Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, December 6, 2012, at 11:45 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 761 and 828; that there be 15 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that following the period of debate on the nominations, the Senate proceed to legislative session to resume consideration of H.R. 6156, as provided under the previous order, and following the disposition of H.R. 6156, the Senate resume executive session and proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar Nos. 761 and 828 in that order; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern from Senator Merkley's office, Phillip Hah, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I further ask unanimous consent that the Kerry amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, and the Senate proceed to a voice vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 539, S. 3331.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator McCain for not just working this out but for his leadership on this issue. He has provided the moral leadership we need on dealing with human rights issues. He is a cosponsor of the Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act, and I thank him for that. Today we close a chapter in the U.S. history on the advancing of human rights with the repeal basically of Jackson-Vanik. It served its purpose. Today, we open a new chapter in U.S. leadership for human rights with the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. As the Presiding Officer has heard, this involves a lawyer named Sergei Magnitsky who had U.S. interests that he was representing in Russia. He discovered the largest tax fraud in Russia's history. He did what a lawyer should do: He brought it to the attention of the authorities. As a result of his bringing this corruption in local government to the authorities, he was arrested. He was tortured because they wanted him to recant what he had said. They wanted him to basically not tell the truth. He refused to do that. He needed medical attention; he was denied medical attention; and on November 16, 2009, he lost his life in a Russian prison, being denied the opportunity to get needed health care. He was 37 years old, with a wife and two children. Those who were responsible for his death and those who were responsible for the coverup have never been brought to justice. They have gone unpunished, and in some cases they have even been promoted. The facts are well known. These are not hidden facts. The international community knows the people who were involved, knows about the coverup, and knows that they have not been held accountable, and this has gained international attention. That is why I filed legislation aimed at the individuals responsible for the Magnitsky tragedy. It says, quite clearly, that those involved would be held accountable by being denied certain international rights. It also includes those involved in extrajudicial killings, torture, or violations of internationally recognized human rights. The legislation says, Look, we are not going to let you have the fruits of your corruption. We are going to deny you the opportunity to hold your illegal gains in our banking system--which is where they prefer; they don't want to hold rubles, they want to hold dollars--and that we will not let you have a visa, a privilege, to visit our country, to visit your property in our country or your family in this country. It targets the individuals who committed the gross human rights violation, and it recognizes the failure of the host country to deal with those violations. I want to thank all those who have been involved in the development of this legislation. Senator McCain has been one of the great leaders on these human rights issues. This is not a partisan division. We have strong bipartisan support. I have already acknowledged Senator Kyl, who recently spoke. I know Senator Wicker took the floor a little earlier and I thank him, the ranking member on the Helsinki Commission. I want to thank Senator Shaheen, the chair of the European Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for her work, and Senator Bob Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee. All those individuals were very instrumental in dealing with this. Senator Durbin has been a real champion on human rights. I want to acknowledge Kyle Parker, staff person from the Helsinki Commission, who was very instrumental in the development of this legislation. I want to also acknowledge Senator Lieberman's work. I know he will be speaking in a few minutes. It was Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and myself who first suggested that we should pass the Magnitsky bill. It is the right thing to do, but we certainly shouldn't let PNTR go without attaching the Magnitsky bill. I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for raising that connection. It was the right thing to do. First, it allowed us to get this human rights tool enacted. Secondly, I think it gave us the best chance to get the PNTR bill done in the right form. So I thank both of them for their leadership. In 1974, we passed the Jackson-Vanik law that dealt with the failure of the Soviet Union to allow for the emigration of its citizens, affecting mainly Soviet Jews. It was controversial in its time. People said, Why are we connecting human rights to trade? Why is the United States doing that? After all, trade is so important. Well, we did it. It made a huge difference, and we were able to get Soviet Jews out of the Soviet Union. We spoke for Western values in our trade legislation. We protected the rights of individuals who refused this. When I first came to Congress 26 years ago, I joined the congressional caucus for Soviet Jewry. I wore the wrist bands of refuseniks, joined by many of our colleagues. Twenty-five years ago, I marched in Washington, a march for Soviet Jews. We stood for basic rights, and we changed the landscape on this issue. I had a chance to be with Natan Sharansky and celebrate what he meant to people who loved freedom around the world. We initiated that with Jackson-Vanik. It was a proud chapter in American history. Today we end that chapter, because Jackson-Vanik is no longer relevant to the human rights challenges of our time. But with the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Accountability Act, we meet the challenges of our time. We meet those individuals who are committing gross human rights violations. This act is a global standard for the advancement of human rights. Unfortunately, the Magnitsky tragedy is not unique within Russia. We know of other circumstances within the country. We saw the results of last year's elections and the attitude of government toward journalists. We need the protection of the Magnitsky standards for human rights violations within Russia. But it doesn't end with Russia. Human rights violations are global, and we should have these tools available globally. We need to prevent Russia and other countries from regressing on their commitments to human rights. I must tell you, when you take a look at the legislation that came out of our two committees, S. 1039, coming out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and coming out of the Senate Finance Committee--I serve on both of those committees--it says very clearly that the law would apply to those responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals seeking to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of religion, expression, association, assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections anywhere in the world. That was the legislation we reported in two of our committees. And I might tell you, there was overwhelming support that we should make it global. Senator Kyl talked about that, and I am sure others will also. In H.R. 6156, you will see the exact language we have in our Magnitsky bill with one exception: ``Anywhere in the world'' is changed to ``Russia.'' I am disappointed in that, and I join with Senator Kyl in that disappointment. I think it would have been much better if we would have incorporated the international standards and global provisions. I think it is very important Congress pass this bill. I strongly support it. I support the effort to get this to the President as quickly as possible. But there is a clear message here: This bill is our standard. We will be holding countries to this standard. We will look for other opportunities to attach these provisions to other trade bills. We will look for other opportunities to reinstitute the global application of the Magnitsky standards. It is the right thing. The world is on notice. Other countries are following our leadership. We expect other countries will be acting with similar standards. I might point out, as I did over 2 years ago, there is existing authority within the State Department to deny visas to human rights violators. I think we should make that very clear and we should enact a law that makes it clear. We have to pass the Magnitsky law as relates to Russia. But there is authority, and we expect the administration will follow that authority. I am hopeful people understand that although the language of the law is not as broad as we would like it to be, many of us consider this to be the international standard, and we will be asking to hold other countries accountable for violators of human rights that that country does not deal with in denying them the right to visit our country or to use our banking system. One last point. There are some who say, Well, aren't we interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign country? Nothing could be further from the truth. We have a right--I would say a responsibility-- to challenge internationally recognized human rights violations in other countries. It is well established. Both Russia and the United States are members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I had the honor of a senate chair in the Helsinki Commission, our implementing arm. That organization gives us the right to raise human rights problems in other countries. We have used that to advance efforts to stop human trafficking, to deal with antisemiticism, to deal with corruption issues in other countries. We have that right. We have that responsibility. And our actions today are for the Russian people and for its government. I have heard from so many human rights activists in Russia, from Russian business leaders to ordinary citizens, who tell me Russia can do better, and they urge us to move forward with the Magnitsky Accountability Act. The United States, by the passage of this bill, will be on the right side of history. It will deepen our relationship with the Russian people. Yes, we are ending a chapter with the repeal of Jackson-Vanik, but we are starting a new chapter on human rights--one which we can be proud of where America once again is establishing a basic principle that we will not tolerate those who violate internationally recognized human rights standards. We will not let them go without being held accountable. And we certainly will not let them have the privileges of our country if they violate internationally recognized human rights standards. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Arizona on the moral clarity of his statement. I think the Senator is absolutely right. The moral clarity here is clear: Those who commit gross violations of internationally recognized human rights are on notice. As the Senator pointed out, this legislation applies beyond the Magnitsky tragedy, it applies to Russia, and it is a standard that we intend to use for other opportunities whether it is trade bills or other legislation. I hope we will make this statutorily global. We will have that debate at a later point. We will have other opportunities to make it clear that those who violate human rights are internationally recognized, that the clarity here is clear, and that there will be repercussions on the rights of our own country. We cannot determine how Russia will treat its violators under their laws; they will have to handle that. But we have the moral certainty that we are not going to assist those violators and deny their opportunities to come to America and use our banking system.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 610 submitted earlier today by Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 595 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 2 days ago--December 3, 2012--marked the third anniversary of Alan Gross' arrest by the Cuban Government. Over the past 3 years, Alan's case has been of deep personal concern to me and many in my State. Alan, an American citizen and Marylander, was in Cuba to help the small Jewish community there establish improved access to the Internet, which would allow the community to go online without fear of censorship or monitoring. After being held for 14 months without charge and then a cursory 2-day trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. In August 2012, a petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was filed on his behalf. Last week, officials with the Cuban Ministry for Foreign Affairs claimed that Alan Gross is in good health. But the Cuban Government has not allowed Mr. Gross to receive an independent medical evaluation. To date, Alan has lost 105 pounds, suffers from degenerative arthritis, and has a mass behind his shoulder. Alan also suffers from severe mental anguish because of the separation from his family. To say that the Gross family has been on a rollercoaster would be an understatement. His mother and daughter are both battling cancer. His wife Judy is struggling to make ends meet. Judy Gross has fought for Alan's release every day for the last 3 years. Judy has called, e- mailed, and met with everyone imaginable. She has been on news programs and written letters. Judy has never given up hope; she has remained strong for her family and for Alan. As many of our colleagues will attest, she will stop at nothing to see Alan return home. Due in no small part to Judy's perseverance, the U.S. Senate has been actively involved in this matter. Over the past 3 years, U.S. officials have traveled to Cuba, we have written to numerous Cuban dignitaries, and we have employed other creative means to encourage Mr. Gross' release. In September, my colleague Senator Moran and I, along with a bipartisan group of 44 Senators, sent a letter to Raul Castro urging the Cuban Government in the strongest possible terms to release Alan Gross immediately and unconditionally. But these attempts have been futile. Alan Gross remains in prison, caught in the middle of a conflict between two nations with a complex, often frustrating relationship. Tonight, the Senate is adopting a resolution unanimously, a resolution Senator Moran and I have submitted with a long list of bipartisan sponsors. The resolution calls for Mr. Gross' immediate and unconditional release and urges the Cuban Government to address his medical issues, including allowing an independent medical examination to be completed. Alan's personal freedoms are being violated every day that he continues to be incarcerated, and we can no longer tolerate his being denied an independent medical evaluation. Alan Gross should no longer be forced to suffer the consequences of political gamesmanship. Enough is enough. Today the Senate has spoken once again. Alan Gross is a husband, a father, a son, and an American. We call on the Cuban Government to release Alan Gross immediately. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this measure.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 609, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 573 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CARDIN

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on this issue. We have had many discussions about how to advance human rights and what is the best strategy to get the Magnitsky bill enacted into law. She has been a real champion with her leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Europe and her leadership on the Helsinki Commission. I thank her for her good advice for allowing us to be able to get to this day. I am convinced tomorrow the Senate will pass this legislation, the President is going to sign it, and we will achieve a great victory for human rights. I thank the Senator for her observations as we were talking about how to move forward with this bill in connection with PNTR for Russia. I know Senator Lieberman talked about it a little bit earlier. I am convinced, as important as this bill was, that the Magnitsky bill by itself would have been extremely difficult for us to get through to the President and for the President to sign into law and that in combining it with PNTR, we got it done. I also believe that PNTR without Magnitsky would not have gotten done. So I think the marriage of these two bills was the right choice. They allow us to move forward, as Senator Levin said, repealing a provision that is not relevant for Russia, while also allowing us to make a new standard for Russia that is relevant for our problems we are confronting not just in Russia but throughout the globe. I wish to comment a little bit about Senator Levin's point. Senator Levin raised the issue of why couldn't we make this global. As Senator McCain said, countries are on notice, particularly those countries that are known for their human rights violations. They now know what the standard is, and they know what action the United States will take if they don't meet that standard. The standard is very clear. I will just read it into the Record one more time so every country knows and every individual knows we will be taking action against those who violate human rights. It says any individual who ``is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individual seeking . . . to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights. . . . '' That is the standard. That is what is in this bill. That is what we will be voting on tomorrow. That is what has been approved by the House of Representatives and I believe will be approved tomorrow by this body and will be signed into law by the President of the United States. We are establishing the standard that will be used to deny human rights violators the right to visit our country, to obtain a visa, and to use our banking system. Senator Levin is absolutely correct. The bill that came out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Finance Committee made it crystal clear by statute that it applied globally. I strongly supported that. I support that now. I would love to see that in our bill, but we need to get this bill done. I would have preferred to see us take up the amendment, hopefully pass the amendment, and work it out with the House. However, it was the collective wisdom that in order to get this bill done, particularly with the administration's position on it--they did not support the global legislative solution at this point--that it was unlikely we would reach the finish line and get that done. That doesn't diminish the global impact of this bill. I need to underscore that. It does not diminish the global impact of this bill. Senator McCain is right. Countries and individuals are on notice. I can tell my colleagues that as a Member of this body, I will be monitoring, and if there are individual people who have committed these gross violations and who are seeking to come to America and use our banking system, I am going to take action. It may be filing additional legislation. I hope we get it done. I hope we will find an opportunity to get the Senate language into law, that the legislative standard specifically applies globally. Let me point out we already have authority. The Secretary of State already has authority to deny human rights violators the right to come to America. Before I filed the Magnitsky bill, I sent a letter to the Secretary of State saying we know who the perpetrators of the crimes against Mr. Magnitsky are; deny them the right. They want to come to America. They are planning to come to America. Don't let them. We went back and forth a little bit as to what they were going to do. What is interesting is that I filed this legislation with Senator McCain and many others. Secretary Clinton took action. She said we will deny them the opportunity of coming to America; we have that authority. The Secretary of the Treasury has certain authorities to deny the rights of our banking system. So we have--our agencies have the inherent authority to block human rights violators from coming to America or using our banking system. Should we legislate to make that clear? Absolutely. Should we pass legislation that is global? Absolutely. I hope we will do that. Today we have the opportunity to make a major advancement to establish the standard in statute that we expect will be honored internationally, globally, to provide the tools to act against Russia because this is a PNTR Russia bill. We will be able to do that. We also have the tools in place to be able to take further action. So what I said earlier I think is absolutely true. This isn't an end of a chapter of U.S. leadership. I can tell my colleagues when Senator Jackson and Congressman Vanik suggested the use of trade as a leverage to block trade with countries if they didn't respect the basic human right of allowing their people to leave, there were many people who said: Why are you doing that? Can't we just talk it out? That bill produced incredible results not only on the individuals who were able to leave the Soviet Union, but it spoke to America's leadership. I honestly believe it helped establish the principles where the United States used trade to open and eliminate the apartheid government of South Africa. We were the leaders on that. We have been very strong on protecting human rights and saying: We will use every tool at our disposal to protect people's basic rights. We did that in South Africa and we did that in the Soviet Union and we are doing it again today. That is where America's leadership shines. That is where America's leadership will be followed by other countries. We are already seeing other European capitals pass similar legislation as the Magnitsky bill to make this clear. We are ending a chapter with Jackson-Vanik and we should be very proud of what America stood for, what we stand for today, and our leadership in the lives of real people and how it has helped keep people safer. Now we are starting a new chapter and that new chapter is not just Russia. That new chapter is global. We are putting the international community on notice that we will not tolerate individuals who violate basic human rights, and we will use every tool at our disposal, including trade, including the right to come to America, including the right to use our banking system, including putting as much pressure as we possibly can on countries to take action against those who violate rights. We respect the rights of individual countries. We want to work with those countries, but America will not give up its values and on promoting these values internationally. That is what this legislation is. I understand the disappointment that we don't have everything in this bill we would like. I am certainly disappointed. I fought hard. I spoke to so many Members in both the House and the Senate about trying to make this bill even better. I am proud of how far we were able to get, and I can tell my colleagues this: The activists who are risking their lives today in countries around the world to protect the rights of citizens, to question the actions of their government, to dare to say we should have competitive elections, we should respect the religious freedoms of individuals, we should be able to speak out, these people are putting their lives at risk. They are looking at what the Senate is doing today, and they are looking at us and saying: Pass this bill. Pass this bill because it gives us hope. It lets our countries know America will stand for us, that America's leadership will be there to keep us safe. I know we have had a spirited discussion this evening. We will have a chance tomorrow to vote on this bill. I do believe we will have the opportunity to show America's leadership will be continuing to advance human rights. This legislation will make a difference not just in the trade relationships between Russia and the United States--it will help that--but it will help advance international respect for human rights. I am proud to be part of that effort. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the contributions of Lee Norman Sachs, one of America's outstanding first- responders and human beings whose contribution of time, talent, and leadership span over 3\1/2\ decades. Lee graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and the University Of Maryland School Of Law, and began practicing law in 1967, concentrating on family law and real estate matters. But his desire to do more for his community led him to take Emergency Medical Technician, EMT, training and join the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Department. Over the years, Lee took more and more training, first to qualify as a paramedic and then as a firefighter, fire driver/operator and lastly a fire instructor. Lee's dedication, training, and leadership skills have resulted in his election to many volunteer fire positions, most notably as president of the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Department, the Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen's Association, and the Maryland State Firemen's Association. He has been inducted into the Baltimore County Volunteer Firemen's Association Hall of Fame, named Executive Officer of the Year, and received the organization's President's Award. He was recognized by the Maryland State Firemen's Association as EMS Provider of the Year and recipient of the Gladhill-Thompson Trophy. At the same time Lee was performing all of this public service, he was also working as a well-respected attorney, volunteering time at the Women's Law Center and the Maryland Bar Association, and providing pro bono legal services to clients referred by the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service. Lee Sachs has led a life dedicated to serving his community. I hope all Senators will join me in thanking him for his commitment to public service and his efforts to ensure the health and safety of his fellow Marylanders.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the Honorable Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, for his outstanding contributions as a jurist, administrator, and justice advocate. His work on the bench has transformed the Maryland judicial system. His success in Maryland has provided leadership for national initiatives. And Chief Judge Bell has secured his place in history as a civil rights leader, both in Maryland and nationally. Chief Judge Bell has served as the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals and the head of Maryland's Judiciary for the past 15 years. But before Chief Judge Bell took the bench, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate that Chief Judge Bell was already involved with our State's judicial system. As a high school student, he was a civil rights protestor who engaged in civil disobedience in Baltimore, and his case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Maryland State Archives has used the Bell v. Maryland case as part of its series on ``Teaching American History in Maryland''. According to the account by the Archives, in 1960, the majority of restaurants in downtown Baltimore were still segregated and blacks were not served at all-white dining establishments. Students from Dunbar High School and Morgan State College were recruited by the Civic Interest Group to enter all-white restaurants and demand service. On June 17, 1960, a group of students entered Hooper's Restaurant, located at Charles and Fayette Streets, and asked to be served. They were told to leave, but 12 of the students, including 16-year-old Robert Mack Bell from Dunbar High School, refused. They were each charged with trespassing, found guilty, and fined $10. The case was appealed, and one of the students' lawyers was Thurgood Marshall from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, who went on to become the first African- American Justice on the United States Supreme Court. The students and their attorneys argued that the use of the State's trespassing laws to support segregation of public accommodations violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the ``equal protection of the laws'' to all persons. In 1962, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the students' convictions and the decision of the lower court, and the case was appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. In the summer of 1964, the United States Senate finally overcame a filibuster and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited segregation and discrimination in public accommodations. The State of Maryland also passed a public accommodations law. Shortly after this action by Congress, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Maryland Court of Appeals. On April 9, 1965, the convictions were reversed, the students were cleared of all charges, and the City of Baltimore was ordered to pay court costs to the students. Robert Mack Bell went on to graduate from Morgan State in Baltimore and then Harvard Law School, and was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1969. After working in private practice for several years, he was appointed as a Baltimore City District Court judge, which handles misdemeanors. In 1980, he was elevated to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, which handles felony cases and jury trials. In 1984, he was elevated again to the Court of Special Appeals, our intermediate appellate court. In 1991, Judge Bell was appointed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, our State's top court. Finally, he was appointed as Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals in 1996, becoming the first African-American to serve in that capacity. He is one of the few judges to serve at all four levels of the Maryland judiciary during his career. And Chief Judge Bell also has the rare distinction of serving on and then running a court that had previously ruled against him. During his 2 decades on the bench, Chief Judge Bell has been a moving force on committees and commissions that have looked at ways to provide greater access to justice, to better incorporate the advantages of technology, and to enhance legal training and compensation. In 2002, Chief Judge Bell appointed a Commission on Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Judicial Process to evaluate outcomes and recommend ways to reduce or eliminate unequal access to or treatment by the court system. In 2008, he created the Access to Justice Commission to develop, consolidate, coordinate, and implement policy initiatives to expand access to and enhance the quality of justice in civil legal matters. He sought ways to find non-traditional methods to help solve the problems of crime by promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR, programs throughout Maryland. He promoted the growth of drug treatment courts in Maryland and established the Standing Committee on Problem- Solving Courts to coordinate these efforts. He used technology to provide more accurate and uniform data critical to the enforcement of domestic violence and peace orders, and launched an ongoing effort to prepare Maryland judges to adjudicate cases involving science and biotechnology. And when the housing crisis hit Maryland, he called Maryland's legal community together to provide pro bono assistance to homeowners faced with foreclosure. As a result of those efforts, the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to better protect homeowners. Time and time again, when Chief Judge Bell has faced challenges, he has seized the opportunity to find solutions. He has done so with grace and intellect and compassion. He has rallied the legal community and expanded opportunities for those with few options and no voice. From Robert Bell's days as a high school student, long before he even went to law school, he has strived to promote justice and equality for all Americans. The Preamble to the Constitution provides that ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Just like Thurgood Marshall, a fellow Baltimorean and legal giant, Chief Judge Bell has played a large part in upholding and defending our Constitution in Maryland, and in helping our State and nation move toward ``establishing justice'' and creating a ``more perfect union.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Judge Robert Bell for his civil rights leadership, contributions to the legal community, and inspirational life as he retires after an outstanding career of public service.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for Fiscal Year 2013. I wish to commend Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. The Senate has passed the NDAA every year for over one-half century. Senators Levin and McCain have played a key role on NDAA over the past several years, and I am grateful for their dedication and concern for the men and women of our Armed Forces and the defense of the Nation. I am pleased that NDAA, as amended, includes three of my amendments, including a sense of the Senate resolution regarding conflict-induced displacements in Afghanistan. As Afghan refugees are being pushed into faster repatriation, they are often forced into returning to a country where they have little or no hope. In particular, Pakistan, which has hosted Afghan refugees for more than 30 years, plans to cancel refugee status for the 3 million Afghans at the end of this year. Forcing these refugees back into Afghanistan would only exacerbate the crisis for a country that is still struggling with an ongoing insurgency, an economy dependent on U.S. foreign assistance, and the impending withdraw of NATO troops in 2014. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, more than 5.7 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since 2002, increasing the population of the country by approximately 25 percent. In both urban and rural areas, however, more than 40 percent of the returnees have not integrated into their home communities. In addition to difficulties returning refugees face, internal displacement has been dramatically on the rise. The conflict-induced displaced Afghans face numerous challenges due to continuing violence, tribal conflicts, lack of land tenure and housing, limited opportunities to earn a livelihood, and reduced access to public services and water. As winter approaches, I am especially concerned for the children who will be vulnerable to the harsh weather and illnesses likely to occur from living in such severe conditions. Last winter, there were many reports of children freezing to death in settlement camps and other temporary shelters. The sense of the Senate resolution not only expresses these concerns for the dramatic rise in conflict-induced displacements in Afghanistan and the corresponding humanitarian needs; it also recommends that the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration and the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan jointly develop a comprehensive strategy to address these displacement issues. I am also pleased that the Senate passed my two amendments to add the Coast Guard to the current baseline NDAA sections addressing military diversity and military hazing. Nearly 2 years ago, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission issued a report with 20 recommendations to the Armed Forces, including the Coast Guard. The Commission found that the services' leadership does not reflect the diversity of the enlisted members they lead or the American population they fight to protect. While the Coast Guard has made strides in addressing its lack of diversity among women and minorities, it still has significant obstacles to overcome. For instance, of the 91 graduates of the Coast Guard's Officer Candidate School last year, only five were African- American, four were Asian, and nine were Hispanic. The Coast Guard can and must do better to enhance diversity among its senior leadership, which will have a positive impact for generations to come. And like other branches of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard continues to suffer from hazing incidents. Just last year, seven members of the Coast Guard were found to have tied down their fellow crew members and performed sexual hazing on them. I am also pleased that the Senate adopted the Feinstein amendment, which restricts the ability of the U.S. Government to detain without charge or trial U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents suspected of carrying out terrorist activities. The role our civilian-led military plays within the borders of the United States has always been balanced with the protections of civil liberties, civil rights, and the due process of law. On the subject of detainees, however, I am disappointed that the Senate approved the Ayotte amendment, which prohibits the use of funds for transferring or releasing detainees from the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for prosecution and trial in the United States. In my view, any provision that extends the life of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay unnecessarily sullies America's human rights record. The Ayotte amendment also represents a significant cost burden going forward for the U.S. Government, as it would force the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to remain open indefinitely. The Ayotte amendment also handicaps our Federal courts. Our Federal courts--unlike military tribunals--have an excellent track record of trying and convicting the most dangerous criminals and terrorists in the world, and Congress should not tie the hands of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use our Article III courts. Our Federal prison system can also securely hold for life those convicted of terrorism offenses. When it comes to personnel issues, I support the baseline NDAA bill, which will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families. The bill provides a 1.7-percent pay increase for all Active, Reserve, and Guard servicemembers. The bill prevents the Department of Defense from increasing TRICARE deductibles and annual catastrophic caps and levying enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard and TRICARE for Life. Also, the bill further advances service opportunities for women by directing the Secretary of Defense to make further regulatory and statutory changes in combat-related restrictions. Finally, I want to commend the Senate Armed Services Committee for authorizing veterans to participate in the Transition Assistance Program for 1 year after their discharge so that they can be better prepared to lead a productive civilian life. On another crucial personnel matter, however, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate defeated my amendment to prevent an across-the-board cut to the Defense civilian workforce that could lead to an additional 36,000 government job losses in the coming years. These cuts--on top of cuts that already will occur--would be made without consideration to required workload, mission, or funding as currently required by law. The Senate version of NDAA, if unchanged, will force an arbitrary, sequestration-type of cut in the DOD's civilian workforce, injuring the defense industrial base and undermining economic recovery. There is a better way to make judicious personnel decisions in the Department of Defense than the bill's section 341. I hope the NDAA conferees will heed the administration's deep concerns with regard to section 341, which the House NDAA--H.R. 4310--does not include. A bill this large and complex won't please everybody entirely. I have just outlined some of the provisions I support and some of the provisions I don't support. I will vote to pass NDAA to advance it to conference. H.R. 4310, like S. 3254, has good and bad provisions, in my estimation. For instance, it contains provisions that further restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the United States or foreign countries, and it limits the administration's ability to implement the New START Treaty or to set U.S. nuclear weapon policy to further nuclear force reduction. But, on the other hand, it doesn't contain section 341. I hope the legislation the conferees report will be something I can support.

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 am pleased to join with Senator Mikulski in recommending to the Senate the confirmation of Judge Paul William Grimm of Maryland to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Maryland. I am very proud of the process Senator Mikulski has instituted for making recommendations to the President to fill judicial appointments. I believe that under this process, we are able to get the very best to recommend to the President and then to our colleagues for confirmation. Judge Grimm clearly falls within this line. The Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported Judge Grimm's nomination by a voice vote on June 7 of this year. Judge Grimm was nominated to fill the vacancy that was created in Maryland when U.S. District Judge Benson E. Legg took senior status in June. Judge Grimm brings a wealth of experience to this position. Early in his career he served in the military in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, handled commercial litigation in private practice, and served as an assistant attorney general in Maryland. He also sat as a Federal magistrate judge in Maryland for 15 years. Judge Grimm was born in Japan and received his undergraduate degree from the University of California in 1973, and graduated from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 1976. Judge Grimm was admitted to the Maryland bar in 1977. He has strong roots, legal experience, and community involvement in the State of Maryland. Judge Grimm lives with his family in Towson, MD. After graduating law school, Judge Grimm began his legal career in Maryland as a captain in the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. He then worked in the Pentagon before heading back to the Baltimore region, alternating between working in private practice and working in the State attorney general's office, while continuing to serve as a U.S. Army JAG Corps officer with occasional stints in the Pentagon. In 1997 Judge Grimm was selected as a magistrate judge by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In 2006, Judge Grimm became the chief U.S. magistrate judge in Baltimore. In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Grimm to serve as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In 2010 he was designated as chair of the Civil Rules Committee's Discovery Subcommittee. I mention that because it is evident from the Chief Judge's appointment that Judge Grimm is a nationally recognized expert on cutting-edge issues of law and technology. He has written numerous authoritative opinions, books, and articles on the subject of evidence, civil procedure, and trial advocacy. He also continues to inspire the next generation of lawyers by teaching classes at both of our law schools. On several occasions Professor Grimm has been awarded the title of outstanding adjunct faculty member. As a magistrate judge, Judge Grimm has found time not only to teach but to be an outstanding professor. He has shown his commitment in so many ways to public service. As a magistrate judge, Judge Grimm is responsible for handling criminal matters such as issuing search warrants, conducting preliminary criminal proceedings, and presiding over misdemeanor criminal cases. Judge Grimm is also responsible for handling civil cases and has presided over bench and jury trials with the consent of the parties. Judge Grimm has conducted settlement conferences, resolved discovery disputes, and handled other nondispositive matters at the referral of the U.S. district judges. Judge Grimm has estimated that in his 15 years as a magistrate judge he presided over approximately 50 civil trials, 150 criminal misdemeanor trials, including jury and bench trials. He is well qualified and has the experience necessary to serve on our district court. He received a unanimous rating of well qualified, the highest possible rating for a judicial nominee from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. As I previously mentioned, he received a voice vote of confidence from the Judiciary Committee. I am absolutely confident that Judge Grimm possesses the qualifications, temperament, and passion for justice to make him an outstanding United States District Court judge for the District of Maryland. I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation here on the Senate floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate an arbitrary cap on the civilian and contractual workforce. The administration supports this amendment. Without this amendment being adopted, the Department said it will need to significantly divest workload and impose workforce caps. The amount of civilian and contractual workforce should be determined by mission, by workload and by budget, as the law provides. This arbitrary cap would be like a second sequestration type of cap on the civilian and contractual workforce. My cosponsors include Senators Akaka, Mikulski, Begich, Durbin, Brown of Ohio, McCaskill, Harkin, Boxer, Leahy, and Tester. I urge my colleagues to approve the amendment.