my own State of Maryland we are seeing the low birth weight baby numbers declining and infant mortality rates going down. We are now providing more pediatric dental services within the community. That is all as a result of the Affordable Care Act. So we now have passed the March 31 date and the first year of enrollment. Many Americans now have affordable quality health care and a choice. They have a good product at a reasonable cost. Everybody hears the numbers, but I want to go through a few--and I have literally hundreds--of the letters I have received from real people whose real lives have been affected. They are one of those 7.1 million people, and we could read millions of accounts just like this. This is from Dr. Michael L. of Cecil County in a letter to the Baltimore Sun. He said: My wife and I would like to thank President Barack Obama for helping us save almost $4,000 a year on health care. I am 61 years old with a preexisting condition of asthma, which is under control with medication. Yet before the Affordable Care Act, my insurance company felt it necessary to charge me 25 percent more for my insurance coverage. I'm sure there are many others like myself with preexisting conditions who will see a savings on their coverage. The public should know that since Fox News and the GOP would have us believe ObamaCare helps no one and will cost everyone more. This is from Colleen F. of Anne Arundel County, and she posted on our Facebook. Senator--I am 26 years old and have been on COBRA paying $570 a month for coverage because of a pre-existing condition--asthma. I want to thank you for fighting for the ACA!! I applied recently . . . and was accepted into the program. I now pay $243 a month with a $500 deductible! Thank you thank you thank you! Affordable health care is a human right--thank you for fighting on my behalf! Kelly ``M'' wrote: I have a new plan. I haven't had insurance for years. When I applied for insurance before, I was denied for pre-existing conditions, even for plans with huge deductibles. I signed up on the Maryland Healthcare Exchange back in October, and by January 1st, I was holding an insurance card from Carefirst Blueshield and have already had my first doctor's appointment. It works. I am proof. And I'm so grateful that I can take care of myself with dignity without having to go to the ER whenever I'm sick or have to spend half my paycheck at an urgent care center. I can do all of the preventative measures that I have been putting off, and get back on the road to health. It's a good feeling. Pam S. of Frederick County, MD, wrote: My daughter and I met with a Navigator from the ``Door to HealthCare'' . . . to discuss applying for health care. We had been having problems with the enrollment process. I had been paying for a separate plan for her and now she is paying $55 less per month. Now my daughter gets to have a comprehensive plan, cheaper than before and without any interruption on her coverage. Thank you! Ryan, from Prince George's County, has aged out of her parents' insurance. Ryan was suffering from asthma and a sinus infection, but she was unable to afford a doctor's visit on her own. After attending a local Affordable Care Act information session, she logged onto the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange and was able to go through the entire process and pick an affordable health plan. She is now insured and able to get the treatment she needs. Ryan is 26 years old. Those under 26 can be on their parents' policy. We talk about young people who think they will never need insurance. I was in downtown Baltimore over the weekend at a fair where we were enrolling people in the Affordable Care Act. I saw many people of Ryan's age--young people over 26 years of age, who were there to find out whether this was right for them. When they left, they held an insurance card. They had enrolled because they found out how reasonable the price was for a young person to get comprehensive coverage. I have quite a few more, and maybe on a later date I will come back and read some of the other letters I have received. But the point I want to bring up is we have fundamentally changed the health care system from a system that was basically a sick system--only if you got sick, figured out how to pay your bills, maybe you went through bankruptcy--to a health care system where we keep people healthy, where we provide for comprehensive preventive health care so people can stay out of emergency rooms and hospitals. Yes, we have benefited those who had no health insurance. Millions of people now have coverage who didn't have coverage before the Affordable Care Act. We have brought them into the system. They don't have to fear bankruptcy. They can take care of themselves, and they can do it in a more cost-effective way for all of us. We have helped our seniors. No question about it. They now have more comprehensive benefits, and they have a system that is on a more stable financial footing. But we also have helped those who already had insurance. We have helped them by giving them a better product, by making sure the premiums insurance companies charge are used for patients' benefits and not excessive profits. They must spend 80 to 85 percent; otherwise, they have to give a rebate. We have gotten people out of the emergency room. I was asked on C- SPAN today: Well, aren't we helping the providers? After all, people who go to hospitals now are more likely to pay their bills. Absolutely right. But guess who paid for that uncompensated care. Those of us who had insurance. Our premiums were higher as a result of people not paying their bills. Well, now they are going to be paying their bills. First of all, they are going to stay out of the hospital which will save us all money. But if they need to be in the hospital, they will have the insurance coverage to pay for it. The Affordable Care Act has worked for all of us by bringing down the growth rate of health care costs, by making the system more efficient. Today I think we can acknowledge the fundamentals are sound. People are taking advantage of it. We hope, as we go forward, more and more will. One final point. When Medicare Part D was passed and we projected the number of seniors who would take advantage of it, we hit about 70 percent of our projection in the first year. On the Affordable Care Act and the health exchanges, we are over 100 percent. This program is working. People know it. The more they know about it, the more they like what they see. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Schatz to introduce the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act. Encouraging energy efficiency improvements is a smart and cost- effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our employers, and to create jobs in both our construction and manufacturing sectors. As I have discussed previously on the floor of the Senate, our energy problem in this country can be primarily attributed to a waste problem. Recently, the Department of Energy calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy produced. Our goal in introducing this bill is to prevent that waste by providing focused incentives that encourage significant improvements in energy efficiency and truly innovative energy efficiency technologies. While my colleagues will explain how the bill does this for our homes and the industrial sector, I would like to focus on how our bill improves energy efficiency outcomes for commercial and multifamily buildings. About 40 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from our buildings, and up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050. Encouraging efficiency in new construction, and making these existing buildings more efficient, would generate billions of dollars in energy savings, spur job creation, and reduce carbon emissions. Until January 1, 2014, Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provided a tax deduction that allowed for cost recovery regarding energy efficient energy efficiency improvements to a building's lighting, HVAC, and envelope. Typically, the cost of energy consumption is part of a business's expenses and thus immediately deductible. Section 179D was an important provision because it aligned the Internal Revenue Code to similarly incentivize energy savings through efficiency improvements. In terms of meeting our energy demands, some of the cheapest and cleanest energy we have is the energy we don't use because of these improvements. Unfortunately, the 179D deduction expired at the end of 2013. As we move forward with tax extenders, it is critical that this provision be restored. Our bill restores the 179D deduction by extending it through 2016. In addition, our bill makes commonsense reforms to that section. We update the energy efficiency standards that must be met to qualify for the 179D deduction, including by providing automatic standard updates for the years the deduction is available. We want to be sure that this incentive is going to technologies that meet truly efficient standards. We also make the deduction more accessible to all real estate owners and those involved in implementing energy efficiency improvements, including through updated partial deduction standards and allocation provisions. Finally, the bill recognizes that, in the same way we encourage new construction to meet these standards, we should encourage energy efficiency retrofits. Our current tax policies do not yet provide an effective incentive for retrofitting our existing building stock. For example, the Empire State Building retrofit project, which will reduce that building's energy consumption by 40 percent, did not qualify for a section 179D deduction under its current structure. Our bill would provide a deduction for retrofits of existing commercial and multifamily buildings to further encourage retrofit projects. Like section 179D, the deduction would be performance-based to encourage ambitious improvements and make the credit more accessible to building owners. Before turning to my colleagues, I would like to reiterate that America's energy and economic future requires a focus on these energy incentives. Initiatives like our bill are needed not only to generate jobs, and savings for businesses and taxpayers, but also to improve our environment and make our nation more energy secure.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues Senator Feinstein and Senator Schatz to introduce the Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives Act. Encouraging energy efficiency improvements is a smart and cost- effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our employers, and to create jobs in both our construction and manufacturing sectors. As I have discussed previously on the floor of the Senate, our energy problem in this country can be primarily attributed to a waste problem. Recently, the Department of Energy calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy produced. Our goal in introducing this bill is to prevent that waste by providing focused incentives that encourage significant improvements in energy efficiency and truly innovative energy efficiency technologies. While my colleagues will explain how the bill does this for our homes and the industrial sector, I would like to focus on how our bill improves energy efficiency outcomes for commercial and multifamily buildings. About 40 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from our buildings, and up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050. Encouraging efficiency in new construction, and making these existing buildings more efficient, would generate billions of dollars in energy savings, spur job creation, and reduce carbon emissions. Until January 1, 2014, Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provided a tax deduction that allowed for cost recovery regarding energy efficient energy efficiency improvements to a building's lighting, HVAC, and envelope. Typically, the cost of energy consumption is part of a business's expenses and thus immediately deductible. Section 179D was an important provision because it aligned the Internal Revenue Code to similarly incentivize energy savings through efficiency improvements. In terms of meeting our energy demands, some of the cheapest and cleanest energy we have is the energy we don't use because of these improvements. Unfortunately, the 179D deduction expired at the end of 2013. As we move forward with tax extenders, it is critical that this provision be restored. Our bill restores the 179D deduction by extending it through 2016. In addition, our bill makes commonsense reforms to that section. We update the energy efficiency standards that must be met to qualify for the 179D deduction, including by providing automatic standard updates for the years the deduction is available. We want to be sure that this incentive is going to technologies that meet truly efficient standards. We also make the deduction more accessible to all real estate owners and those involved in implementing energy efficiency improvements, including through updated partial deduction standards and allocation provisions. Finally, the bill recognizes that, in the same way we encourage new construction to meet these standards, we should encourage energy efficiency retrofits. Our current tax policies do not yet provide an effective incentive for retrofitting our existing building stock. For example, the Empire State Building retrofit project, which will reduce that building's energy consumption by 40 percent, did not qualify for a section 179D deduction under its current structure. Our bill would provide a deduction for retrofits of existing commercial and multifamily buildings to further encourage retrofit projects. Like section 179D, the deduction would be performance-based to encourage ambitious improvements and make the credit more accessible to building owners. Before turning to my colleagues, I would like to reiterate that America's energy and economic future requires a focus on these energy incentives. Initiatives like our bill are needed not only to generate jobs, and savings for businesses and taxpayers, but also to improve our environment and make our nation more energy secure.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership in fixing this reimbursement structure under Medicare. I thank Senator Blunt and Senator Stabenow for their leadership on the mental health demonstration program that is in this--whatever bill we pass it will be in--because it is absolutely essential we address the growing problems in our community health networks. So I thank both of them for their bipartisan leadership. The current way we reimburse physicians under Medicare is broken. The SGR system has been broken since it was passed in 1997 as part of the Balanced Budget Act. We have had 16 temporary patches to the SGR system, and it has created uncertainty not just among the medical community as to what the reimbursement rate will be for Medicare patients, but it has caused uncertainty among Medicare patients as to whether they know their doctor will be there to treat them for their illnesses. If we don't fix the problem and let it go off the cliff, we will see a 24-percent cut in reimbursements to physicians under Medicare. That is not sustainable. As we know, it would affect access for our seniors and the disabled to their doctors. We have to fix this problem. It expires today, March 31. So we have to take action. We have two choices. One is we could take advantage of the opportunity to not just make sure we don't go off the cliff but to actually fix the problem. That is what Senator Wyden has been able to put together, with Senator Hatch and with our colleagues in the House-- a replacement that will actually work, that will actually reward physicians for taking good care of their patients by managing their care, by bringing down the costs of health care, by managing our delivery system, taking high-cost patients, treating them so their illnesses are treated, but also done in a more cost-effective way. That is what the replacement would do if we could pass a permanent fix to the SGR physician reimbursement structure in Medicare. We have a bipartisan proposal. That bipartisan proposal will reward proper delivery of care. It also takes care of the therapy caps and others of the health care extenders. I mention that because Senator Collins and I have been working for a long time to try to get a permanent replacement to the arbitrary cap on therapy services. That was also put in the 1997 BBA-- Balanced Budget Act. That put an arbitrary cap on therapy services, so the more severely a person is injured, the more severe a person's illness, the less services they will be able to get that they need in order to be able to take care of the illness or injury. That makes absolutely no sense at all. So we fixed it. Why are we debating this, with strong bipartisan support? Because there are two proposals out there. One is the proposal Senator Wyden brought forward that fixes the problem, that substitutes a rational system, and it is paid for. I could argue it has been paid for many times over. It has been paid for because we have already passed patches that have been paid for--$153 billion. That is more than this permanent fix costs. Who has paid that $153 billion? It has been clinical labs; it has been skilled nursing facilities; it has been community health. All have paid for a problem they didn't create within the Medicare system. This has been paid for already. It has been paid for already many times. It is current policy. No one expects us to go off the cliff. Senator Wyden, in an effort to try to deal with this in an upfront way--CBO is now scoring this proposal to be a little over $118 billion. That is a bargain considering just a couple of years ago it was $300 billion over a 10- year period. I remember in 2005, I filed a fix of this bill with then- Congressman Clay Shaw--bipartisan bill. It scored at $50 billion. This has been paid for many times over. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Chair. Senator Wyden, in an effort to try to accommodate everyone here, said, OK, we will take the cost savings that are already in the House bill--I could argue that really has nothing to do with the physician problem, but it is one I think we could agree on so we have real cost savings of over $20 billion that Senator Wyden has put in this bill. He said, we have these scored savings under the contingency operations; let's use that if people feel we have to have an offset, even though we have already paid for it over and over again. So we have two options: Another temporary fix with continuing uncertainty, continuing this problem down the road, asking those who didn't cause it to pay for it, even though it has already been paid for before or we could really take care of it and tell our medical community: Let's work on other issues to improve our health care system rather than coming here every year and asking for a temporary extension of the Medicare physician reimbursement structure and not allowing the SGR system to take effect. Those are the two options we have. So I come here to thank Senator Wyden for putting forward a proposal that would fix it, that would really do it, so we wouldn't have to come back again next year, so Congress could really get something done. It is bipartisan, bicameral. The fix has already been signed off by the House and the Senate. Senator Wyden has come up with a plan that allows us to be fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to go down the path of fixing the physician reimbursement structure so we can take that uncertainty out of the Medicare law, do what is right for our Medicare beneficiaries so they have the certainty of their care under Medicare, and do it in a fiscally responsible way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. I rise to speak about the tragic death of a fellow Marylander, PO2 Mark Mayo. His heroic sacrifice is the truest display of the U.S. Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment. The U.S. Navy confirmed yesterday that PO2 Mark Mayo put himself in harm's way to save his shipmate. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf of my fellow Senators, I offer condolences to the families, friends, and shipmates of Petty Officer Mayo. The tragic events this past Monday evening are still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, but what we know so far is that at approximately 11:20 p.m. there was a shooting on board the destroyer Mahan. A civilian who was behaving erratically approached the Mahan's quarterdeck and was confronted by the ship's petty officer of the watch. The two engaged in a struggle and the civilian was able to disarm the sailor. Petty Officer Mayo, serving as the chief of the guard, witnessed the fight and ran to the quarterdeck and placed himself between the civilian and his shipmate, the petty officer of the watch. The civilian opened fire and fatally wounded Petty Officer Mayo. U.S. Navy CAPT Robert Clark, Norfolk Naval Station's commanding officer, said: Petty Officer Mayo's actions were nothing less than heroic; he selflessly gave his own life to ensure the safety of the sailors on board. Petty Officer Mayo's parents, Sharon Blair and Decondi Mayo, said their son's actions reflected his strong, caring nature. As his mother put it: ``He protected people. He was a protector.'' Petty Officer Mayo was born in Washington, DC, and moved with his family to Hagerstown, MD, in 1998. He enlisted in the Navy in 2007, 4 months after graduating from Williamsport High School, where he was a Washington County wrestling champion, because he wanted to serve his country and because the Navy offers educational opportunities. He enlisted in the Navy, and he reported to Naval Station Norfolk in May of 2011. Petty Officer Mayo's mother, who is a geriatric nursing assistant, said he always wanted to work in law enforcement. Randy Longnecker, Petty Officer Mayo's former guidance counselor at Williamsport High School, recalled him as a kind and easygoing student who earned good grades, saying: He always wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing. He liked athletics and being part of a team. He must have fallen in love with the Navy. Petty Officer Mayo served tours of duty in Rota, Spain, and in Bahrain. He earned the Good Conduct Award, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Service Ribbon. He was a distinguished member of the Navy. Americans are privileged and fortunate to have such brave and outstanding young men and women serving in our Armed Forces. We must never forget the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf in defense of freedom. Petty Officer Mayo has made the ultimate sacrifice. While his death is tragic, we should remember and honor the way he lived and how he voluntarily chose to save a fellow sailor from harm. He is an American hero. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to have an opportunity to vote on S. 2124, and I am pleased to learn that it looks as if there is going to be overwhelming support in the Senate for the passage of S. 2124. This is the legislation that helps Ukraine in dealing with the invasion by Russia. Russia's illegal actions of using its military to overtake Crimea, a part of Ukraine, violate numerous international obligations that Russia has committed to. I have the honor of chairing the U.S. Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Accords were entered into in 1975. Russia was one of the leading forces for forming the OSCE. Russia's taking over of Crimea violates its commitments it made under the Helsinki Final Act. It violates the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Russia, that guaranteed basically Ukraine's integrity of its land. It violates the 1997 Ukraine-Russia bilateral treaty. It violates the U.N. Charter. The list goes on and on and on. So I believe it is absolutely essential that we have a strong voice in standing with the people of Ukraine. There was absolutely no justification whatsoever for Russia's action. There was no threat to any of the ethnic communities in Ukraine. All the rights of the people were being protected. The country was in transition from a corrupt government to a government that respected the rights of its citizens. If there was any provocation whatsoever of any unrest, it was caused by Russia's presence in Ukraine. We got reports from the chief rabbi in Kiev that Russia was staging anti-Semitic provocations in Crimea, and the list goes on and on as to what Russia was doing in order to try to give some justification for its actions. Russia's thinly veiled landgrab, cloaked in the cloth of self- determination, must not go unchallenged. Here is what I think is critically important: This is a dangerous precedent. We saw Russia use a similar action in Georgia, and now in Crimea in Ukraine. There are other territorial issues involved around the world. If this goes unchecked, if we do not speak with a unified voice, it just encourages more irresponsible action by Russia in other countries. We know that we have concerns about the South China Sea. We know we have concerns about Moldova. There are many other areas where Russia could be involved in its border areas. So all of these issues are matters for us to speak with a strong unified voice. S. 2124 does that. It does it in two principal ways. First, it imposes the sanctions against those responsible for Russia's invasion into Crimea, Ukraine. It provides sanctions so that these individuals are not permitted to come to the United States. There are economic sanctions in regard to the use of our banking system. These are similar sanctions to what are now being imposed by our European allies. We need to isolate Russia. As we all know, the G8, which included Russia, is now a G7 without Russia. Russia needs to know that there will be sanctions imposed, and they will be stronger sanctions unless they stop this aggressive action. In addition, the legislation provides economic assistance to the new Government of Ukraine. Just 2 weeks ago the Prime Minister of Ukraine was here and met with Members of the Senate. I tell you, it was inspirational to listen to his vision for Ukraine as a democratic, independent state, with full integration into Europe. That is important. He is preparing for a May 25 election for the Presidency of Ukraine. These are all very, very positive steps. But if Ukraine does not have the economic foothold to be able to develop the type of economy and strength in their country, it will be difficult for Ukraine to be maintained as a viable independent state. Here is where the United States and our European allies, and I hope the global community, come together, as we have in this legislation, to provide economic help on a restructured economic plan for Ukraine that will help them move forward in a very constructive way. Mr. President, I must tell you I am disappointed, though, that the reforms of the IMF will be eliminated from this legislation. I think that is regrettable. We are entering into a plan for Ukraine that very much depends upon the IMF's--the International Monetary Fund's--plan to make sure that the moneys we are spending, Europe is spending, and other countries are loaning and providing to Ukraine are based upon a sound economic plan that will work. That is why the IMF is there. And they will be there. But the United States needs to be a full participant in the IMF. We are out of compliance, and here is another opportunity lost for us to be in full compliance with the IMF. I am disappointed about that. But as I said as I took the floor, we must speak with one voice--the Obama administration; the House, the Senate; the Congress--as we stand with the people of Ukraine for their integrity, for their independence, and for the adherence to international principles, which Russia has clearly violated. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor Baltimore physician Murray W. West, a valued member of Maryland's medical community. At the end of this month, Dr. West, a family physician, will retire from clinical practice after more than 30 years. Born in Washington, DC, on September 11, 1954, Murray West moved to Philadelphia at age 10. From 1975 to 1976, he attended Queen Mary College in London, and he was awarded a bachelor of science degree from Antioch College in 1977. A 1981 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Dr. West completed his residency in family practice at the Georgetown University Department of Family Medicine here in Washington, DC. After 3 years with the Indian Health Service in Yuma, AZ, Dr. West moved to Maryland, where he earned a master of public health degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in 1993. Since 1986, he has treated patients exclusively at nonprofit health centers in our State-- Arundel Village, Washington Village, Peoples Community, and the Belair- Edison Family Health Center, where he served as medical director from 2001 until 2007. On Thursday, March 28, family members, colleagues, and friends will gather to celebrate this committed practitioner whose career epitomizes dedication to public health and quality care. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. West all the best in his retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on this day I hope Marylanders across our State can ``Hear the Maryland Crunch!'' of students eating a healthy school breakfast. Thanks to the leadership of Maryland Hunger Solutions, the ``Hear the Maryland Crunch!'' campaign offers all Marylanders the opportunity to become more aware of the daily struggle of our food insecure children and stand together in support of school breakfast. I wish to continue to highlight this critical issue facing our children. Maryland has the highest median income in the nation. Yet even in Maryland one in five children is food insecure. These children lack consistent access to adequate food resources. Yet I am happy to announce we are making strides to ensure our children are fed and ready to learn. Approximately 262,000 students in Maryland participate in the 100 percent federally funded National School Lunch Program and receive either free or reduced price lunches. These students know that when they come to school, they are able to receive a nutritious school lunch. Only 149,000 children or 59 percent of students receiving a school lunch start their day ready to learn with a school breakfast. At this time, Maryland ranks 14th in the nation in school breakfast participation rate after making tremendous progress over the past 5 years to ensure all children have access to nutritious meals. Over the course of 5 years Maryland's school breakfast program participation rate has increased by 37 percent, and our school lunch participation rate has more than doubled with a 56 percent increase. I am encouraged by these developments and efforts to continue to expand school breakfast access for all children. Marylanders are united in the vision that the ability of children to learn and succeed in our classrooms should not be impaired because they come to school hungry. Thanks to the partnership between Governor Martin O'Malley, the Maryland General Assembly, national organizations such as the Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry campaign, the Family League of Baltimore, and Maryland Hunger Solutions, our State has continued to make efforts to expand access to school breakfast with the Maryland Meals for Achievement Program. Maryland Meals for Achievement allows schools where 40 percent of students or more qualify for free or reduced price school lunch to provide school breakfast meals for all students at no cost to the child. This program combines the expansion of the school breakfast program with innovative efforts to encourage increased participation, including a change in the traditional breakfast delivery model of serving school breakfast meals in the cafeteria to an in-classroom setting. Schools have shown a positive increase in school breakfast participation rates from the new ``Grab and Go'' breakfasts or ``Breakfast After the Bell'' programs, allowing more students to be better prepared to succeed in the classroom. I commend Governor O'Malley for requesting additional funding this fiscal year for the Maryland Meals for Achievement Program that will allow an additional 40,000 students to receive a healthy breakfast. According to a study sponsored by the Share Our Strength's No Kid Hungry campaign, research has shown students who receive a school breakfast are better prepared to learn and perform in their classwork, are less likely to be overweight, have more strength and endurance throughout the day, are less likely to cause classroom disruptions, and are less likely to be absent from school than if they were not receiving a school breakfast. In closing, I am honored to join with Maryland Hunger Solutions and Marylanders across our State who are committed to do better for our children. On this Maryland day, we reflect on our rich past and look forward to a bright future in which the only hunger our schoolchildren have is a hunger to learn. I am proud that Maryland is leading the fight against childhood hunger. Together, let's all ``Hear the Maryland Crunch!''

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to celebrate Maryland Day and the proud history of my home State. Marylanders across the State are taking a moment to reflect on our proud history and contributions to the Nation. I wish to spend a few minutes to highlight the importance of this State holiday and the activities that are underway. On this day 380 years ago, two ships commissioned by Lord Baltimore, The Ark and The Dove, carried the first English settlers to land at St. Clement's Island in what is now recognized as St. Mary's County. Leonard Calvert, a son of Lord Baltimore who eventually served as the first Governor of Maryland, led the 150 settlers who came ashore to St. Clement's Island after spending more than four months at sea. This landing represented the first time European settlers came to Maryland and those settlers eventually formed just the third English colony to be settled in British North America. The origin of Maryland Day began with the Maryland State Board of Education placing an emphasis on State and local histories in public schools. In 1903, the Maryland State Board of Education officially recognized Maryland Day as a tool for students and teachers to increase instruction of Maryland history in public schools. The Maryland General Assembly, which held its first session in St. Mary's County not long after the landing at St. Clement's Island, enacted Maryland Day as an official State holiday in 1916. Young learners across our State will spend today learning about the significant contributions of Maryland to the Nation and important historical figures in Maryland. I am proud to say that every region of my home State has played a role in shaping our Nation. From the Eastern Shore of Maryland, for instance, Harriet Ross Tubman was born into slavery in 1820 in Buckstown, MD along the marshes of the Blackwater River in Dorchester County. After learning she would be sold to settle her late master's debts, Tubman escaped from slavery to Philadelphia, PA, marking the first of many expeditions over the course of the next 11 years to and from the Eastern Shore of Maryland to lead nearly 70 slaves out of slavery. In addition to becoming a famous conductor on the Underground Railroad, she held a lifelong commitment to the women's suffrage movement and worked as a nurse, cook, spy, and scout for the Union Army during the Civil War in Port Royal, SC. She became the first woman to lead an armed assault during the Civil War in Combahee Ferry Raid, liberating nearly 750 slaves. In her later years, she worked tirelessly for the women's suffrage movement, speaking before countless women's groups with fellow suffrage movement leaders Susan B. Anthony and Emily Howland. When asked if she believed women deserved the right to vote, she would reply, ``I suffered enough to believe it.'' In Western Maryland, Maryland citizens played a key role in the military and political struggles of the Civil War. The control of Maryland territory was crucial due to the State's proximity to Washington, DC, the State's border with Virginia and with other States that remained in the Union, and Baltimore's position as a key railroad link to the West. In 1862, GEN Robert E. Lee led his Confederate Army of Northern Virginia across the Potomac River around Leesburg, VA into Maryland, marking his first invasion into the North during the Civil War. The Maryland Campaign consisted of a number of battles along Maryland's westernmost counties and often pitted Marylanders on opposite sides of the fighting. In the single bloodiest day battle in American history, the Battle of Antietam in Sharpsburg, MD formed a turning point in the Civil War. With savage close range fighting lasting over a period of 12 hours, the Union and Confederate forces suffered nearly 23,000 total casualties. This battle forced General Lee to withdraw his Confederate Army back across the Potomac River into Virginia, thus ending the invasion of the North and the last major battle that took place on Union soil. The people of Maryland honor those who valiantly fought in the Civil War, endured the hardships brought on by the conflict, and made the ultimate sacrifice in order to form a more perfect Union. Perhaps the most recognizable contribution Maryland has provided to our Nation is the national anthem. During the War of 1812, British troops enacted heavy damage to Washington, DC, setting both the U.S. Capitol and the White House ablaze. The British forces then marched towards Baltimore. Citizens of Baltimore, including free blacks, quickly mobilized to protect their city. Barricades stretching more than 1 mile long were constructed to protect the harbor, hulls were sunk to impede navigation, and a chain of masts was erected across the harbor entrance. When the British fleet approached Baltimore at North Point, Marylanders fought the British Army and helped repulse the British Navy from Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore. It's important to note that American forces during the Battle of North Point were volunteer militia, heavily outnumbered by the highly trained British infantry, but they managed to delay the British forces long enough for 10,000 American reinforcements to arrive, preventing a land attack against Baltimore. Following 25 hours of intense British naval bombardment at Fort McHenry, the American defenders refused to yield, and the British were forced to depart. During the bombardment, American lawyer Francis Scott Key, who was being held on board an American flag-of-truce vessel in Baltimore Harbor, took notice of the American flag still flying atop Fort McHenry. Key realized then that the Americans had survived the battle and stopped the enemy advance. He was so moved by the sight of the American flag flying following the horrific bombardment, he composed a poem called the ``The Defense of Fort McHenry,'' which was published in the Baltimore Patriot and Advertiser newspaper later that year. This poem, and later the song, inspired love of country among the American people and not only helped usher in the Era of Good Feelings immediately after the war, but became a timeless reminder of American resolve. ``The Star Spangled Banner'' officially became our national anthem in 1931. The flag that flew over Fort McHenry and inspired this anthem is now a national treasure on display at the Smithsonian Institution, a very short distance from where we are today. On this Maryland Day, Marylanders are in the midst of celebrating Baltimore's role in the bicentennial anniversary of the War of 1812. The Pride of Baltimore II, named in honor of the Baltimore clipper the Chasseur, set sail from the Baltimore Inner Harbor to the State capital while carrying a replica of the Star Spangled Banner ``that was still there'' after the bombardment of Fort McHenry in September 1814. Sewn by volunteers of the Maryland Historical Society, this flag will be presented to Governor Martin O'Malley and members of the Maryland General Assembly at the Annapolis Statehouse. I am proud of the legacy of my home State and the efforts Marylanders have made and continue to make to remember those who have come before us. I thank all of those who participated in Maryland Day ceremonies and congratulate the students who learned something new about our great State today.