Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. First let me thank Senator Durbin for his commitment on this issue. We know education is a great equalizer in America. We know there are major concerns on access to higher education because of costs, and that we have to do a better job to make college education affordable. We also have to have accountability in higher education, to make sure those institutions are providing quality products to their students and are doing it in a cost-effective way, particularly when taxpayers are providing a lot of the aid.

Mr. CARDIN. I would be glad to.

Mr. CARDIN. I am glad I yielded to my colleague. We are very proud of the University of Maryland and the programs for the Department of Defense. We believe it is a cost-effective way and a quality education, exactly what the Senator from Illinois is talking about; and that is we have to get value for our dollars and we have to get accountability. I appreciate the Senator bringing that to our attention.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to talk about the child care and development block grant bill that is before us and will be before us soon. I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this bill, and Senator Harkin, Senator Alexander, and Senator Burr. This is truly a bipartisan effort, and we very much appreciate the child care and development block grant. It is critically important. The last time we authorized this program was 1996. I know that very well because I was serving in the House of Representatives at the time and had the opportunity to be the ranking member on the Human Resources Subcommittee in the Ways and Means Committee that was considering welfare reform and childcare, and how we could reward families for work, and how our welfare system could become a transitional program rather than a permanent program that would allow people, particularly moms, to be able to get into the workforce, stay in the workforce and climb up the economic ladder. As part of welfare reform we recognized we had to do things about the major cost concerns of someone, a mom, giving up her welfare in order to go to work. One of those issues was health care. We passed transitional health care for people coming off of cash assistance. We also had to deal with childcare, because childcare is an extremely costly part of being able to get into the workforce. In 1996 we consolidated many programs that were out there. We coordinated eligibility. There were different eligibility rules for many of these programs. We simplified the rules so we could get maximum dollars of help for people who entered the workforce. The goal was self-sufficiency through education, training, and being able to get a job. Today, under the CCDBG, under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, there are 1.6 million eligible children. It is not just a safe environment for those children, because 70 percent of their parents are working--not just a safe environment, it is early childhood education. These children who are in childcare will do better later in life. There have been many studies that verify this. This is a win-win situation, providing a safe environment for children so their parents can work and educational opportunity for the children at the same time. It pays off big-time for the workforce. A TANF study showed that parents who had their children in childcare for 2 years or more were more likely to remain in the employment field. So it provides stable employment, help for the child, and a win-win situation. The eligibility for the program is it cannot exceed 85 percent of the State median income, to give you an idea of the type of people we are talking about who benefit from this program. In Maryland, for a family of two the maximum income is $24,000 and for a family of four the maximum income is $35,000. In my State, Maryland, the average cost for childcare for an infant is about $12,000 a year. For a child over 4 years of age, it is about $9,000 a year. We heard about the income levels and how a family is eligible for this program. It is clear that low-wage families cannot afford childcare on their own. We need to help, and that is what this program does, so that they can move up the economic ladder and not be a burden on the cash-assistance program. Today, as we did prior to 1996, we have combined discretionary and mandatory programs for our childcare. Today discretionary spending is at $2.36 billion and $2.9 billion in mandatory spending. The legislation before us also makes improvements, as it should. It allows the States to develop 13 specific health and safety standards, such as first aid and CPR, and SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome. It is keeping our children safer in childcare by having safety standards that are developed. It requires the States to do inspections of childcare centers, comprehensive background checks for those who are involved in childcare, online information, more transparency in the program, and additional State flexibility on how they can set priorities within the childcare program. That is exactly what federalism should be. The Federal Government establishes a broad policy that we want to see families self-sufficient, we want to make sure there is a safe environment for children, and we want to make sure we do this in a way that is consistent with our national priorities. We also need to give flexibility to the State and local governments to be able to set their priorities to meet the needs of their citizens, and that is what this bill does. I will take a moment now to give real-life examples of how this program is critically important to our community. A great example is the Judy Centers of Maryland. We have 25 Judy Centers in Maryland. They are named after Congressman Steny Hoyer's wife Judy, who died of cancer in 1997. Judy was a longtime advocate for quality early childhood education and comprehensive family support services. I knew Judy very well, and she was an incredibly dedicated leader and advocate for our children. I have a couple of specific examples from the Judy Center as to how the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program is critically important to their existence. According to the testimony given before a committee, Judy Center employees discovered a dad who lost his job and a mom who only worked part time. They could not make ends meet or look for jobs or go on interviews because they had no childcare for their 2- and 3-year-old children. The Judy Center enrolled them in KinderCare, a childcare partner, and provided tuition assistance. Since they lost their health insurance when their dad became unemployed, they were given an application for the Maryland CHIP program, the health insurance program. The 3-year-old had a behavioral issue and was referred to the Judy Center behavioral specialist, who worked with her extensively. She also received tutoring services. Dad is now employed full time. Thanks to safe childcare, dad is now employed full time. After much encouragement, mom enrolled in adult education classes and received her GED. She has also completed a medical assistance program and is now enrolled in the College of Southern Maryland to pursue an associates degree. The children are now in elementary school and are doing well in school. I could give many more examples like this family. I could talk about many other success stories that would not have been possible without the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, and that is why it is critically important that we reauthorize the program. I see my colleague from Maryland is on the Senate floor. I congratulate her for her leadership in getting this bill to the floor-- not just getting this bill to the floor, which is important, but doing it in a way that we can get it passed in the Senate and accomplish our objectives so we can get women into the workforce and have early childhood education to help children succeed in life. We can help American families and strengthen America. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for S. Res. 365, a resolution I cosponsored deploring the violent repression of peaceful demonstrators in Venezuela, calling for full accountability for human rights violations taking place in Venezuela, and supporting the right of the Venezuelan people to the free and peaceful exercise of representative democracy. Since February 4, 2014, the Venezuelan people have taken to the streets on a daily basis to express frustration with the country's high inflation, corruption, food shortages, lack of press freedoms, lack of due process, violent crime, and other grievances. Addressing these legitimate concerns is a basic function of a democratic government. Instead, we have seen a crackdown on protests through unlawful use of force, a stifling of the media, and the detention of opposition leaders. Over 22 people have been killed, hundreds injured, and over 1,000 people arrested during these protests. The Venezuelan Government is an elected government and, as such, it should act like a democratic government by immediately addressing the core concerns of its people through meaningful dialogue, halting the use of force, and providing a safe space for the Venezuelan people to express their views peacefully. Without a genuine, transparent conversation to address the central concerns raised by the protestors, Venezuela faces a bleak future. Contrary to comments by the Venezuelan Government, this crisis is not about the United States; it is about the Venezuelan people. But the crisis does have implications for peace and security in the hemisphere and the broader international community. The United States always has stood and always will stand for basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. We will not back down on protecting and promoting these universal values, nor should the international community. It is incumbent upon neighboring countries and regional organizations to be vocal during this critical point, to take a stand for universal human rights, and to expect the highest level of respect for representative democracy from its hemispheric neighbor. Today, we see tension and unrest around the world. Each situation is unique; however, the desire for fundamental human rights is universally recognized. I call on my colleagues and nations around the world to stand up for these basic freedoms and support a path toward a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Venezuela.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly we will be voting on some nominees, and I want to thank all the nominees and their families for their willingness to serve the public. This is a real sacrifice. People are giving up other opportunities in order to serve their country. It is not just the individual who accepts these positions of public service, it is a family matter, and so I applaud them all for their service to our country. I would like to speak in particular about the last vote we will have in this series, and that is the confirmation of Sarah Bloom Raskin as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Sarah is a person who has given much to public service throughout her career. I know her personally. She is a Marylander, and we are very proud of the fact she is a Marylander. If Sarah is confirmed, she will be the highest ranking woman in the history of the Treasury, and I am very proud of that accomplishment. She has been very active in Maryland and at the national level. For the past several years Sarah has served on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Her deep financial and regulatory knowledge and sound judgment made her an essential asset during her tenure there. As the Presiding Officer knows, this has been a very turbulent time in regard to the economy of our Nation, and during this great economic unease her dedication to strong consumer protections has been especially valuable. Even before joining the Board of Governors, Sarah was no stranger to successfully navigating choppy economic waters. In 2007 she was appointed Commissioner of Financial Regulation for the State of Maryland, so I have had the chance to observe her and her dedication and her effectiveness at the State level and also at the national level. At the State level she has significantly improved consumer protections and supported banks through the many challenges of the financial crisis. That is where I got to see her work firsthand and her thoughtfulness and how dedicated she was, and her ability to bring people of different persuasions together, different stakeholders in our financial community, and to chart a course where we could have a positive result not only for the financial institutions but for consumers and for our economy. Sarah is also part of a family of government service. Her husband Jamie is a member of the Maryland State Senate and has an excellent record of public service in his own right. So this is a family that has given much to public service. We need people in the administration like Sarah Bloom Raskin. Her background, her education, and her job training all serve to make her particularly well suited to be the deputy secretary. I, for one, am thankful to Sarah and her family that she is willing to serve in an extremely challenging position. This is not going to be an easy position, obviously, as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. It gives me great confidence to know Sarah will be handling the many responsibilities demanded of the deputy secretary, and it gives me great pride that a fellow Marylander may continue to be among the financial leaders who guide our economy toward our future growth and stability. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation. We are indeed fortunate to have a person of her skills willing to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have taken to the floor many times to talk about the Chesapeake Bay--the largest estuary in the Northern Hemisphere, and declared a national treasure by not only President Obama but by several U.S. Presidents. For the 17 million people who live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, it is part of their life. From the residents of Smith Island, which is the last inhabitable island in the Maryland part of the Chesapeake Bay, to those who enjoy fishing for rockfish in the bay, to its oysters, its crabs, the over 11,000 miles of shoreline created by the Chesapeake Bay, the 150 major rivers that feed into the Chesapeake Bay, and the $1 trillion to the economy, the Chesapeake Bay is truly part of the life of those of us who are privileged to live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I have spoken about this bay many times because it is being threatened. Over 30 years ago, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, along with the EPA and other partners, entered into a Chesapeake Bay agreement. This has grown to six States, including the Presiding Officer's State of West Virginia, and other governmental entities in the private sector. The Chesapeake Bay agreement has been revisited over time, and the most recent effort to update this agreement was the draft submitted by the Obama administration on January 29 of this year. This draft agreement is what I wish to speak about with my colleagues. The development of sound policies to restore the Chesapeake Bay has been a top priority of mine over the course of my career in Congress. I have been fortunate to have great partners in Congress representing the Bay States. Together we have worked to develop effective conservation and ecosystem restoration programs in the farm bill, the Water Resources Development Act, the Clean Water Act, and elsewhere in law supporting a variety of conservation and ecosystem approaches across different sectors. The Army Corps, USDA, and EPA are not the only Federal agencies doing important Chesapeake Bay work. NOAA, USGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service are also important Federal partners in the broader effort to restore the Bay. President Obama's May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive order recognized both the national interest in restoring the Chesapeake Bay and improving Federal coordination of restoration efforts because of a wide-ranging involvement of different departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The coordination of seven jurisdictions, hundreds of local communities, seven cabinet-level Federal departments, and stakeholders of all stripes have necessitated the development of the Chesapeake Bay agreement to affirm the conservation goals of everyone involved in this effort. I wish to stress the importance of broad involvement of all stakeholders in the effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The populations living and working in the bay watershed must realize we are all in this together. The major stakeholders in regard to our conservation action include farmers. Farming is not only a way of life in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, it is a desirable activity within the Chesapeake Bay watershed for the future of the Chesapeake Bay. But there are certain challenges as a result of farming as it relates to nitrogen in the bay and in the sediments. Developers. We are proud of the fact people want to live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We have seen a major increase in population. But with that comes the challenge of storm runoff, and we have to do a better job of preventing storm runoff dumping pollution into the bay, and the municipalities which are responsible for the growth of populations have to deal with how they treat wastewater, and the wastewater treatment plants need to be updated so we can have the maximum results in removing the pollution which otherwise would end up threatening the future of the bay. The Chesapeake Bay agreement outlines a fairly comprehensive approach to continuing efforts to restore the bay which is dependent upon all stakeholders doing their part. The draft agreement is a good outline, but there is room for improvement in the draft agreement as well. I hope that while the agreement is in this period of public comment, the final will be approved. The Chesapeake Bay program partnership was formed in 1983, when the Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement. For more than 30 years these entities have remained committed to the goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As the science has determined and the interest in Bay stewardship has broadened, this partnership has since expanded to become a basin-wide effort where all six States of the basin are now party to the agreement. Working together to achieve the various goals of the agreement is what will help ensure the Chesapeake Bay we will leave for our children is healthier tomorrow than it is today. The agreement does acknowledge the partnership cannot address every goal in the agreement instantaneously. Certainly some goals may take longer to realize than others, but all the goals are achievable, and some I think should be even more ambitious. They are based upon best science. We think science needs to judge what we can do as far as cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The agreement wisely suggests action be taken in a strategic and cost-effective manner. We want to make sure this is doable. We understand the burdens which can be caused. We want to make sure this is layered in a way which achieves best science results but does it in the most cost-effective manner. Of the principles laid out in the agreement, I wish to acknowledge the partnership's commitment to transparency and consensus building. We want all stakeholders involved in the process, and we want local involvement. We think local governments know how we can best achieve our results. The goals of the agreement deal with very sensitive issues such as natural land preservation, nutrient pollution reduction, and others. The process must be fair and open. The strategic development process and achieving the agreement's conservation goals must be devised in an all-inclusive manner which is open to the public so that all are included in the process. There is a great deal of skepticism in certain communities about the government's role and its actions to protect and restore the bay. I have heard that skepticism from certain constituencies. I have learned that having an open dialog with stakeholders, carefully explaining intentions, listening to concerns, and answering questions goes a long way toward building consensus and acceptance. The agreement acknowledges the role the bay TMDL plays in achieving the water quality goals of the bay. A majority of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay are within the boundaries of the State of Maryland. Thousands of Maryland watermen make their living on the bay. The property value and tourism draw of communities up and down the Eastern and Western Shores of Maryland, not to mention the Marylanders who swim and fish in the bay, all depend upon a healthy bay. But there is no degree of action Maryland can take on its own, no matter how drastic, which will improve the bay quality--not without the other five States and the District of Columbia in the watershed doing their part as well. The TMDL assures that all Bay States are coordinated in their efforts to improve bay water quality. The agreement acknowledges the importance of the TMDL. The TMDL gives us a level playing field so we can make sure all stakeholders in all geographical areas are treated fairly in achieving the goals of reducing pollution in the bay. I support the fisheries goal of the agreement. Restoring the iconic Maryland blue crab in the bay is important for so many reasons. The agreement sets the goal of maintaining a population of 215 female adult crabs through 2025. Blue crabs are a vital part of the food chain throughout the bay's ecosystem and they are at the heart of the Mid-Atlantic's multibillion dollar seafood industry. Restoration of native oyster habitat and replenishing the bay's oyster population is critical from both an economic and water quality standpoint. The agreement sets the goals of restoring native oyster habitat and populations to the ten tributaries of the bay by 2025. As I am sure the Presiding Officer is aware, our oyster population is a fraction of historic levels. The oyster is not only an important cash crop in the bay; it also acts as a filter to the pollution in the bay, restoring bay water quality. Bay oysters are another important seafood commodity for watermen making their living on the bay. Oysters are also important to improving water quality. Oysters are bivalve mollusks which play an important role in reducing nitrogen pollution in the bay. Oyster populations had been in sharp decline due to the destruction of oyster beds along the seafloor of the bay. Habitat restoration efforts led by the Army Corps, the growth of oyster farming operations, and Virginia and Maryland's efforts are helping oysters rebound across the bay, which is good for the economy and water quality of the bay. The agreement's wildlife habitat and wetlands restoration goals are, in my opinion, too low. I would encourage the partnership to consider setting more ambitious goals. Wetland restoration is critical to flood protection and water quality improvement as well as providing important duck habitat and fish spawning habitat. Reauthorizing the North American Wetland Conservation Act, which I am a cosponsor of and was happy to see the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently report with unanimous support, will provide additional financial and technical assistance to help achieve improved wetlands conservation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Programs such as the North American Wetland Conservation Act, the Corps' Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Program, and the farm bill's Regional Conservation Partnership Program, along with numerous State efforts to restore wetlands and habitats across the six-State region, are why I believe the agreement can do better. I also believe the agreement's goals to improve fish passage along the bay's rivers and tributaries could be more ambitious. The agreement aims to open an additional 1,000 stream miles to fish passage. The revisions to the Continuing Authorities Program in WRDA will help fund critical dam removal projects around the watershed which will improve fish passage. If the decisions to remove dams and other barriers to fish passage are strategically made, this goal could be far exceeded, which is why I think the goal should be revised and be based upon the execution of strategic fish passage projects. This would include improving eel passage on the Conowingo Dam. I am pleased to know that the dam's operators are aware of and interested in helping us devise practical solutions. With respect to the agreement's goals on forest buffer and tree canopy, I believe there is room for improvement in the goals the draft agreement sets. The agreement sets the goal of restoring 900 miles of riparian forest per year and expands the urban tree canopy by 2,400 acres by 2025. This seems to be low given the opportunity which exists to grow more trees in urban areas because of how desirable trees are to improving the quality of life and character of urban communities and importance of trees to reducing storm water runoff in urban areas. The agreement sets the goal of protecting an additional 2 million acres of land throughout the watershed. This is critically important to stem poor land-use planning and sprawl while also establishing lands which serve as critical water quality improvement mechanisms. One omission from this land conservation goal I think is important is to ensure public access to lands conserved by the State, local, and Federal Government. Public-preserved for the purpose of protecting habitat and improving the ecosystem within the watershed is important, but so is providing outdoor recreational access to the public. After all, ensuring public access to conservation lands and encouraging people to experience these lands is critical to building the public's understanding of the environment and developing an appreciation for all conservation efforts happening around the watershed. In Maryland, my colleague in the House, Congressman Sarbanes, has been very instrumental in the leadership of No Child Left Inside. By this we mean the education of our children including getting outdoors to understand the importance of the Chesapeake Bay and understanding what they can do to help the bay. Access to these restoration projects--by the public, by our students, by all--helps build the support base we need to get these programs moving forward and also understanding what we do here in the watershed and the importance it has on the future of the Chesapeake Bay. Lastly, I wish to speak about a couple issues the agreement does not address. Reducing the presence or improving the secure storage of toxic chemicals in use around the watershed is a growing problem. As the Presiding Officer knows, while the recent chemical spill in West Virginia was not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the incident does highlight the risk facilities such as the one which failed in Charleston pose to our great water bodies. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed there are dozens of chemical storage facilities and industrial activities which use toxic chemicals on a regular basis. Improving the security and reducing the contamination risks from these facilities should be a part of the Chesapeake Bay agreement. The agreement also makes no mention of the single greatest threat to the bay and the world over. Adapting to the effects of climate change should also be part of the bay restoration plan. I talked about this earlier today, as many of the Senators who came to the floor to talk about climate change: Rising sea levels pose threats to the hundreds of Chesapeake Bay communities and millions of people who live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Aquatic acidification poses a long-term threat to all aquatic species, including blue crabs, oysters, rockfish, sturgeon, menhaden, and other hallmark species of the bay. If the fish and shellfish go, so does a way of life for many thousands of families around the bay. Let's deal with these problems. We have a chance in the Chesapeake Bay agreement to be more ambitious in dealing with acidification in our ocean and in the bay. And we must adapt our water infrastructure to handle the effects of more intense weather events in the bay region to reduce the water quality impacts of these events and to protect individuals' property. The agreement is an important step toward the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Billions have been spent and progress has been made. And I wish to stress that we have made progress. We have done a lot of good things in the Chesapeake Bay. But our resources are large and fragile and face unprecedented pressure, and it is going to continue to take increased resources to restore and protect for future generations. So the good news is we have made progress. We can do much more. We can preserve the iconic Chesapeake Bay for future generations, so people, our children and grandchildren, can enjoy the fishing, crabbing, swimming, and the sheer beauty of the Chesapeake Bay, and can benefit from its economic importance to our region. We can do this for future generations. Let's be more ambitious in the Chesapeake Bay agreement. Let's work together, use best science, and be practical. But let's be on a constant path of improving the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Climate Action Task Force, I couldn't be more proud of my colleagues on the floor tonight. I thank Senator Boxer, Senator Schatz, and Senator Whitehouse for organizing this evening. The information we want to present is clear. The facts are clear. Science indicates what we do here on Earth is affecting the livability of our planet, and we can do something about it. This is an urgent issue, from climate refugees around the world, the visible signs we see in China, to each of our individual States. I am honored to represent the people of Maryland, where 70 percent of citizens live in coastal zones. The Chesapeake Bay is iconic to the survival of Maryland as we know it today and yet it is at risk. But here is the good news: We can do something about it. We can reduce our carbon footprint. We can reduce our carbon pollution, and in doing so we not only help our environment, we also help our economy and job growth, help make America more energy secure, which helps our national security. So let's take the reasonable steps necessary to help our future generations, help our economy, and help our environment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, I wish to compliment and thank Senator Warren for her comments. Senator Warren has brought up a lot of issues that I can relate to because our States share the Atlantic Ocean. We talk about climate refugees around the world, and we are starting to see those in our own States. As sea levels are rising, we see dead zones in the oceans and in our bays. We need to take action in order to protect our people. In my State of Maryland, you can see firsthand the effects of the rising sea-level. One example is Smith Island. Smith Island is a habitable island in the Chesapeake Bay that is home to many of our watermen who have been practicing their professions for many years. They are at risk. You need a boat to get from one of the towns to the other. Smith Island only has a couple of hundred remaining residents, but they are losing their land daily as they fight to counter the rising sea level change--I think that is a very visible sign of what we are up against-- and the urgency of dealing with climate change. I am so proud to be identified with the Climate Action Task force. Many of the leaders have been mentioned, and I thank Senator Schatz and Senator Whitehouse for organizing this opportunity for us to put a spotlight on climate change and the need for urgent action. I thank Senator Boxer, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for her extraordinary leadership. Throughout last night and into this morning, we have highlighted the science, which is indisputable, as to the fact that over millions of years we have seen catastrophic changes on our own planet. Because of our activities and what we are doing on Earth, within a very short period of time--just hundreds of years, and less than that now--we are causing a catastrophic impact on our climate. It is urgent. We have seen firsthand the impacts of climate change. I was in Beijing, China, last year. I was there 3 days. There wasn't a cloud in the sky, but I never saw the Sun because of the pollution that was in the air--their carbon emissions. We have seen the costs of climate change in lives and in dollars we spend to try to adapt to the new realities of extreme weather conditions. I will use the few moments I have to talk about the issues that are closer to home in my own State of Maryland. Seventy percent of Maryland's population lives in coastal zones. It is now predicted by the Maryland Climate Change Commission that we will see a 1.4-foot increase in the sea level by 2050 and 3.7 feet by the end of this century. That is going to have a dramatic impact on many Marylanders who live in the coastal area. I can give another example. Ocean City, MD, is a popular place for Marylanders and people from outside our State to enjoy the beautiful beaches. I must say that I am very proud that this Congress has appropriated millions of dollars for beach renourishment. Those dollars have returned multiple times because they prevent the full force of these nor'easter storms that are more frequent and more severe in Maryland and along the Maryland coast. There is a limit as to what we can do if we don't take action to deal with the sources of climate change. We want to protect our property owners, and the best way to protect our property owners is to do something about the causes of climate change. We saw the impact of Sandy along the east coast of the United States. I know that the most severe impact was in New Jersey and New York, but in Maryland we saw in Crisfield, MD, the full effect of Sandy. The people there know they are at risk because of the severe storms that are becoming more frequent and more severe. The Chesapeake Bay itself is at risk. I have talked on the floor many times about the importance of the Chesapeake Bay, and how it is a national treasure. It is important just by the fact that it is the largest estuary in our hemisphere. It is important because of its coastline and its impact. It is also important because of its impact on our economy. The blue crabs and oysters are critically important to Maryland. Yet they are at risk. The blue crab is a little complicated, but we know one of the factors that is affecting the blue crabs is the ability of juvenile crabs to be able to survive in seagrasses. Yet the seagrass population is declining because of temperature rise in the Chesapeake Bay. That is just one example of the challenges we have because of climate change. It is affecting the economy of my State, and it is affecting the economy of our country. The Port of Baltimore is the largest single economic factor creating jobs in our community, and the Port of Baltimore depends upon a stable coastal climate. The tourism industry is directly affected by climate change. People love to come to our State to hunt and fish. One of the most valuable assets we have along the bay is the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. The Presiding Officer has heard me talk about that frequently in the Environment and Public Works Committee. The bald eagles have returned to Blackwater. It is an incredible sight. People go there just to see the beauty of nature and to visit our wildlife and our waterfowl. Blackwater is at risk. It is important for tourism, and it is important for our environment. It is also the land in which Harriet Tubman conducted the underground railroad, so it has a lot of significance. Yet, between 1938 and 2006, we lost 5,000 acres of marshland to open water, and that is accelerating. It is not slowing down. If we don't reverse the impacts of climate change, we are going to see a more dramatic impact on those types of treasures in Maryland and nationally. I will also mention the fact that, of course, this is a Federal legislature, and we should be concerned about the Federal facilities as well. In Maryland we have Pax River, which does incredibly important work for our Navy so they can do their research and flight testing on the coast of our State, and that is at risk by the rising sea-level. I serve on the Board of Visitors at the Naval Academy, and I can tell you I have visited the Naval Academy when it has been flooded because of storms. It is a little below sea level at some of its locations. The rising sea level jeopardizes that iconic institution that is so important to our national defense. The Aberdeen Proving Grounds is also located on our coast and does critical work in national security. All of these facilities are being jeopardized because of the climate change that is occurring in our community. I will talk a little bit about some good news. We can reverse what has happened. We can slow down the effects. We can change the course that we are on. We have already done a significant amount. I congratulate President Obama and his policies because he has taken on the major areas that deal with climate change. The United States has to lead internationally, but it starts with action right here in the United States. We have to lead by example. Other countries are far ahead of us. We have to join with other countries to produce a strategy that works because our environment does not end at our borders. We have to work internationally, but first we have to work at home. What has President Obama done? He has taken on the transportation sector, which is one of the greatest uses of carbon fuels, with our CAFE standards--our efficiency of our automobiles. We now have standards that would lead to having an automobile get 54\1/2\ miles per gallon by 2025. That is ambitious. They said we couldn't do it before, but we did it. We met those standards, and we will meet these standards. We will significantly reduce the amount of fuels that we need to fuel our transportation in this country. We are investing in transit facilities, and that reduces our carbon footprint. High-speed rail reduces our carbon footprint. We are committed to those types of solutions that are common sense to help our environment. The Obama administration is moving ahead on the regulation of carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. They recognize that the energy sector can help reduce our carbon footprint substantially. Senator Warren was absolutely correct when she said that we don't have a level playing field today. We subsidize the fossil fuels, but we don't with the renewable fuels. We can expand our renewable energy sources. Quite frankly, we are showing innovation among all of our stakeholders. Buildings use a lot of energy and generate a lot of carbon. The Federal Government is leading in the LEED certification, as is the private sector, in doing things that are much more energy efficient in the building sector. Therefore, we have seen progress in transportation and buildings and the generation of electricity. We have been reducing our carbon footprint, which will help the people on Smith Island by reducing the sea level changes. The Presiding Officer and I saw firsthand the impact of the glacier melts when we were in Greenland. I thank Senator Boxer for arranging that opportunity. We saw very visually the glacier melts and how much has occurred in a very short period of time. We can reverse that by showing leadership in transportation and the way we use our buildings and the way we generate electricity. We can work together with the international community. The good news is that the solutions for dealing with climate change will help our national security by consuming less fossil fuels. We want to get to zero as far as our need for imported energy in this country. We can get that. We now know the threats that are made from Russia to Ukraine to the Middle East. We can eliminate that threat to our national security. We can create more jobs. Green energy will give us more jobs in the fossil fuel industry. We need good-paying jobs. We can leave our children and grandchildren a cleaner planet and a better future. That is what is at stake. That is why we have taken this time. I am proud to be identified with so many who have spoken on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of the most serious breaches of the OSCE principles since the signing of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. These principles are at the foundation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Russia, as a participating state, agreed to hold these principles, including territorial integrity of states, inviolability of frontiers, refraining from the threat of use of force, peaceful settlements of disputes, and others. With this invasion, which is based, as Secretary Kerry has stated, on a completely trumped-up set of pretexts, Russia has shown its utter contempt for these core principles, indeed, for the entire OSCE process--not only the OSCE but the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine that provides security assurances for Ukraine, the 1997 Ukraine-Russia bilateral treaty, and the U.N. charter, and other international agreements. Russia's military invasion of Ukraine is also a gross violation of the Vienna Document's confidence and security building mechanisms which govern military relations and arms control. So let's examine Vladimir Putin's justification for this unprovoked invasion. He claims there is a need to protect Russian interests and the rights of Russian-speaking minorities. They characterize it as a human rights protection mission that it clearly is not. Russian officials fail to show any real evidence that the rights of ethnic Russians in Crimea--where they actually constitute a majority and have the most clout politically--and Ukraine at large have been violated. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the protests in some Ukrainian cities is being stoked by the Russians. Putin and other Russian officials make all sorts of unfounded accusations, including that masked militia are roaming the streets of Kiev, although the Ukrainian capital and most of Ukraine has been calm for the last few weeks. Mr. Putin claims there is a ``rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine.'' Yet Kiev's chief rabbi and a vice president of the World Jewish Congress on Monday accused Russia of staging anti-Semitic provocations in Crimea. Mr. Putin accuses Ukraine's new legitimate transition government--not yet 2 weeks old--of threatening ethnic Russians. Yet there is a myriad of credible reports to the contrary. Indeed, although there has been unrest in some cities, there has been no serious movement in the mostly Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions to join with Russia. The clear majority of Ukrainians wants to see their country remain unified and do not welcome Russian intervention. All Ukrainian religious groups have come out against the Russian intervention and stand in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders, as have minority groups such as the Crimean Tatars and the Roma. I submit that the real threat posed by the new government is that it wants to assertively move Ukraine in the direction of political and economic reforms and in the direction of democracy, respect for how human rights, the rule of law--away from the unbridled corruption of the previous regime and the kind of autocratic rule found in today's Russia. As for protecting Russian interests in Crimea, the Russians have not produced one iota of evidence that the Russian Black Sea Fleet, based in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, is under any kind of threat. Indeed, when the Ukrainians reached out to the Russians to try to engage them peacefully, they have been rebuffed. Russian authorities need to send their troops back to the barracks and instead engage through diplomacy, not the threat or use of force. The Russian actions pose a threat beyond Ukraine and threaten to destabilize neighboring states. I pointed out at a hearing we had this week in the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in a hearing of the Helsinki Commission, that if Russia can use force to try to change territories, what message does that send to the South China Sea, what message does that send to the Western Balkans? Just as Poland has already invoked article 4 NATO consultations, the Baltic States and others in the region are wary of Russian goals. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission and a former vice president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I am encouraged to see active and wide-ranging engagement of the OSCE to deescalate tensions and to foster peace and security in Ukraine. The OSCE has the tools to address concerns with regard to security on the ground in Crimea, minority rights, and with regard to preparations for this democratic transition to lead to free and fair elections. In response to a request by the Ukrainian Government, 18 OSCE participating states, including the United States, are sending 35 unarmed military personnel to Ukraine. This is taking place under the Vienna Document, which allows for voluntary hosting of visits to dispel concerns about unusual military activities. Various OSCE institutions are activating, at the request of the Ukrainian Government, including the OSCE's human rights office, known as the ODIHR, to provide human rights monitoring as well as election observation for the May 25 Presidential elections. The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the head of the Strategic Police Matters Unit, among others, are all in Kiev this week conducting factfinding missions. A full- scale, long-term OSCE Monitoring Mission is being proposed, and this mission needs to go forward. All of these OSCE efforts are aimed at deescalating tensions, fostering peace and stability, ensuring the observance of OSCE principles, including the human dimension, helping Ukraine in its transition, especially in the runup to the May elections. These OSCE on-the-ground efforts are being thwarted by the Russian- controlled newly installed Crimean authorities. The OSCE Unusual Military Activities observers have been stopped from entering Crimea by unidentified men in military fatigues. Also, the OSCE Media Freedom Representative and her staff were temporarily blocked from leaving a hotel in Crimea where she was meeting with journalists and civil society activists. The U.N. special envoy was accosted by unidentified gunmen after visiting a naval headquarters in the Sevastopol. The blocking of international monitors--who were invited by the Ukrainian Government and who clearly are trying to seek peaceful resolutions to the conflict--is completely unacceptable and we should hold Russia responsible for their safety. Russia is a member of the OSCE--one of the founding members--and they are openly violating the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Russia signed on to the institutions that are available under OSCE for this exact type of circumstance--to give independent observation as to what is happening on the ground. Sending this mission, at the request of the host country, into Crimea is exactly the commitments made to reduce tensions in OSCE states, and Russia is blocking the use of that mechanism. The United States and the international community are deploying wide- ranging resources to contain and roll back Russia's aggression and to assist Ukraine's transition to a democratic, secure, and prosperous country. Both the Executive and the Congress are working around the clock on this. President Obama has taken concrete action and made concrete recommendations. As the author of the Magnitsky Act, I welcome the White House sanctions announced today, including visa restrictions on officials and individuals threatening Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and financial sanctions against those ``responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine.'' It was just a little while ago that we passed the Magnitsky Act. We did that in response to gross human rights violations within Russia against an individual named Sergei Magnitsky. What we did is say that those who were responsible for these gross violations of internationally recognized rules should be held accountable, and if they are not held accountable, the least we can do in the United States is not give them safe haven in our country, not allow the corrupt dollars they have earned to be housed in America--no visas, no use of our banking system. The President is taking a similar action against those responsible for the invasion and military use against international rules in Ukraine. These steps are in addition to many other actions, including the suspension of bilateral discussions with Russia on trade and investment, stopping United States-Russia military-to-military engagement, and suspending preparations for the June G8 summit in Sochi. Both Chambers are working expeditiously on legislation to help Ukraine in this delicate period of transition. We also need to work expeditiously with our European friends and allies, and I am encouraged by the news that the EU is preparing a $15 billion aid package. Ukraine has exercised amazing restraint in not escalating the conflict, particularly in Crimea. I applaud their restraint and their action. The people of Ukraine have suffered an incredibly difficult history, and over the last century they have been subjected to two World Wars, 70 years of Soviet domination, including Stalin's genocidal famine. They certainly do not need another senseless war. Nothing justifies Russia's aggression--nothing. Our political and economic assistance at this time would be a testament to those who died at the Maidan just 2 weeks ago and a concrete manifestation that our words mean something and that we do indeed stand by the people of Ukraine as they make their historic choice for freedom, democracy, and a better life. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to mark the seventh anniversary of Deamonte Driver's death. Deamonte Driver was a 12-year-old child who lived in Prince George's County, MD, whose border sits only a few miles from the U.S. Capitol Building. He died 7 years ago at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, from a brain infection caused by an untreated tooth abscess. The Driver family, like many other families across the country, lacked dental insurance. At one time, the Drivers were covered by the Medicaid Program, but they lost that coverage when they moved into a shelter and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help the Drivers locate a dentist to treat Deamonte's cavities and tooth pain, it took more than 20 calls to find a dentist who would see him. Around mid-January in 2007, Deamonte began to complain of severe headaches. A subsequent evaluation at Children's Hospital led beyond the basic dental care that the family had anticipated to emergency brain surgery. Deamonte later experienced seizures, and a second operation was required. After additional treatment and therapy, Deamonte appeared to be recovering, but medical intervention had come too late. By the end of his treatment, the total cost to our health care system exceeded one-quarter of a million dollars--more than 3,000 times the $80 cost of a tooth extraction. Deamonte Driver passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. This child's death was a national tragedy because it could have been prevented had he received timely and proper basic dental care. It was a tragedy because it happened right here in the United States, in a State that is one of the most affluent in the Nation. It happened in the State that is home to the first and one of the best dental schools in the Nation, the University of Maryland's dental school. It happened in Prince George's County, whose border is less than 6 miles from where we are standing in the U.S. Capitol. I have spoken on the Senate floor about Deamonte Driver several times since his death, and in the intervening years, both in Maryland and nationally, we have made tremendous progress. When Deamonte's story was brought to light, I believe it was a wakeup call for our Nation. It brought home the statement of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop: ``There is no health without oral health.'' Medical research reinforces Dr. Koop's words. Scientists have discovered the nexus between tooth plaque and heart disease, that chewing stimulates brain cell growth, and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone imbalances. They have identified the vital connection between oral health research and advanced treatments like gene therapy, which can help patients with chronic renal failure. They have found that investing in basic dental care for children and adults can reduce health care expenditures down the road for costly medical interventions related to other diseases. But for all their research findings, we also know that without insurance coverage and adequate access to providers, the needs of millions of children and adults will remain unmet, and the complications resulting from poor oral health will persist. That is why the progress we have made over the past 7 years is so important to America's health. I have come to the floor today to talk about what has been achieved and how we can move forward as a nation to ensure even greater access to oral health care. Since Deamonte's passing, the State of Maryland has emerged as a national leader in oral health--launching a $1.2 million oral health literacy campaign, raising Medicaid reimbursement rates for dentists in the program, and providing allied health professionals and hygienists the opportunity to practice outside clinics. The Deamonte Driver Dental Project Van, which was dedicated in front of the U.S. Capitol in May 2010, provides care in underserved neighborhoods in Prince George's County, thanks to efforts conceived and launched by members of the Robert T. Freeman Dental Society. An arm of the National Dental Association, the society is named for Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, who in 1869 became the first Black graduate of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. It was 2 years after Deamonte's death, in 2009, that Congress reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program. Some of my colleagues recalled the difficulty that Deamonte's mother had finding him care. Hers was not an isolated instance. For varied reasons, it is difficult for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees to find dental providers, and working parents whose children qualify for those programs are likely to be employed at jobs where they can't afford to spend 2 hours a day on the phone searching for a provider. So part of the CHIP Reauthorization Act requires HHS to include on its Insure Kids Now Web site a list of participating dentists and benefit information for all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Also in 2009, Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which created the Healthy Futures Corps--a program that provides grants to States and nonprofit organizations so they can fund national service in low-income communities. The law's goal was to put into action key tools that can help close the gaps in health status-- prevention and health promotion. With the help of Senator Mikulski, we added language to that law specifying oral health as an area of focus. Now, the Healthy Futures Corps is recruiting young people to work in the dental profession, where severe shortages of providers exist in many urban and rural communities. The law is funding the work of individuals who can help parents find oral health care for themselves and their children. It is making a difference in the lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who work in underserved communities and in the lives and health of those who can now get care. Then in 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which guarantees pediatric dental coverage as part of each State's Essential Benefits health care package. The ACA also established an oral health care prevention education campaign at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is targeted toward key populations, including children and pregnant women, and it created demonstration programs to encourage innovation in oral health delivery. The law also significantly expanded workforce training programs for oral health professionals. Moving forward, the States have a critical role to play in ensuring that the ACA benefit is designed to incentivize prevention, recognize that some children have greater risk of dental disease than others, and deliver care based on their level of risk. Among the most cost-effective ways to improve children's dental health are investments in prevention. Dental sealants, clear plastic coatings applied to the chewing surface of molars, have been proven to prevent 60 percent of tooth decay at one-third the cost of filling a cavity. So it is essential that prevention be part of every State's benefit package. Further, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched its Oral Health Initiative, based on a bill I introduced with Senator Susan Collins. The initiative establishes a coordinated multiagency effort to improve access to care across the Nation. One of the most effective organizations in tracking access to care is the Pew Children's Dental Campaign, which produces report cards that grade the States on eight policies that are evidence-based solutions to the problem of tooth decay. In 2011, Maryland received an ``A'' grade in both reports for meeting or exceeding these benchmarks, which include dental sealant programs, community water fluoridation, Medicaid reimbursement and enrollment, and collection of data on children's dental health. Maryland's grade is significant because in the late 1990s, my State had one of the worst records in the Nation with respect to oral health care for its underserved population. Now it is one of the top-ranked States for oral health care. Our State has just received even more good news. The number of children in Maryland with untreated tooth decay dropped 41 percent from 2001 to 2011, and the overall oral health status of Maryland children has dramatically improved, according to a 2014 report conducted by the University of Maryland's School of Dentistry. The State assessment looked at 1,723 students in 52 schools from the five regions of the State. About 33 percent of the children had at least one dental sealant on their permanent first molars, and this milestone exceeded Federal goals by 5 percent. About 14 percent of students had untreated dental caries, a drop from 23 percent in 2000, and the State's achievement exceeded Federal goals by 12 percent. According to the assessment, 75 percent of the children surveyed had a regular dentist. Another key player in our State's effort is the Baltimore Oral Health Impact Project, which provides care to children in Baltimore's public schools. Since February 2010, its providers have seen more than 3,500 children and treated more than 1,500 for dental disease. The program places a high value on delivering comprehensive and compassionate oral health care. This organization has also launched the Baltimore Oral Health Academy, offering scholarships to students who choose to pursue careers as a clinical dental professional including dental assistants and hygienists, and who agree to serve in a public health setting. Nationally, HRSA's National Health Service Corps addresses the nationwide shortage of primary care oral health providers in dental health professional shortage areas--HPSA--by offering incentives in the form of scholarships and loan repayments to primary care dentists and registered dental hygienists to practice in underserved communities. The Corps has awarded more than 1,100 new loan repayment awards to dentists and nearly 300 new loan repayment awards to registered dental hygienists. But this is not nearly enough to erase the shortages. The NHSC has also implemented a part-time service program for providers who did not wish to make a full-time commitment, and I am hopeful that this new option will increase participation in the coming years. Our Nation has made significant progress in improving children's dental health in the 7 years since Deamonte died, but there is still much work to be done. The access problem in some communities has become so severe that many people are forced to seek treatment for tooth pain in the Nation's emergency rooms, increasing the overall cost of care and receiving uncoordinated care in the least cost-efficient setting. In fact, more people seek treatment in emergency rooms for tooth pain than they do for asthma. I will continue to work to increase funding for grants to States and expand training opportunities for dentists. We do not have enough professionals who are trained and available to treat children and adults with dental problems, and it is our responsibility to fix that. We must improve public reimbursement to dental providers in offices and clinics so that no one who needs treatment will be turned away. Soon, Congress will turn again to the Reauthorization of the CHIP program, and I will be once again fighting for the strongest possible language we can get to promote children's oral health. For my colleagues who may not be familiar with CHIP's track record on oral health, I would like to leave you with three facts: First, tooth decay is the single most common chronic disease of childhood, and it is five times more common than asthma. The complications of dental disease, which we now know can be fatal, are completely and easily preventable if we give children the care they need. Second, because of Congress's passage of the 2009 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, in 2013, more than 8 million American children had comprehensive dental coverage through CHIP. Third, CHIP has kept comprehensive coverage affordable. Under CHIP, families cannot pay more than 5 percent of their annual income in out-of-pocket costs for their children's medical and dental care. What we have been able to achieve for children is due to support in Congress and also to the efforts of the many nonprofit organizations, universities, and providers who are also working across the Nation to make sure that we will never forget Deamonte and never forget our responsibility to improving oral health care for America's children. On this sad anniversary, in Maryland and throughout the Nation there are signs of hope for the future of oral health care. I thank my colleagues for the role they have played in this process and look forward to working with them in the months to come to strengthen oral health care access for our Nation's children.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, March 8 is International Women's Day--a day when we can celebrate the enormous advances women have made while pledging to continue to work for greater opportunity for all women. Rooted in the long-term struggle for equality, International Women's Day has been observed since a time when American women were fighting for basic rights, such as voting or fair employment. Today, we see women breaking ground and becoming leaders in business, government, and the military--both here in the United States and overseas. While this is encouraging, many women around the world continue to face significant social and economic obstacles. The official United Nations theme for this International Women's Day is ``Equality for women is progress for all.'' I couldn't agree more; empowering women is one of the most critical tools in our toolbox to fight poverty and injustice. According to some reports, women represent nearly 70 percent of the world's poor. In many regions of the world, a woman's ability to earn a sustained income is severely limited by cultural norms and a lack of opportunity. Economically empowering women is one of the most important tools we have to alleviate poverty. Women around the world participate in the political, social, and economic life of their communities and play a predominate role in providing and caring for their families. Research has shown that men only reinvest 30-40 percent of their income into their households, while women reinvest 90 percent--choosing to spend their money on food, clean water, education and health care. Greater economic opportunity and earning capacity also increases equality and mutual respect within households, reducing women's vulnerability to domestic abuse. Until women around the world have improved access to economic, political, and social opportunities, many of the great challenges we face today, from pervasive global poverty to violent extremism, will go unresolved. We must continue to promote women's leadership and integrate gender perspectives in our development and foreign assistance programs. Advancing gender equality and women's empowerment in this realm will not only lead to increased productivity and income for women but can have a positive impact for generations to come. I urge all my colleagues to work together to call attention to the injustices women face around the world and to work to implement laws and policies that advance the cause of women both at home and abroad.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing with the Senior Senator from Idaho, that will help improve the long term health and abundance of United States' fish populations. Our bill takes a comprehensive approach to stopping the single greatest threat declining fish populations, by stemming the decline of healthy aquatic ecosystem habitats that are critical to all fish species. Improving the quality of fish habitat provides benefits beyond improving the health and abundance of fish populations. Healthier aquatic ecosystems means healthier habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife as well as safer recreational waters for Americans to swim, boat and fish in. North America is home to nearly 700 native fish species. This abundance of fish species is one of many natural treasures we must work to protect and maintain. Much like other precious natural resources in this country our wild fish populations face unfortunate anthropogenic threats. Forty percent of our native fish populations are in decline. This is due in large part to the impairment of more than half of our nation's waters including the waters of my state's, and the mid- Atlantic region's greatest treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Deliberate and targeted action is needed to stem the loss of our precious fish resources by ensuring that these important aquatic habitats are better preserved. State, federal and private efforts to address this challenge of improving and protecting critical fish habitat are underway in many states and in local communities. However, too many of these efforts are uncoordinated with one another which is leading to fragmented and less effective results than if these efforts carried out in a more networked and comprehensive fashion. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies will work in careful coordination with state and local governments, as well as stakeholder organizations and industries like conservation groups, fisherman, and companies in the outdoor recreation industry to collaboratively execute the scientifically most effective fish and aquatic habitat conservation projects possible. Our legislation leverages funds from Federal and State natural resource agencies and private funds to build regional partnerships focused on improving critical aquatic habitats across the country. Targeting these financial resources, through government and private partnership, towards projects in regional watersheds that will make the greatest improvements to the health of aquatic habitats will improve the health and abundance of native fish populations, improve the quality of life for surrounding communities, and improve recreational opportunities which is a boost to our national and local economies. The goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale starting at the local level through multi-state aquatic habitat improvement projects. The goal is also to engage stakeholders like commercial fisherman, anglers, outfitters and other angling and sportsmen industries to participate in this effort to make lasting improvements to the health and sustainability of our fisheries resources. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $7.2 million annually for fish habitat restoration and protection projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships the bill also establishes. Based on the successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board to recommend projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing habitat protection and restoration projects in the watersheds that will enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act applies a proven and effective model for habitat conservation to protect and restore declining quality fish habitat. Our legislation ensures collaboration between expert stakeholders and state and regional fisheries resource managers to ensure the effectiveness of the work that is done. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill I am introducing with the Senior Senator from Idaho, that will help improve the long term health and abundance of United States' fish populations. Our bill takes a comprehensive approach to stopping the single greatest threat declining fish populations, by stemming the decline of healthy aquatic ecosystem habitats that are critical to all fish species. Improving the quality of fish habitat provides benefits beyond improving the health and abundance of fish populations. Healthier aquatic ecosystems means healthier habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife as well as safer recreational waters for Americans to swim, boat and fish in. North America is home to nearly 700 native fish species. This abundance of fish species is one of many natural treasures we must work to protect and maintain. Much like other precious natural resources in this country our wild fish populations face unfortunate anthropogenic threats. Forty percent of our native fish populations are in decline. This is due in large part to the impairment of more than half of our nation's waters including the waters of my state's, and the mid- Atlantic region's greatest treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Deliberate and targeted action is needed to stem the loss of our precious fish resources by ensuring that these important aquatic habitats are better preserved. State, federal and private efforts to address this challenge of improving and protecting critical fish habitat are underway in many states and in local communities. However, too many of these efforts are uncoordinated with one another which is leading to fragmented and less effective results than if these efforts carried out in a more networked and comprehensive fashion. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies will work in careful coordination with state and local governments, as well as stakeholder organizations and industries like conservation groups, fisherman, and companies in the outdoor recreation industry to collaboratively execute the scientifically most effective fish and aquatic habitat conservation projects possible. Our legislation leverages funds from Federal and State natural resource agencies and private funds to build regional partnerships focused on improving critical aquatic habitats across the country. Targeting these financial resources, through government and private partnership, towards projects in regional watersheds that will make the greatest improvements to the health of aquatic habitats will improve the health and abundance of native fish populations, improve the quality of life for surrounding communities, and improve recreational opportunities which is a boost to our national and local economies. The goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale starting at the local level through multi-state aquatic habitat improvement projects. The goal is also to engage stakeholders like commercial fisherman, anglers, outfitters and other angling and sportsmen industries to participate in this effort to make lasting improvements to the health and sustainability of our fisheries resources. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes $7.2 million annually for fish habitat restoration and protection projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships the bill also establishes. Based on the successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board to recommend projects to the Secretary of Interior for funding. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing habitat protection and restoration projects in the watersheds that will enhance fish habitats and fish populations. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act applies a proven and effective model for habitat conservation to protect and restore declining quality fish habitat. Our legislation ensures collaboration between expert stakeholders and state and regional fisheries resource managers to ensure the effectiveness of the work that is done. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, in commemoration of World Wildlife Day on March 3, I rise to bring attention to the catastrophic effects of wildlife trafficking on global and economic security and the urgent need to crush this demand for these illegal products. Conserving natural resources is a priority for me, particularly as chair of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee; it is a priority for my State of Maryland, and it is a priority for this administration. But the responsibility of protecting natural resources, such as wildlife, doesn't just sit with one State or one country. It requires a coordinated, global effort. Wildlife trafficking is a multibillion- dollar-per-year, transnational, sophisticated network of organized criminals. As the demand for elephant ivory, rhino horns, and other wildlife products resurges, the trade has become an illicit business similar to drug and arms smuggling. And as such, we must approach the problem with an equally hard-hitting strategy. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, reports that in 2012, an estimated 22,000 elephants were slaughtered across Africa. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, approximately 2,800 rhinos have been poached in South Africa since 2008, a more than 7,000-percent increase compared to the previous 17 years, mostly destined for Asian countries. Hundreds of park rangers are being gunned down by poachers, leaving behind devastated families with no income. Illegal wildlife trafficking threatens our species and is pushing some to the edge of extinction. The illicit trade hurts developing communities, damages tourism, risks people's livelihood or worse, ends lives. In February, President Obama released the first-ever National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. I joined colleagues on both sides of the aisle to urge the administration to produce a bold, goal-oriented, and whole-of-government approach to combat this growing problem of illicit wildlife trafficking. I commend the administration for its aggressive plan, and I hope we see swift implementation in the three areas of enforcement, demand reduction, and partner-building. The image of wildlife trafficking is often tied to the African Continent. But the other side--the consumer-demand side, primarily driven in Asia--must be viewed closely as well. With growing wealth in the Asia region, wildlife is being used for traditional and nontraditional medicines, trophies, clothing or pets. As the demand grows, the price of these products continues to skyrocket. We must leverage our bilateral and regional relationships to educate communities about the real effects of this trade. As chair of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, I am particularly pleased to see the tremendous cooperation between the United States and China on this issue. At the 2013 Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the two countries committed to cooperate on enforcement issues and efforts to end the supply and demand for such products. On January 6, China destroyed more than 5 tons of ivory, publicly demonstrating their commitment to protecting elephant populations. The United States, Kenya, Gabon, and the Philippines have held similar events. In a joint 1-month global operation earlier this year, the United States and China joined with 26 countries, plus international organizations such as ASEAN, to target wildlife trafficking criminals resulting in over 400 arrests and more than 350 major wildlife seizures. This type of collaboration is critical and more needs to be done. At the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade February 12-13, 2014, representatives from over 40 countries joined together and issued a declaration urging action. There is no doubt that governments recognize the urgency in solving this problem. But we need to build on this momentum, match our words with action, ensure developing countries have the capacity to address enforcement issues, hold criminals accountable, and educate communities to look beyond short-term benefits toward the dangerous long-term effects of illegal trafficking. I urge all my colleagues to work together to strengthen existing laws, adopt new laws, and pressure consumers to put an end to this damaging trade before the illegal trade puts an end to our world's most precious wildlife.

Mr. CARDIN

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

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

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to share with my colleagues the tragic events that unfolded these past few weeks in the Ukraine. Ukraine is an incredibly important country. The recent events are tragic, the result of a corrupt government and loss of life. I remember the Orange Revolution that took place in Ukraine, starting in November 2004, ending in January 2005. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to that protest to protest the corrupt election. They did it in a peaceful way. They not only got the attention of the people of Ukraine but the attention of the world. As a result of that peaceful revolution, the government stood for new elections, free and fair elections. Democratic leadership was elected, and all of us thought the future for Ukraine was very positive. I was in Kiev not long after that Orange Revolution. I had a chance to talk to people who were involved, and I talked to the new leaders. I saw that sense of hope that Ukraine at long last would be an independent country without the domination of any other country and that the proud people would have a country that would respect their rights, that would transition into full membership in Europe and provide the greatest hope for future generations. They started moving in that direction. As the Presiding Officer knows, there were agreements with Europe on immigration. They have been involved in military operations in close conjunction with NATO. Ukraine was and is an important partner of the United States and for Europe. Then Victor Yanukovych came into power for a second time. Mr. Yanukovych took the country in a different direction. He was a corrupt leader. He had a close involvement with Russia. Today there is some hope. The Parliament has brought in a new interim government. Presidential elections are now scheduled for May 25. But there are certain matters that are still very much in doubt. In the Crimea, which is a part of the Ukraine which has a large Russian population, it is unclear as to what is happening there. Pro-Russian sympathizers have taken over government buildings. It is not clear of Russia's involvement. It is critically important that the international community have access to what is happening in the Crimea and make it clear that Russia must allow the Ukraine to control its own destiny. It is time for the international community to mobilize its resources to assist Ukraine's transition to a democratic, secure, and prosperous country. The people of Ukraine have had an incredibly difficult history and over the last century have been subjected to two World Wars, 70 years of Soviet domination, including Stalin's genocidal famine. Our assistance at this time will be a concrete manifestation that we do indeed stand by the people of Ukraine as they manifest their historic choice for freedom and democracy. Moreover, we need to help Ukraine succeed to realize the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. That is our desire and that is the desire of the people of Ukraine. They are moving on the right path. They critically need our help and that of the international community to make sure Russia does not try to dominate this country; that its desire to become part of Europe is realized; that free and fair elections can take place, and the rights of their people can be respected by their government. Yesterday I heard from Swiss President and OSCE Chair-in-Office Burkhalter and welcomed his engagement and the important role the OSCE can play in Ukraine. As a member of the Commission, I had the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission, which is our implementing arm to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. A Foreign Minister from one of the member states usually acts as our Chair-in-Office, and this year Mr. Burkhalter is not only the Foreign Minister of Switzerland, he is also the President of Switzerland. He is the person responsible for the direction of the organization. We had a hearing with him and Ukraine took a good part of our discussions. The guiding principles of the OSCE is if they are going to have a prosperous country, if they are going to have a secure country, they have to have a country that respects the rights of its citizens. Respecting the rights of its citizens means they are entitled to good governance. They are entitled to a country that does not depend upon corruption in order to finance its way of life. Those are the principles of the OSCE. A country with good governance, respect for human rights, that takes on corruption, is a country in which there will be economic prosperity and a country which will enjoy security. That has been our chief function, to try to help other countries. The meeting yesterday underscored the importance OSCE can play in the future of Ukraine, and we hope they will utilize those resources so Ukraine can come out of this crisis as a strong, democratic, and independent country. There has to be accountability. There has to be accountability for those who are responsible for the deaths in Kiev. I mention that because, yes, there is a moral reason for that. Those who commit amoral atrocities should be held accountable. That is just a matter of basic rights. But there is also the situation when they don't bring closure here, it offers little hope that these circumstances will not be repeated in the future. If future government leaders believe they could do whatever they want and there will be no consequences for their actions, they are more likely to take the irresponsible actions we saw on Ukraine. So, yes, it is important we restore a democratic government in Ukraine. It is important that government be independent and able to become a full member of Europe. It is important that government respect the human rights of its citizens, but it is also important they hold those responsible for these atrocities accountable for their actions. The Obama administration took some action this past week. They did deny visas to certain members who were responsible for the Government of Ukraine, and they did freeze bank accounts of those who were involved in the corrupt practices in Ukraine. That was a good first step and I applaud their actions. I remind my colleagues we passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act as part of the Russia PNTR legislation. I was proud to be the sponsor of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. What it does--and it says it was amended to apply only to Russia--those who are involved in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights will be denied the privilege of being able to come to America, to get a visa and we will deny them the opportunity to use our banking system. Why is that important? Because we found those corrupt officials want to keep their properties outside of their host country. They want to visit America. They want to use our banking system. They want their corrupt ways to be in dollars, not in rubles. Denying them that opportunity is an effective remedy for making sure they can't profit from all of their corruption. That legislation was limited to Russia not by our design. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee approved the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act as a global act applying beyond Russia. Sergei Magnitsky was a young lawyer who discovered corruption in Russia. He did what he should have done--told the authorities about it. As a result, he was arrested, tortured, and killed because he did the right thing. We took action to make sure those responsible could not benefit from that corruption. That was the Sergei Magnitsky bill. We felt, though, it should be a tool available universally. We had to compromise on that, and it was limited to Russia. It is time to change that. Along with Senator McCain, I have introduced the Global Human Rights Accountability Act, S. 1933. It has several bipartisan sponsors. It would apply globally. So, yes, it would apply to Ukraine. It would have congressional sanctions to the use of tools for denying visa applications and our banking privileges to those who are responsible for these atrocities. I believe our colleagues understand how important that is for us to do. It is interesting that today the State Department issued its Human Rights Practices for 2013. This is a required report that we request. It gives the status of human rights records throughout the world, talking about problems. I am sure my colleagues recognize that human rights problems are not limited to solely Russia or Ukraine, from Bahrain to China, to Bangladesh, from Belarus to Ethiopia, to Venezuela, from the Sudan to South Sudan, Syria, the list goes on and on and on. The report lists all of the gross violations of human rights that have occurred. Unfortunately, this list is too long. I can name another dozen countries that are spelled out in this report. Human rights are universal, and it is our responsibility to act and show international leadership. It takes time to pass good laws, as it should, which is why we must act with urgency now. The measures contemplated in my legislation have great corrective power, but they are strongest when deployed in a timely manner, preferably before the outbreak of violence. The year 2013 was a particularly challenging year for human rights and we cannot afford to be silent. The Global Human Rights Accountability Act serves as an encouragement for champions of democracy, promoters of civil rights, and advocates of free speech across the globe. As the great human rights defender Nelson Mandela once said: ``There are times when a leader must move ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading his people the right way.'' In this great body, the Senate, we have a responsibility to lead the way in accountability for human rights. We have done that in the past. We have shown through our own example and we have shown through our interest in all corners of the world that this country will stand for the protection of basic human rights for all the people. We now have a chance to act by the passage of the global Magnitsky law. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping enact this new chapter and the next chapter in America's commitment to international human rights. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I would like to draw attention to a disturbing trend impacting the work of journalists in China. On January 30, 2014, New York Times reporter Austin Ramzy was forced to leave China due to processing delays for his press credentials. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event. In 2013, Reporters Without Borders ranked China 173rd out of 179 countries in terms of press freedoms. Over the past year, we have seen China increase efforts to curb the work of foreign news organizations, including extended delays in processing journalist visas, restrictions on access to ``sensitive'' locations and individuals, pressure on local staff, blocked Web sites, and reports of cyber hacking of media organizations. To call attention to this suppression, I, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, along with subcommittee ranking member Marco Rubio, Senate Foreign Relations chairman Bob Menendez, and ranking member Bob Corker, introduced S. Res. 361. This resolution urges the People's Republic of China to take meaningful steps to improve freedom of expression in China as fitting of a responsible international stakeholder. The ongoing crackdown on journalists and members of the press reporting in China is of grave concern to me. A country that engages in routine censorship and online blocking; harassment, reprisals, and detention of journalists; and visa delays or denials for journalists not only fails its own people but also fails the international community. A vibrant and free press instills trust in one's government, creates a more transparent environment for business investments, develops an engaged community, and builds legitimacy as a secure, global leader. We expect our partners to strive for these standards. As we look to rebalance our policy toward the Asia-Pacific region, the United States has a responsibility to promote respect for universal human rights. We urge President Obama to use all appropriate tools to improve and promote freedom of the press in China. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in support of press freedom in China.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as we speak, the 22nd Winter Olympics are well under way in Sochi, Russia. Let me first congratulate the organizers on a fantastic opening ceremony. It really was something to see the depth and breadth of Russia's rich history and culture on display for the entire world to admire. The Olympics put a powerful spotlight on Russia--a spotlight Russia's president has so vigorously sought. But just as this attention is educating the world about Russia's invaluable contributions to music, science, and sport, it is also highlighting the gaps between Russia's previous commitment to fundamental freedoms and the reality on the ground. There is no question that in recent years we have seen Russia move towards a less open, less pluralistic society. But we cannot lose hope yet. Change is possible and Russia's beleaguered but tenacious civil society offers much hope for the future. We continue to expect Russia's leadership to uphold basic and universal human rights. Now there are other countries where the situation is much worse, but Russia is a powerful global example and should be committed to upholding fundamental freedoms much like Germany or the United Kingdom, its European neighbors. But unlike those governments, Russia's current leadership wantonly violates international commitments and seems bent on trying to redefine a settled consensus on the universality of human rights. We cannot let that go unchallenged. Much has been said about Russia's 2013 law prohibiting so-called gay propaganda. Some have pointed to the fact that this law enjoys widespread public support while others have faintly condemned it and worried that Western pressure could be counterproductive. Let's stop negotiating with ourselves here and tell it like it is. And it is really quite simple: this law infringes on the rights to free speech, association, and assembly. These rights are not American rights, they are human rights, and they are universally shared and universally binding. Russia acknowledged as much in myriad international commitments. And this law is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to fundamental freedoms in Russia. In recent days it has been fashionable to change the colors of your website or make other symbolic gestures of solidarity with Russia's LGBT community. I applaud this and have done as much myself, but let's not kid ourselves or rest on our laurels. It takes little courage to swap an avatar on Twitter or to use a coded phrase in a statement and it is going to take a lot more to change the world for the better. As important as these symbols of solidarity are, let's not confuse them with the steady and sustained activism that will be necessary to highlight human rights abuses in Russia long after the flame goes out in Sochi. I have heard much speculation of a further crackdown in Russia after the Olympic spotlight fades, and I would note that the ongoing unrest in Ukraine is watched with great interest from Russia. While the Kremlin appears nervous at the prospects of renewed demonstrations at home or the success of any grassroots uprising on its borders, many in Moscow and St. Petersburg appear envious that the Ukrainian protests have shown staying power and the ability to pry concessions from the ruling elite. I worry that if anything could provoke a crackdown inside Russia post-Sochi, a turn of events in Ukraine could well prove that trigger and I urge the administration to double-down on its efforts to head off further violence. That is why I introduced the Global Human Rights Accountability Act, which would ensure human rights abusers from anywhere in the world are denied entry into the United States and barred from using our financial institution. Finally, let me commend our current and outgoing ambassador to the Russian Federation, Dr. Michael McFaul, for a job well done. Dr. McFaul served with distinction in a tough post at a tough time and did a fantastic job of representing our country's openness and ``can do'' spirit. He will be missed.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, there is an epitaph on the wall above where Sir Christopher Wren--one of England's greatest architects--is buried. The epitaph reads in part: Here . . . lies . . . Christopher Wren, who lived beyond ninety years, not for his own profit but for the public good. Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you. A similar epitaph would be entirely suitable for my dear friend, the great businessman, engineer, philanthropist, and devoted Baltimorean Willard Hackerman, who died yesterday at the age of 95. In 1938, Willard was a 19-year-old civil engineer who had just graduated from Johns Hopkins University. He went to work for the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in his native Baltimore. G.W.C. Whiting and LeBaron Turner had started the construction firm in 1909. In 1955, Whiting promoted Willard to be the president and chief executive officer of the firm, and he served in that capacity until his recent death. Whiting-Turner issued a press release which stated: Mr. Hackerman led Whiting-Turner from a modest-sized local and regional contractor to a highly-ranked nationwide construction manager and general contractor working in all major commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. Last year--Willard's 75th year with the firm--it reported $5 billion in revenue. The firm, which has 33 regional offices and more than 2,100 employees, is ranked fourth in domestic general building by Engineering News Record and ranked 117th on the list of America's largest private companies. As the Baltimore Sun noted, Whiting-Turner Contracting Company built the new University of Baltimore School of Law last year, the Joseph Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, the National Aquarium, and the M&T Bank Stadium. The firm's clients included Yale and Stanford universities, the Cleveland Clinic, Target, IBM, and Unilever, and the Hippodrome Theater. If you seek his monument, look around you. Through Whiting-Turner, Willard teamed with then-mayor William Donald Schaefer to help transform Baltimore by building the Convention Center, Harborplace, and the Aquarium. These statistics and lists attest to Willard's incredible skills as an engineer and businessman, but they don't begin to capture the magnitude of his accomplishments, his charitable contributions, or his generous spirit. Willard and his beloved wife Lillian have been lifelong supporters of Johns Hopkins University. He helped to reestablish the university's stand-alone engineering school in 1979, and secured the school-naming gift from the estate of his mentor, G.W.C. Whiting. Other activities include funding the Willard and Lillian Hackerman Chair in Radiation Oncology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, construction of the Hackerman-Patz Patient and Family Pavilion, and the Hackerman Research Laboratories at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center. He and his wife also provided major support for the Robert H. and Clarice Smith Building at the Wilmer Eye Institute. In 1984, Willard and Lillian donated a mansion on Mount Vernon Place adjacent to the Walters Art Gallery to the city of Baltimore, which in turn entrusted the property to the gallery--now known as the Walters Art Museum--to house its collection of Asian art. In December 2001, Mr. Hackerman gave the largest gift in the history of the Baltimore City Community College Foundation to establish the Lillian and Willard Hackerman Student Emergency Loan Program, which provides no-interest loans to BCCC students. If you seek his monument, look around you. Timothy Regan, the Whiting-Turner executive vice president who will succeed Willard as the firm's third president in its 105-year history, noted: He is a legend for his good works, and the irony is that most of his good works are not even known. The Sun recounted a story Baltimore architect Adam Gross told about accompanying Willard through a newly completed project at the Bryn Mawr School. According to Mr. Gross, Willard asked the school's headmistress how many women were graduating with engineering degrees. Then, a few days later, he sent a sizable check to the school to provide scholarships for women in engineering. ``He was like that. He did deeds that nobody knew about,'' Mr. Gross said. Willard was a man of quiet strength who professionally and charitably enriched his beloved Baltimore. He was an active alumnus of Johns Hopkins University who gave back to the school and its hospital in countless ways. He was a humble man and rarely stood still to take credit for his many successes because he had already begun to tackle the next challenge. Despite being at the helm of one of the largest general building companies in America, Willard never outgrew his city or his fellow citizens. The Meyerhoff, the National Aquarium, and M&T Bank Stadium all stand as enduring monuments to a great man. His benevolent legacy extended to the synagogue where my family and I worship, Beth Tfiloh Congregation, where he will be missed as a man of great faith. Willard Hackerman was a true son of Baltimore. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Lillian, their daughter Nancy, their son Steven Mordecai, their five grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren, and his extended family at Whiting-Turner, all of whom loved him deeply. I encourage my fellow colleagues, my fellow Baltimoreans and Marylanders, and all Americans to celebrate Willard Hackerman ``who lived beyond ninety years, not for his own profit but for the public good. If you seek his monument, look around you.'' I suggest the absence of a quorum.