Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Lautenberg. I was listening to Senator Mikulski and Senator Bingaman on their comments to try to bring some common sense to our election laws by basically disclosing who contributes to the political process. That is something Republicans and Democrats have been together on for a long time. I don't know what happened. This seems to be an issue that doesn't get bipartisan support. I particularly wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this issue. He has been talking about this matter of DISCLOSE, along with Senator Schumer, since the Supreme Court decision in 2010 with the Citizens United decision. I must say that I think the Citizens United decision will go down as one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. I say that for many reasons. First and foremost, those who are students of our judicial system and our constitutional separation of powers will understand that the case that went up to the Supreme Court was a pretty narrow case based upon a 30-minute documentary. In that decision of Citizens United, the Court ruled in a very broad way that a corporation has all the rights of an individual in our political system. It is the first time that has happened. It reversed the legislation that had been passed by Congress. The Framers of our Constitution envisioned that it was the legislative branch of government that would make our laws and policies. The legislature, after a great deal of debate and after many different attempts, passed laws that restricted how much money corporations could put in our political system and how they had to do it in a very open and transparent manner. Then we had a reform bill known as the McCain- Feingold bill that spelled out certain restrictions. All of these cases and laws have been upheld over a long period of time by court decisions. In Citizens United, the Court not only substituted itself for the legislature but reversed its own precedent in ruling that corporations could literally put an unlimited amount of money into our political system. As I said, I think it was one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. It has now unleashed unlimited money in our political system. What corporations and undisclosed sources can now put into our elections will dwarf what individual contributors will make available in the political season. The Center for Responsive Politics has now said that super PACs and their related organizations have already spent over twice what similar groups spent 4 years ago. We not only have this unleashing of undisclosed corporate funds, we are now seeing the super PACs taking over as the major source of funding of campaigns. As Senator Mikulski just said on the Senate floor, if we run for office and solicit contributions, every one of those contributors is listed on our reports. We make quarterly reports so that the people of the Nation know who is financing our campaigns. They will not know who is financing these ads that are going to appear on television from these Citizens United-type political activities where we don't know where the money is coming from. It could come from a single source who wishes to influence our political system but does not want to be identified in the cause. I really think this compromises our democratic system. I think an individual could literally distort our political system through the use of money, and that is something I hope all of us would be concerned about. I am now a believer. I think the only thing we can do to overturn the Citizens United case is to support Senator Tom Udall's constitutional amendment. That amendment gives the Congress the power we thought we had to legislate. I think the people of Maryland, West Virginia, and our Nation would be surprised to learn that we cannot legislate the limits of what people can contribute in campaigns. They think that is our responsibility, not the Court's. Well, Senator Tom Udall's amendment would give us the power to do that and overturn the Citizens United case. I hope we could come together to let us have the power we should have. It seems to me that is something both Democrats and Republicans in this body should agree on, that those decisions should be made in the Congress of the United States and not in the Supreme Court or the courts of our land. The bill we have before us--and I urge my colleagues to let us move forward to the DISCLOSE Act--brings transparency into the campaign finance system. Many of us frequently talk about transparency. Transparency is the most important part of integrity in our system. We talk about a lot of other countries adding transparency to the way they do business. Well, we should have transparency in one of the most fundamental parts of our system, and that is how we conduct our elections. It is key to our democracy. It is Justice Brandeis who said that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' I don't understand why we would resist the public knowing who is contributing money to influence our political system. The DISCLOSE Act has the bipartisan support of the League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, and People for the American Way. Let me quote from a letter recently sent to Congress by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. It says: Hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent to influence the outcome of the elections over the next four months. Neither the candidates being attacked with these millions of dollars nor the public will have complete, accurate, meaningful information about the sources of such money. Only the contributors and the beneficiaries will be in the know. Passage of S. 3369 will mean that in future election cycles those funding these shadow campaigns will be disclosed to the public so that voters can make informed decisions at the polls. The letter goes on to say: As we get closer to the 2012 elections, the amount of federal campaign-related spending using funds from undisclosed sources continues to rise. Especially troubling is the lack of transparency regarding the expenditures of so- called ``Section 501(c) groups'' this election cycle, such as Priorities USA and Crossroads GPS. I have heard some of my colleagues say: Well, can we constitutionally do this? Is this allowed for us? After all, Citizens United sort of says anything goes. Well, let me quote from the Citizens United decision-- and this is very interesting--where the Court wrote: [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are in the pocket of so-called moneyed interests. The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and gives proper weight to the different speakers and messages. That is the Supreme Court speaking in Citizens United. We clearly have the authority to move at least this modest step forward to allow the American people to see who is making these contributions so they can make an informed judgment on election day. We owe it to the citizens of this country to take up and pass the DISCLOSE Act. Once again, I wish to thank my colleague, who is now on the Senate floor, Senator Whitehouse, for his leadership on this issue. As I said earlier, from day one when the Supreme Court issued its decision, it was Senator Whitehouse who immediately observed that we have to do something to make sure that those who use this process to influence our system--that information is disclosed so the public has the information they need in order to properly judge our elections.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his comments. I must tell the Senator, listening to him account to the people in Connecticut, to the individuals who are struggling in this economy, I can tell the Senator we have the same exact circumstances happening in Maryland. This past weekend I was with some small business owners who were telling me their plans for opening a new restaurant and opening a new gasoline station, telling me of the struggles they are having in getting financing. There are community banks that have money, but they cannot make the loans because of the new rating system, and it is very difficult to get the capital to get the type of expansions they need today to start a new business. In my State of Maryland, the high-tech and cybersecurity areas where we have small companies that are starting up to help our country, to help our country answer the problems of cybersecurity, help our country develop the type of biotech discoveries that will make our health care system more cost effective, are having a very difficult time putting together the capital in order to be able to move forward with job creation. The Senator and I know 60 percent of our job creation will come from small businesses. We also know innovation is more likely to come from small companies that find ways to work more cost effectively. Today in this economy it is a challenge for small business owners to be able to put together the business financing to create the jobs we need for our economy. The Senator also understands if we are going to balance our budget, if we are going to be able to move forward, we have to have more people working. A lot of people are looking for work and cannot find a job. We want more people working to fuel our economy. Also, by the way, they also pay taxes and help us bring our budget into balance. So I could not agree with the Senator more that we need to get Democrats and Republicans working together. Here we have a bill on the Senate floor that helps small businesses. Let's not filibuster this bill. Let's at least bring it up for an up-or-down vote. I thought in a democracy majority rules. Let's bring it up. Let's have a vote. Let's keep it to the small business issues. We all talk about our support for small businesses. Let's keep it to the issue before us: to create jobs, to help small businesses do that. The underlying bill--and I thank Senator Reid for the underlying bill--says to small businesses: If you add to our economy, if you create more jobs, if you increase your payroll, then we have tax help for you to do that. I must tell you, I think this is exactly what we need. We know businesses cannot get all the financing they need. They need some help in order to be able to put together new job opportunities. This bill provides that with a 10-percent credit on the cost of a new hire. That gives an incentive for the small business owner. It may be the difference between setting up that new restaurant or moving forward to add that employee that will not only help our economy but will help that company discover the way in which we can deal with the cyber threats to this country. So it helps our country, it creates the jobs, and this underlying bill should be discussed on the floor of the Senate without filibusters that deny us that chance. I also thank Senator Landrieu. Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Small Business Committee, has put forward a series of amendments. I am proud to have worked with her on the amendment she has brought forward that adds some provisions that are extremely important. I know in the underlying bill, working with Senator Landrieu, we have also the expensing provision. That is an important provision. As I am sure the Senator from Connecticut understands, that provision allows a business owner to go out and make a capital investment, to buy a piece of equipment. Rather than having to write it off over 3 years or 5 years or 10 years, they can write it off immediately, having the ability to buy that piece of equipment, to grow their business, and to be able to then write off the cost. It is just a timing issue for the businessperson, but it is the difference between making the investment or not making the investment, creating a job or not creating a job. By the way, by buying that piece of equipment, that business owner is also helping another business owner who is selling that piece of equipment, to get our economy back moving again. It is those types of commonsense provisions that have always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Senate--always. These are provisions we have had Democrats and Republicans working on together. We need to do that today. Let's move on with the bill. We have had it on the floor of the Senate now a couple days. Let's move on and start voting, but do not filibuster. Let's vote on relevant amendments. Can't we just stick with the small business issues and vote on that in order to help our economy grow? I am also pleased about another provision that is in the Landrieu amendment and the underlying bill now that we could have a chance to vote on that increases the surety bond limits for small businesses. This was passed by the Senate and incorporated into law in February 2009. I was proud to be the sponsor of this amendment that increased the surety bond limit from $2 million to $5 million. The reason this becomes important is, for a small business owner to be able to get a government contract of over $100,000, they need to have a surety bond. In order to get that surety bond, the small business owner has to take, usually, for security, some of their assets and pledge them for the surety bond rather than using them for the credit of the company, which is really a catch-22 situation. Increasing the limit from $2 million to $5 million frees up some of that ability because the government comes in, the Small Business Administration comes in and helps them with that surety bond. So if you are a construction contractor trying to get a Federal contract, the difference between $2 million and $5 million is a huge difference in the type of contracts that you can compete for. It is interesting that when we looked at it, we had projected it would generate about $147 million in additional bonding activity for projects of over $2 million, and we found that, in fact, it increased activity by $360 million. So the need was there. It generated strong activity. Democrats and Republicans supported it. I was proud of the support of Senator Landrieu and Senator Snowe. This is not a controversial issue. The only way we are going to get that increase--that expired in 2010. It is no longer part of the law. We are back to $2 million. So small business owners are at a disadvantage. We just have not had a chance to extend that. It is not controversial. It brings money into the economy. It is not scored. So we need to be able to get that done. If we cannot get to this bill, I do not know when we will get that increase in the surety bond limit. So that is another reason I urge my colleagues to let us vote on this bill to help small businesses in our community. It has always enjoyed bipartisan support. Here is what we are asking. My colleagues, we all talk about we want to create more jobs. We all talk about supporting small businesses because we know small businesses are the growth engine of America. We all know small businesses create more of the new patents, more of the new innovations per employee than the larger companies do. Let's put our action where our words are. We can do that today by allowing the Senate to move forward to consider amendments on the Reid bill that is before us--the Landrieu amendments. Let's move forward with that bill. Let's take up relevant amendments that deal with small business issues. Let's vote them up or down by a majority vote of the Senate. And then I am sure, at the end of the day when we put that bill up for final passage, it will enjoy broad support by the Members of this body. And it gives the American people confidence that we indeed are focused on job creation for America. I urge my colleagues to let us move forward on this bill. Let's take up the Landrieu amendments, take up the underlying bill. Let's do something that can help small businesses, help job growth, help our economy, and restore confidence to the American people that we are indeed dealing with the agenda they want us to do--moving our country forward, moving our economy forward by creating more jobs in our economy. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, a year ago, I shared with my colleagues concerns I had about the trajectory of democracy in Hungary. Unfortunately, since then Hungary has moved ever farther away from a broad range of norms relating to democracy and the rule of law. On June 6, David Kramer, the President of Freedom House who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor for President George W. Bush, summed up the situation. Releasing Freedom House's latest edition of Nations in Transit Kramer said: ``Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, under the pretext of so-called reforms, have been systematically breaking down critical checks and balances. They appear to be pursuing the `Putinization' of their countries.'' The report further elaborates, ``Hungary's precipitous descent is the most glaring example among the newer European Union (EU) members. Its deterioration over the past five years has affected institutions that form the bedrock of democratically accountable systems, including independent courts and media. Hungary's negative trajectory predated the current government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, but his drive to concentrate power over the past two years has forcefully propelled the trend.'' Perhaps the most authoritative voice regarding this phenomenon is the Prime Minister himself. In a February 2010 speech, Viktor Orban criticized a system of governance based on pluralism and called instead for: ``a large centralized political field of power . . . designed for permanently governing.'' In June of last year, he defended his plan to cement economic policy in so-called cardinal laws, which require a two- thirds vote in parliament to change, by saying, ``It is no secret that in this respect I am tying the hands of the next government, and not only the next one but the following ten.'' Checks and balances have been eroded and power has been concentrated in the hands of officials whose extended terms of office will allow them to long outlive this government and the next. These include the public prosecutor, head of the state audit office, head of the national judicial office, and head of the media board. Those who have expressed concerns about these developments have good reason to be alarmed. I am particularly concerned about the independence of the judiciary which, it was reported this week, will be the subject of infringement proceedings launched by the European Commission, and Hungary's new media law. Although there have been some cosmetic tweaks to the media law, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media has argued that it remains highly problematic. Indeed, one expert has predicted that the most likely outcome of the new law will be to squeeze out reporting on corruption. Hungary also adopted a new law on religion last year that had the stunning effect of stripping hundreds of religions of their legal recognition en masse. Of the 366 faiths which previously had legal status in Hungary, only 14 were initially granted recognition under the new law. Remarkably, the power to decide what is or is not a religion is vested entirely and exclusively in the hands of the legislature, making it a singularly politicized and arbitrary process. Of 84 churches that subsequently attempted to regain legal recognition, 66 were rejected without any explanation or legal rationale at all. The notion that the new framework should be acceptable because the faiths of most Hungarian citizens are recognized is poor comfort for the minority who find themselves the victims of this discriminatory process. This law also stands as a negative example for many countries around the world just now beginning tenuous movement towards democracy and human rights. Finally, a year ago, I warned that ``[i]f one side of the nationalism coin is an excessive fixation on Hungarian ethnic identity beyond the borders, the other side is intolerance toward minorities at home.'' I am especially concerned by an escalation of anti-Semitic acts which I believe have grown directly from the government's own role in seeking to revise Hungary's past. Propaganda against the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, which defines the current borders of Hungary, has manifested itself in several ways. Most concretely, the Hungarian government extended citizenship on the basis of ethnic or blood identity--something the government of Viktor Orban promised the Council of Europe in 2001 that it would not do and which failed to win popular support in a 2004 referendum. Second, the government extended voting rights to these new ethnic citizens in countries including Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine. This has combined with a rhetorical and symbolic fixation on ``lost'' Hungarian territories--apparently the rationale for displaying an 1848 map of Greater Hungary during Hungary's EU presidency last year. In this way, the government is effectively advancing central elements of the agenda of the extremist, anti-Semitic, anti-Roma Jobbik party. Moreover, implicitly--but unmistakably--it is sending the message that Hungary is no longer a civic state where political rights such as voting derive from citizenship, but where citizenship derives from one's ethnic status or blood identity. The most recent manifestation of this revisionism includes efforts to rehabilitate convicted war criminal Albert Wass and the bizarre spectacle of the Hungarian government's role in a ceremony in neighboring Romania--over the objections of that country--honoring fascist writer and ideologue Joszef Nyiro. That event effectively saw the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament, Laszlo Kover; the Hungarian State Secretary for Culture, Geza Szocs; and Gabor Vona, the leader of Hungary's most notoriously extremist party, Jobbik, united in honoring Nyrio. Several municipalities have now seen fit to erect statues honoring Miklos Horthy, Hungary's wartime leader, and the writings of Wass and Nyiro have been elevated onto the national curriculum. It is not surprising that this climate of intolerance and revisionism has gone hand-in-hand with an outbreak of intolerance, such as the antiSemitic verbal assaults on a 90-year old Rabbi and on a journalist, an attack on a synagogue menorah in Nagykanizsa, the vandalism of a Jewish memorial in Budapest and monuments honoring Raoul Wallenberg, the Blood Libel screed by a Jobbik MP just before Passover, and the recent revelation that a Jobbik MP requested--and received--a certificate from a genetic diagnostic company attesting that the MP did not have Jewish or Romani ancestry. We are frequently told that Fidesz is the party best positioned in Hungary to guard against the extremism of Jobbik. At the moment, there seems to be little evidence to support that claim. The campaign to rehabilitate fascist ideologues and leaders from World War II is dangerous and must stop. Ultimately, democracy and the rights of minorities will stand or fall together. Hungary is not just on the wrong track, it is heading down a dangerous road. The rehabilitation of disgraced World War II figures and the exaltation of blood and nation reek of a different era, which the community of democracies--especially Europe--had hoped was gone for good. Today's Hungary demonstrates that the battle against the worst human instincts is never fully won but must be fought in every generation.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Colonel David E. Anderson who will complete his 2-year tour of duty as commander and district engineer of the Baltimore District, Army Corps of Engineers, on July 20, 2012. Colonel Anderson will officially retire from the United States Army Corps of Engineers at the end of the year. Colonel Anderson's career has spanned 26 years of service where he has led both mechanized and airborne combat engineer units as well as commanding two USACE districts. Colonel Anderson excelled as the commander of the Baltimore District in the North Atlantic Division. He directed the successful operation of flood risk mitigation, hurricane protection, environmental restoration, Federal navigation and other water resource work within a 49,000 square mile area and along 7,000 miles of the Chesapeake Bay's environmentally sensitive shoreline. Colonel Anderson led the district as it responded to the Nation's Base Realignment and Closure 2005 mission, which brought a $7.2 billion construction and engineering effort to the National Capital Region. During his career he has served as the commander of the Honolulu District and two tours as a legislative assistant, including one tour as the legislative assistant to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and one tour as the legislative assistant to the Secretary of the Army. Colonel Anderson's dedication to duty, loyalty to the Nation, and personal engagement with soldiers, civilian personnel, and the public will be positively felt for years to come. His selfless service is in keeping with the highest traditions of the Corps of Engineers. Kara Anderson, Colonel Anderson's wife of 24 years, and his three children, also warrant our thanks. In addition to her unfailing support for her husband, she has played an active role in every military community that Colonel Anderson's career has taken him. The entire family has made important sacrifices for our Nation and they, too, deserve our thanks. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the contributions Colonel Anderson has made to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District and wish him and his family well in his retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. I rise to bring attention to Tourette syndrome, a neurological disorder that affects more than 200,000 Americans in the most severe form and as many as 3 million more who exhibit milder symptoms. Tourette syndrome or TS is characterized by repetitive involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics. The disorder is named for a French neurologist who in 1885 first described the condition in an 86-year-old woman. TS occurs in people from all ethnic groups and is present in males three to four times more often than in females. The early symptoms are typically noticed first in childhood, usually when a child is between the age of 3 and 9 years of age. Although TS can be a chronic condition with symptoms lasting a lifetime, most patients experience the most severe symptoms in their early teens, with some improvements occurring in the late teens and continuing into adulthood. In May, a 13-year-old boy named Jackson Guyton from Parkton, MD, visited my office to tell me about his experiences with Tourette. Jackson first noticed symptoms 5 years ago during the summer of 2007. While on vacation with his family at the beach, his body started making strange movements he could not control. First, came a head jerk, then eye-squinting and rolling; later, he started emitting high-pitched squeaking sounds. As Jackson put it: ``I was a regular kid one moment, with good grades and very few problems, then in the next I was rolling my eyes and making sounds. . . . like a fire alarm going off.'' In school, the sound was so loud his friends would cover their ears and avoid sitting near him in class, and parents of other children began complaining about his being in their children's class. With teachers who were uneducated on TS, the symptoms continued throughout the school year. So as to avoid ridicule, Jackson began skipping school or spending more time in the nurse's office than in class. Fortunately, Jackson's parents found a physician who was able to quickly diagnose the condition as Tourette Syndrome. Jackson changed schools and spent the next few years in treatment, trying various medications prescribed by his doctors. Those medicines were somewhat helpful. Jackson tried other treatments and clinical trials at Johns Hopkins University, where he met Dr. Matthew Specht, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry who teaches children exercises to help control the tics. That technique, cognitive behavioral intervention therapy or CBIT requires patients to use a great amount of focus and it does not work for everyone. But it did help Jackson control his squeaks. In the middle school, he encountered a guidance counselor named Mrs. Oates who helped change his life. In Jackson's words: She learned as much as she could about TS and helped me learn how to deal with the kids better and talk to teachers about what was happening. She also gave me a safe place to hang out when things were bad. Through her and a group that my mom started to help other families with TS in our area, I made a few friends who understood me better. She also helped Jackson develop a presentation for the 6th grade class in his school. Jackson is now 13 years of age, and in September he will enter the 9th grade at Hereford High School. He is no longer feeling depressed, and he no longer retreats from others because of his condition. Rather, he welcomes the opportunity to use his experiences to educate teachers and other students as a Youth Ambassador, a position for which he was trained at the National TSA Conference with about 40 other young people. Recently, he presented information about TS to more than 400 elementary school students. He says he truly enjoys answering their questions. He believes, as I do, it is important for people to understand that children with TS are not doing strange or disruptive things on purpose, and he just wants to be treated like everyone else. Jackson still has unpredictable and sometimes painful tics, but he knows now that TS will not stop him from accomplishing everything he wants to do in life. Last year, Jackson's little brother Davis was also diagnosed with TS. Jackson says that having a teacher who understands the problem and knows how to help is one of the most important things in the life of a child with TS. He is preparing a special presentation for Davis's class that he will deliver when the 2012-2013 school year starts. I am very proud of this young man. I am hopeful the examples set by him, his guidance counselor Mrs. Oates, and other TSA Youth Ambassadors are blazing a trial for those who are newly diagnosed. I am also pleased Congress understands how important public awareness of Tourette is. In 2000, Congress created the Tourette Syndrome Public Health Education Research Outreach Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The purpose of this program is to increase recognition and diagnosis of TS, reduce the stigma attached to the disorder, and increase the availability of effective treatment. The program also includes a public-private partnership between the CDC and the Tourette Syndrome Association, or TSA, that provides educational programs for physicians, allied health professionals and school personnel as well as those who have TS, their families, and the general public. To date, the CDC-TSA outreach program has conducted more than 520 educational programs for 32,000 professionals and community members nationwide. This program is working well. In addition, CDC has entered into a cooperative agreement with the University of Rochester and the University of South Florida to better understand the public health impact of tic disorders, including TS, for individuals and their families and the community. One of the areas being assessed is education, as they are looking at the effect of TS on standardized test scores, grade retention, and the presence of an individualized education program. Significantly, they are also measuring teachers' understanding of TS, and this information will be used to inform and improve outreach programs. I urge my colleagues to support full funding of this program again this year so we might expand awareness of TS and lead to a better quality of life for people such as Jackson and families across the Nation who are affected by this disorder. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. First, Mr. President, I thank Senator Bennet for his comments as they relate to the Affordable Care Act. I appreciate very much the point the Senator made that what was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama was really an evolution of work that had been done and recommendations that had been made by Democratic and Republican administrations over a long period of time and that what the Supreme Court did was uphold Congress's ability to move forward with a plan that will give every American access to affordable quality health care. I could not agree more with the Senator that we need to do work on this. We need to improve the bill. There are different things we need to work on, and Democrats and Republicans should be working together to move forward on the health care debate. I also appreciate the point the Senator raised that the House of Representatives--I think it is the 31st time they are acting on legislation that repeals all or part of the Affordable Care Act. But their strategy is to repeal the law, and they have nothing to move forward with. They do not have a plan. As the Senator pointed out, if that were to become the case--and it will not; we are not going to pass it in the Senate--parents who now have their children on their insurance policy, who are 23-, 24-, 25-years-old, would lose that opportunity, and parents who can now get their children covered by insurance who have preexisting conditions would lose that protection. The Patients' Bill of Rights that we have incorporated against abusive practices of private insurance companies--so that if someone goes into an emergency room with emergency conditions, they need to be reimbursed under prudent layperson standards--that could be lost. Our seniors could lose their wellness exams that are covered under Medicare. And we are closing the coverage gap on prescription drugs. That could be lost. Let me also point out that our seniors appreciate the fact that what we did in the Affordable Care Act extends the life of Medicare for about a decade. That would be lost. Small businesses will be able, in 2014, to go into exchanges and not be discriminated against by paying more for their insurance than a larger company. That would be lost. As the Senator knows, the attack on women's health care--this bill that is now law allows women to be treated equally with men as far as premiums are concerned. That would be lost. So I appreciate Senator Bennet taking the time on the floor to go over exactly what would happen if we were to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What we need to do, and I think the Court gave us this opportunity-- they spoke to the fact that it is up to Congress to move forward on this--it gives us a chance, Democrats and Republicans, to say: How can we make sure our health care system is as cost-effective as possible. In the Senate Finance Committee today, we had a roundtable discussion with experts as to how we can do delivery system reforms, use ways we can manage people with serious illnesses and bring down the cost. That is what we need to do. But the Affordable Care Act itself reduced health care costs. Look at the record. We will lose all that. We actually add to the deficit by repealing the Affordable Care Act. As the Senator knows, the House changed their rules so they can repeal the bill, even though it adds to the deficit. So I wanted to first thank the Senator for bringing this to the attention of our colleagues as to what is involved. I do think Democrats and Republicans need to work together. The one comment I hear more and more from my constituents is stop the gridlock in Washington. Stop debating the old issues. Let's move forward. Let's create jobs. Let's work together. Let's get the job done for the American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to comment on the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. This was a good day for the American people. It allows us to move forward with providing universal health care coverage for all Americans--affordable, quality health care. I wish to quote from a former Member of this body when he said: For me, this is a season of hope, new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many and not just for a few, new hope. And this is the cause of my life, new hope that will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American-- north, south, east, west, young, old--will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege. That was a statement from our former colleague, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, on August 26, 2008. This Congress acted and did what was right to move this Nation forward to join all the other industrial nations in the world to say health care is a right, not a privilege. The Supreme Court today recognized it was Congress's responsibility, and Congress had the legal authority to move forward. As a result of this decision, we are going to find that $10.7 billion has been recovered already today by dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system. We will be able to continue with those programs that make our health care system more affordable. We will be able to continue health care coverage for those between the ages of 19 and 25 who are now on their parents' health insurance policy; 3.1 million young adults have benefited from that provision of the Affordable Care Act that was upheld by the Supreme Court today. Seventeen million children with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage by their insurers. That provision is now safe as a result of the Supreme Court decision. And 5.3 million Americans on Medicare have saved, on average, $600 on their prescription drugs. As you know, we worked in this Affordable Care Act to close the coverage gap--the so-called doughnut hole--on prescription drug coverage for our seniors. In upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court allows us to continue to make sure that coverage gap is eliminated. There are 70,000 Americans with preexisting conditions who now have the security to know their coverage is safe. In addition, in 2011, 32.5 million seniors received one or more free preventive services. So far in 2012, 14 million seniors have already received these services. The expansion of benefits in Medicare that was under the Affordable Care Act, providing the wellness exam and eliminating the copayments on preventive health services, will also now be saved and our seniors will be able to continue to receive those benefits. On the doughnut hole, the coverage gap on prescription drugs will save $3.7 billion for 5.2 million seniors, with an average of $651. This is real money. This is the difference between some seniors being able to take their medicines or having to leave them on the pharmacist's desk. That is now also protected. Insurance companies will provide almost 13 million Americans with over $1 billion in rebates in 2012. We put into the health reform proposals protections against excessive premiums by private insurance companies. Well, that is going to save consumers in America over $1 billion. And 105 million Americans will no longer have lifetime limits on their coverage. Insurance should be there to protect you. Before the Affordable Care Act, there were limits that might not have covered extraordinary costs, catastrophic costs. We now have that protection as a result of the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court's upholding that decision today. It is also important for small businesses. In 2011, 360,000 small businesses took advantage of the tax credit that helps small companies afford to buy health insurance for their employees. When we fully implement this bill in 2014, small companies will enjoy the same larger pools and lower premiums that larger companies enjoy today in covering around 2 million workers. So we have already made a significant amount of progress as a result of the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court upholding that law today. I wish to talk a minute about the Patients Bill of Rights. One of the major parts of the bill was to take on the abusive practices of private insurance companies. We all know that was at risk if the Supreme Court did not uphold the actions of Congress. As a result of upholding the actions of Congress, we now find, for example, access to emergency care, a provision I worked on, says it is prudent for you to go to an emergency room if you are having shortness of breath, if you are having chest pains. It is the right thing to do to go to the emergency room and that your insurance company has to pay for that visit. It can't go by your final diagnosis that it may not be a heart attack. After you get your bill, and it is not paid for by your insurance company--you might have a heart attack--this bill protects a person and makes sure insurance companies do not use abusive practices against you. Access to women's health care is guaranteed under the Patients Bill of Rights. Access to pediatric care and choice of health care professional as your primary care--all that is in what we call the Patients Bill of Rights that protects you against abusive practices of private insurance companies. Clinical trial coverage is also here, and the provision I worked on, health disparities. We know we pay a heavy cost in America because of health disparities in minority populations and in gender issues. We now have a National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health. That will help us understand why we have these disparities in our system and what we can do to reduce those disparities, because it is the right policy for America and it will also save us money. That law now is protected. That institute is protected and is no longer in jeopardy as a result of the Supreme Court's upholding of the Affordable Care Act. Let me talk about oral health care. We have talked frequently on the floor here about Deamonte Driver, the 12-year-old in Maryland who, in 2007, had no health insurance and could not get access to dental care and lost his life. We said that was not going to happen again in our State, or anyplace in the Nation, and we are proud that children's access to pediatric health care--dental care--is protected under the essential benefit provisions in the Affordable Care Act that was upheld by the Supreme Court today. I also want to comment on the importance of the legal decision beyond health care. To me, it shows the Supreme Court was able to find a way to advance the rule of law and to follow precedent we have seen in upholding programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are mandatory insurance programs. It is the right decision on the rule of law. It is the right legacy for this Court to find a way--in a Supreme Court that has nine different Justices with different views--to come together on an opinion that upheld the authority of Congress to act on a major national problem. Now it is time for us to move forward. This issue has been litigated. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of this decision. It is constitutional. I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to work together to implement this bill in the best manner for the people of this Nation. We know we are saving money, we know the Congressional Budget Office says the implementation of the Affordable Care Act will save hundreds of billions of dollars over the first 10 years and then trillions of dollars beyond that in our health care system. Let's work together to make sure it works. Let's work together in the interest of the American people. Let's put our partisan fights aside, let's accept what the Supreme Court has done, and let's move forward to get this law implemented in the most cost-effective way so we can indeed achieve the goal Senator Kennedy was talking about--that every American should have access to affordable quality care in the richest Nation in the world. With that, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Kirk and Mikulski to introduce the Responding to Urgent needs of Survivors of the Holocaust Act or the RUSH Act. Our bill will provide needed protections for survivors of the Holocaust who managed to make it to the United States after years of prolonged terror, abuse, and desperation. Millions fled from the cruelty of the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945, from territories annexed, invaded or occupied by Nazi Germany and from their Axis partner countries in Europe as well. Millions of others were killed during the Holocaust, exterminated by a ruthless machine propagated by the Nazi party. Those who escaped the terror of the Nazi regime carried with them experiences that can never be forgotten, and have adversely affected their ability to cope with institutionalized settings. Many Holocaust survivors living in the United States would prefer to spend their days at home with their families, rather than being moved into settings where they lose autonomy, privacy, and control, which can bring back painful trauma from their experiences under Nazi rule. This bill would amend the Older Americans Act to ensure that Holocaust survivors can better access needed services, such as health care and nutrition services, without having to live in a nursing or assisted living facility. As of 2010, there were approximately 127,000 Holocaust survivors living in the United States, and more than three quarters of them are over age 75, with a majority in their 80s and 90s. By focusing on home and community-based long-term care, we can help ensure that fewer survivors are dependent on the unpaid support of family caregivers, or have to resort to unnecessary institutionalization. All aging Americans deserve access to needed community supports and services in comfortable settings that are neither mentally nor physically traumatizing. These great Americans deserve our efforts to ensure that they are better able to age in place. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Kirk and Mikulski to introduce the Responding to Urgent needs of Survivors of the Holocaust Act or the RUSH Act. Our bill will provide needed protections for survivors of the Holocaust who managed to make it to the United States after years of prolonged terror, abuse, and desperation. Millions fled from the cruelty of the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945, from territories annexed, invaded or occupied by Nazi Germany and from their Axis partner countries in Europe as well. Millions of others were killed during the Holocaust, exterminated by a ruthless machine propagated by the Nazi party. Those who escaped the terror of the Nazi regime carried with them experiences that can never be forgotten, and have adversely affected their ability to cope with institutionalized settings. Many Holocaust survivors living in the United States would prefer to spend their days at home with their families, rather than being moved into settings where they lose autonomy, privacy, and control, which can bring back painful trauma from their experiences under Nazi rule. This bill would amend the Older Americans Act to ensure that Holocaust survivors can better access needed services, such as health care and nutrition services, without having to live in a nursing or assisted living facility. As of 2010, there were approximately 127,000 Holocaust survivors living in the United States, and more than three quarters of them are over age 75, with a majority in their 80s and 90s. By focusing on home and community-based long-term care, we can help ensure that fewer survivors are dependent on the unpaid support of family caregivers, or have to resort to unnecessary institutionalization. All aging Americans deserve access to needed community supports and services in comfortable settings that are neither mentally nor physically traumatizing. These great Americans deserve our efforts to ensure that they are better able to age in place. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and commemorate Loyola University of Maryland's victory in the 2012 NCAA Men's Lacrosse Championship and to honor the players, coaches, and administrators who helped to secure Loyola's first Division I National Championship. For much of recent history, NCAA Division I Lacrosse has been dominated by a small group of eight, elite programs. But last month, a Jesuit university on Charles Street in downtown Baltimore became the smallest school ever to win a Division I National Championship. Loyola joins the ranks of such universities as Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Syracuse, and Cornell, in becoming just the ninth team to win a championship since the event's creation in 1971. This year's Division I National Championship set the stage for an afternoon of record-shattering lacrosse. The Greyhound defense and goalkeeper Jack Runkel set a new NCAA Division I record for fewest goals allowed in a national championship game, giving up only three goals despite a barrage of nearly thirty shots taken by the highly motivated University of Maryland offense. Loyola University's star offensive player, Eric Lusby, had a busy day as well. He scored four goals in the championship game, bringing his total to 17 during the final four games of the season, setting a new NCAA tournament record. He also broke Loyola's single season scoring record with a total of 54 goals. Loyola University players were not the only ones to break records last month. Head Coach Charley Toomey became the first coach ever to win an NCAA title on his first trip to the NCAA tournament. With 18 wins and only one loss, the players and coaches of the 2012 Greyhounds lacrosse team have firmly cemented themselves as the most successful team in Loyola's history. The team's achievements are even more impressive when you consider that the Greyhounds started the season as an unranked team. Lacrosse has long played a central role in the athletic culture of Maryland, and I am proud to see that this year's All-Tournament Team selections reflect this reality. Eight of the ten players selected to receive All-Tournament honors call Maryland home, with five coming from the Loyola Greyhounds team and three from the University of Maryland. With Loyola's victory in this year's championship, Maryland is now home to three of the nine teams that have ever won a national championship, further securing our State's reputation as the center of collegiate lacrosse. In light of these impressive accomplishments, I call upon my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating Loyola University's players, Coach Charley Toomey, Athletic Director Jim Paquette, and President, the Rev. Brian Linnane, S.J. on a championship season and the many amazing achievements that carried the Greyhounds to victory.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the bicentennial celebration of the War of 1812. The U.S. Congress declared war on Great Britain 200 years ago this week. The State of Maryland is proud of its contributions to this ``Second War for Independence,'' which reinforced United States sovereignty and gave birth to our national anthem. A generation after the United States declared its independence from Great Britain, the mercantilist ties between the two countries were not fully severed. The British impressed American merchant seamen, enforced illegal and unfair trade regulations, colluded with certain Native American tribes to attack frontier settlements, and attempted to block westward expansion. The United States declared war to assert autonomy over its own affairs once again, establish free trade, protect sailors' rights, and ensure that our Nation could prosper from sea to shining sea. President James Madison eloquently outlined these reasons 200 years ago when he called on ``all the good people of the United States, as they love their country, as they value the precious heritage derived from the virtue and valor of their fathers . . . [to] exert themselves in preserving order, in promoting concord, in maintaining the authority and efficacy of the laws, and in supporting and invigorating all the measures which may be adopted by the constituted authorities for obtaining a speedy, a just, and an honorable peace.'' The contributions of the U.S. Navy were instrumental in repelling the British during the War of 1812. The U.S. Navy hardly had a dozen warships compared to the hundreds of ships comprising the British fleet. British ships were undermanned, however, while well-trained and talented officers and seamen took command of American ships. These men were largely from coastal States, like Maryland, and were accustomed to seafaring. COMO Matthew Perry took on the British Navy on Lake Erie in 1813 with a scrappy fleet of light ships. Even though his force was seemingly decimated by the British, Commodore Perry resorted to paddling a rowboat with a banner that read ``Don't Give up the Ship.'' He then boarded the Niagara, double-loaded the carronades, and sailed directly into the British line, ultimately claiming victory. The following summer, in 1814, the British Navy sailed up the Chesapeake Bay to attack our Nation's capital and seize the valuable port city of Baltimore. The British dealt heavy blows to Washington, DC, setting both the U.S. Capitol and the White House ablaze. British forces then moved toward Baltimore. Citizens of Baltimore, including free Blacks, quickly mobilized to protect their city. Barricades stretching more than 1 mile long were constructed to protect the harbor, hulls were sunk to impede navigation, and a chain of masts was erected across the harbor entrance. When the British fleet approached Baltimore at North Point, Marylanders fought the British Army and helped repulse the British Navy from Fort McHenry during the Battle of Baltimore. It is important to note that American forces during the Battle of North Point were volunteer militia, heavily outnumbered by the highly trained British infantry, but managed to delay the British forces long enough for 10,000 American reinforcements to arrive, preventing a land attack against Baltimore. Following 25 hours of intense British naval bombardment at Fort McHenry, the American defenders refused to yield, and the British were forced to depart. During the bombardment, American lawyer Francis Scott Key, who was being held on board an American flag-of-truce vessel in Baltimore Harbor, took notice of the American flag still flying atop Fort McHenry. Key realized then that the Americans had survived the battle and stopped the enemy advance. He was so moved by the sight of the American flag flying following the horrific bombardment, he composed a poem called ``The Defense of Fort McHenry,'' which was published in the Baltimore Patriot and Advertiser newspaper later that year. This poem, and later the song, inspired love of country among the American people and not only helped usher in the ``era of good feelings'' immediately after the war, but became a timeless reminder of American resolve. ``The Star Spangled Banner'' officially became our National Anthem in 1931. The flag that flew over Fort McHenry and inspired this anthem is now a national treasure on display at the Smithsonian Institution, a very short distance from where we are today. The War of 1812 confirmed the legitimacy of the Revolution and served as a critical test for the U.S. Constitution and newly established democratic government. Our young Nation battled against the largest, most powerful military on the Earth at that time and emerged with an enhanced standing among the countries of the world, both militarily and diplomatically. The U.S. economy was freed of its dependence on British goods, which unleashed domestic manufacturing and spawned the industrial revolution. The U.S. Navy proved its worth and the U.S. Congress rewarded the Navy with funding for a permanent, more expansive fleet. A new generation of Americans too young to remember Lord Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown, which effectively ended the Revolutionary War, and an older generation proud of defending American independence twice in their lifetimes, were inspired by Francis Scott Key's words, which embody our universal feelings of patriotism and courage. As a Marylander, I am proud of the contributions of my State in the War of 1812 and I have been involved in legislative efforts to bring greater attention to this bicentennial celebration. My colleague, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, and I sponsored the Commemorative Coin Act, which President Obama signed into law in August 2010, directing the U.S. Mint to create coins commemorating this important anniversary. These gold and silver coin designs are emblematic of the War of 1812, particularly the Battle of Baltimore that inspired our National Anthem. The coins are on sale this year only and the surcharges from these commemorative coins will provide support to the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission to conduct activities, assist in educational outreach, and preserve sites and structures relating to the War of 1812. I am proud that Maryland will lead the Star-Spangled 200 celebration, a 3-year celebration that just began with Baltimore's ``Sailabration'' this past weekend. The Navy's Blue Angels treated spectators to dazzling air shows; the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra premiered the ``Overture for 2012,'' composed by Philip Glass; and dozens of tall ships and naval warships from around the world anchored in the Inner Harbor, open for public tours. Through 2014, Maryland will host numerous events along the Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail and at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine to celebrate the bicentennial. This commemoration is an opportunity to showcase to the world that Maryland is an exceptional place to live, work, and visit. I am also proud that the U.S. Senate unanimously adopted a resolution I sponsored to mark the bicentennial, to celebrate the heroism of the American people during the conflict, and to recognize the various organizations involved in the bicentennial celebration, including the U.S. Armed Forces, the National Park Service, and the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission. As we recognize all of these ongoing efforts during this commemorative period, I encourage all Americans to remember the sacrifice of those who gave their lives to defend our nation's freedom and democracy in its infancy, and to join in the bicentennial celebration of our victory in the War of 1812.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first I want to thank Senator Boxer for her extraordinary leadership on these issues. I invite my friend from Wyoming to come to Glen Burnie, MD, and see the 12,000 megawatt Brandon Shores powerplant which it is not only operating, but it is in full compliance with Maryland's healthy air law that is very similar to the proposed regulations we are debating today. That powerplant didn't close. It made the investments so that we have a clean energy source and in the process created 2,000 jobs in modernizing that powerplant. That is why we have many companies that support the regulation, because they know it is going to mean more jobs--including Ceres and American Boiler Manufacturers Association, as well as companies such as WL Gore. I want to thank Senator Rockefeller for his extraordinary statement. I was on the floor listening to him speaking on behalf of the people of West Virginia. They are interested in a clean economy, good health, and jobs. I want to thank Senator Alexander for speaking up for the people of Tennessee, because he understands the importance of sensible air quality standards. I want to speak on behalf of the people of Maryland, on behalf of the families I have the honor of representing in the Senate. This is the week that summer camps start. Some parents are going to have to make a decision, when we have a day that is rated as a code orange or a code red because of air quality issues concerning ground- level ozone, as to whether they are going to send their child to camp that day if that child has a respiratory issue, an asthma issue, as to whether that child should be outdoors during that day when we have these air quality warnings. If the parent decides to keep the child at home, they have lost that day of camp and the cost of that day of camp. They have lost a day of work, because somebody is going to have to stay at home with the child. If they send the child to camp and they have an episode, they may be one of the over 12,000 children who will end up in emergency rooms as a result of dirty air that could be cleaned up by the passage and enactment of these regulations. The chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee can tell us chapter and verse about the number of premature deaths and those with chronic bronchitis. These toxins that are going into our air cause cancers and neurological developmental and reproductive problems. It is particularly dangerous for children. And the source? Powerplants that have not put in the investment for clean air. This is doable. It has been done in Maryland and in many powerplants around the Nation. In fact, my State--concerned about our children, concerned about our health--passed the Maryland Healthy Air Act, and the mercury standards in that legislation are very similar to what these regulations would require. Maryland has reduced its mercury and its SOX and NOX emissions from the 22-percent level, 90 percent mercury, 80 percent sulfur dioxide, and 70 percent NOX. And it helped our economy, as I have already pointed out, in the Brandon Shores work that was done. But here is the challenge we have in Maryland. Maryland's experience shows that an aggressive timeline is not only achievable but it is also desirable. Powerplants are capable of meeting aggressive timelines, and the benefits are unparalleled. Air pollution control protects public health and saves billions of dollars associated with medical costs. The Environmental Protection Agency is required to do a study of cost benefit: How much cost for how much benefit? For every $1 of compliance cost, we save $3 to $9 for our economy. That is a great investment. We like those types of investments. The Maryland experience also shows that we need a national standard to effectively address air pollution. Maryland has done what is right, but our children are still at risk. Why? Because air pollution knows no State boundary. We are downwind. We have done what is right, but our children are still at risk. That is why we need these standards. We showed that you can do it in a cost-effective way, creating jobs for our community. You can have a clean environment, you can have a growing economy. In fact, you can't do it without it. And that is what these regulations are about. As Senator Alexander said, we have been waiting 20 years for these regulations. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act. In 2008, our courts said we can't delay it any longer. It is our responsibility to protect the public health. It is our responsibility to do what is right. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that would deny us the opportunity of protecting our public health. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 96th anniversary of Flag Day in the United States and to draw attention to its heightened significance in this year, the 200th anniversary of the United States' `Second War of Independence,' the War of 1812. Since its adoption by the Second Continental Congress in 1777, our flag, with its thirteen stripes and fifty stars, has proudly stood as a beacon of liberty and justice throughout the world. For more than 200 years our flag has stood as a tangible expression of our Nation and the lofty ideals it was created to protect. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson sought to formally recognize the significant cultural and historical legacy that our flag embodies, proclaiming that the fourteenth of June should be known as Flag Day as a means of commemorating the Flag Resolution of 1777. While Flag Day was celebrated in many communities across the country in the years following Wilson's proclamation, it was not until 1949 that President Truman signed an Act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day and the week on which it falls as National Flag Week. My State of Maryland plays a prominent role in the rich and storied history of our national Flag. Shortly after the British sack of Washington, D.C., the Royal Navy turned its gaze north, moving in force towards the strategic port city of Baltimore, MD. Despite the lack of formally trained, commissioned soldiers, the citizens of Baltimore diligently prepared the city's defenses and steadfastly stood their ground against the better equipped and trained forces of the British military. Despite their manifold disadvantages, the volunteer militia fought valiantly during the Battle of North Point, holding off the British infantry long enough for reinforcements to arrive. With their ground forces stymied, the British Navy commenced its intense, 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry. However, the bombardment was to no avail, as the stalwart American defenders refused to yield and the British were forced to depart. During the bombardment, American lawyer Francis Scott Key, who was being held aboard an American flag-of-truce vessel in Baltimore Harbor, beheld by the dawns early light the American flag still fluttering in the breeze atop Fort McHenry. At that moment, Key realized the Americans had survived the assault and stopped the enemy advance. Deeply moved by the sight of the American flag after the devastating assault, he immortalized the event in a poem entitled ``The Defense of Fort McHenry,'' which was later set to music and renamed ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' On March 3, 1931, President Herbert Hoover signed a Congressional resolution, formally making the ``Star Spangled Banner'' the national anthem of the United States. The flag that flew over Fort McHenry during that fateful night is now a national treasure that remains on display at the Smithsonian Institution as a stirring inspiration to all Americans. Each year the National Flag Day Foundation of Baltimore sponsors a moving ceremony at the Fort McHenry National Monument and Historical Shrine which brings our community together in celebration and remembrance of our illustrious history. America's flag graces classrooms, statehouses, courtrooms, and churches, serving as a daily reminder of this Nation's past accomplishments and ongoing dedication to safeguarding individual rights and political freedom. Whether it is being carried into battle by the brave members of our armed forces as they fulfill their missions in defense of democracy and peace or flying over the public buildings, the flag is a badge of honor for all to see--a sign of our citizens' common purpose. This week and throughout the year let us do all we can to teach younger generations the significance of our flag and to respect the men and women who have fallen to protect it. In red, white, and blue, we see the spirit of a Nation, the resilience of our Union, and the promise of a future forged in common purpose and dedication to the principles that have always kept America strong. As we reflect on our heritage, let us remember that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and 13 stripes, united as one, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I join Senators Shaheen and Klobuchar, and I particularly thank Senator Whitehouse for bringing us together. Senator Boxer was on the floor earlier talking about the transportation conference committee, and Senator Begich is also here. We are all here because of the urgency of the conference report being presented to us so that we have a multiyear reauthorization of the transportation programs of this country. Let me point out, I know a lot of times our constituents are confused as to why legislation cannot move here. Clearly, the holdup in passing the surface transportation reauthorization is the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They are blocking a bill that has broad support from the industries that are affected by it, from the public, and from both Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate. We passed a consensus bill. It is not even bipartisan, it is consensus. We were able to get the right balance between public transportation and transit and highways and bridges. We have the proper balance between how the money is controlled at the State level and how it is controlled at the local level. We have worked out a reform of our transportation programs to do this in a most efficient way. That bill is being held up for one reason and one reason alone; that is, the politics of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They believe they can score political points by blocking any legislation from moving. Let me underscore the points my colleagues have mentioned. This bill is all about jobs. It is all about rebuilding America and saving and preserving jobs. On Sunday I was in Cumberland, MD, talking about the first Federal highway, the national highway that was built over 200 years ago, which was the first subsidized road in America. That brought jobs to our communities. It connected the East with the expanding Nation. Quite frankly, this Transportation bill connects our Nation, and it is important for jobs. In the western part of Maryland, we have the Appalachian highway that we need to complete, the north-south highway. That will affect jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. That is what this is about here. A short-term extension costs us jobs. Last month we lost 28,000 jobs as a result of not being able to pass a multiyear surface transportation program. We lose the construction season, as my colleagues have pointed out. And quite frankly, we have the bill before us. We have the votes to pass it. So what we are asking today is that the Republicans in the House release this bill, allow us to move forward so we can create jobs for America and continue the economic expansion for America that we need through modern transportation. That is what this is about, and that is why we are here today, to remind our colleagues, the Republicans in the House--the extremists who are holding up this bill--this is a bill that is important for our Nation. Let's move forward with the people's business. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of T. Susan Gladhill, MSW, who will be retiring as Chief Government & Community Affairs Officer and Vice President after more than three decades of service to the University of Maryland, Baltimore--UMB. Sue began her career at UMB as an instructor at the School of Social Work, where she had earned her Master's degree in Social Work. Then, she joined the president's office, first as an assistant in government affairs. One of her first tasks was to secure passage of legislation to privatize the University of Maryland Hospital. During Sue's tenure, she has served as associate vice president for government affairs, vice president for government affairs, and--since 1995--vice president for external affairs, a position which also includes managing UMB's communications and development. Sue has done an admirable job representing the University of Maryland's legislative interests. She helped to acquire construction funding for the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center and she was involved in landmark legislation that re- established the University System of Maryland as a public corporation. She also worked on passage of the Public Private Partnership Act, which made it possible for university faculty to enter into business relationships with the private sector. This act was critically important with regard to establishing a highly successful technology transfer program. Sue has also been a prolific fundraiser for the university, raising money for the Health Sciences & Human Service Library and the Schools of Social Work, Nursing, Law, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Health Science Facilities I, II, and III. She has raised funds for renovating research space in Howard Hall. She was instrumental in establishing an institutional-affiliated foundation known as the University of Maryland Baltimore Foundation, which has grown its assets to just under $200 million since 2000. She is the foundation's president and chief executive officer. Through it all, Sue has also managed to serve as an adjunct clinical associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sue Gladhill for her dedicated service and consummate leadership at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She has contributed greatly to the success of the excellent education and services provided by the University of Maryland's prestigious graduate schools and medical center, and she will be missed. Please join me in wishing her well in her retirement. She certainly has earned it.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the life of retired Navy LCDR Wesley Anthony Brown, who passed away on May 22, 2012, at the age of 85. Lieutenant Commander Brown was the sixth African American to attend and first to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1949, where he excelled as a notable student and athlete. Lieutenant Commander Brown went on to have a distinguished career in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and retired in 1969 after serving 20 years. Lieutenant Commander Brown is survived by his wife, Crystal Brown; two daughters, Wiletta Scott and Carol Jackson; two sons, Wesley Jr., and Gary; and seven grandchildren. I would like to take a moment to remember his life and what his accomplishments meant not just for the African American midshipmen who followed him at the Naval Academy, but also for our military and for our Nation. Lieutenant Commander Brown was born on April 3, 1927 in Baltimore, MD. He was the only child of William and Rosetta Brown. He grew up in Washington, D.C., and graduated from Dunbar High School, where he showed strong proficiency for math and a profound interest in the Navy. In fact, he worked on afternoons and evenings as a junior clerk for the Navy and during his senior year in high school he served as the Cadet Corps Battalion Commander. He later wrote an article in the Saturday Evening Post: ``I've been thinking about the Navy since I was about 8 or 10 since the time I pinned the photograph of the old USS Lexington on my bedroom wall. I arranged my high school studies to get as much math and science as possible.'' This dedication and love of the Navy lasted throughout Lieutenant Commander Brown's life. Lieutenant Commander Brown was the first in his family to attend college. He first enrolled at Howard University before being nominated by Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. to attend the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) in 1945. Five young African American men had entered USNA before Lieutenant Commander Brown, but they all left within a year because they could not endure the brutal hazing from hostile classmates. Lieutenant Commander Brown recalled that his first year at the Academy was ``tough,'' being subject to the constant torrent of racial epithets, taunts, and excessive demerits from upperclassman who wanted to see him fail the Naval Academy. Other midshipmen refused to sit next to him, room with him, or even allow him to join the choir. He once told an interviewer that he thought about quitting every day. Yet, he endured. Lieutenant Commander Brown did have a few supporters at the Naval Academy. There were a handful of fellow midshipmen who were friendly to him in spite of threats from other classmates. One of them who visited his dorm room to chat and encourage him to ``hang in there'' was future president Jimmy Carter, an upperclassman and teammate on the Academy's cross-country team at the time. In a speech President Carter gave at the Naval Academy last year, he mentioned Lieutenant Commander Brown. President Carter remarked that Midshipman Brown had a significant impact on his views on the issue of race in America. He called his encounter with Wesley Brown at USNA ``my first personal experience with total integration'' and said, ``A few members of my senior class attempted to find ways to give him demerits so that he would be discharged, but Brown's good performance prevailed.'' Although African Americans had served and fought in our wars since the American Revolution, the Armed Forces remained segregated by units until President Truman integrated the military services by executive order in 1948. There was intense resistance against any attempts to integrate the military academies and only a half dozen or so African Americans had graduated from West Point by the time Lieutenant Commander Brown was commissioned as the first African American graduate of the Naval Academy. After Lieutenant Commander Brown graduated from the Naval Academy in 1949, he was commissioned into the Navy Civil Engineer Corps. Prior to that, he served honorably in World War II and after he graduated, he served in Korea and Vietnam. As a Navy civil engineer, he also built houses in Hawaii, roads in Liberia, waterfront facilities in the Philippines, and a seawater conversion plan in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba before retiring from the Navy in 1969. Lieutenant Commander Brown continued his professional life working for the New York State University Construction Fund, the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, and Howard University before retiring in 1998. He also served as chairman of District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's Service Academy Selection Board. In spite of the challenges Lieutenant Commander Brown faced at the Naval Academy, he maintained a close connection to the school throughout his life and served as a member of the Naval Academy Alumni Association Board of Trustees. And in 2008, USNA honored Lieutenant Commander Brown by dedicating a new athletic facility in his name, a decision I supported while I served in the House of Representatives and since I have become a United States Senator. The Wesley A. Brown Field House was the first and only building dedicated to a living alumnus and, in his honor, the building hosts an annual track and field invitational. During the dedication of the building on the banks of the Severn River, ADM Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, ``He fought a war his whole life for all of us to improve who we are as individuals, who we are both as a Navy and a nation. It was his noble calling and it was his call to service and citizenship that led to lasting change in our Navy and in our nation.'' In another tribute to this pioneer, a consortium of minority Naval Academy alumni established the Lieutenant Commander Wesley A. Brown '49 Honor Scholar scholarship in 2007 which awards up to $5,000 annually to four individuals who are accepted into any 4-year university in Maryland. Although we have come a long way since Lieutenant Commander Brown's days as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, our Armed Forces and Nation are still challenged with discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and the other attributes of heterogeneity that make up this great country. While minority and female students may walk freely through our military academies without the audible taunts and slurs, we know that some of them face hazing and harassment behind closed doors because of who they are. While I know that Department of Defense leaders have a zero-tolerance policy regarding discrimination and harassment in their Service Academies, commands and units, that is not enough. I call on them to go a step further and redouble their efforts to communicate to those who currently serve and those who will serve our Nation in the future what makes our military the greatest force in history: the fact that our Armed Forces reflect the rich diversity of America. We owe it to Lieutenant Commander Brown and others like him who bravely endured racism and discrimination to pave the way so that others could serve honorably, too, and accomplish exceptional achievements on behalf of our country. Therefore, let Lieutenant Commander Brown's life be a testament to how his strength, courage, and humility through adversity not only transformed the people around him but profoundly affected the Naval Academy and our Nation. Today, minorities comprise more than 20 percent of the brigade of midshipmen and many of these young men and women have stated that Lieutenant Commander Brown was their inspiration. All Americans are fortunate to have had Lieutenant Commander Wesley Anthony Brown's selfless service and example.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to support the Paycheck Fairness Act that we are going to have a chance to vote on tomorrow. I hope my colleagues will support the effort of my colleague Senator Mikulski in allowing S. 3220 to move forward. I congratulate my colleague Senator Mikulski for her incredible leadership on behalf of women's issues. She has done that throughout her entire career, and we knew she would be in the forefront of this effort for paycheck fairness. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with her in this fight for basic justice in our Nation, to provide equality of pay in this country based upon a person's work and not a person's gender. It builds on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that was signed by President Kennedy. Yes, 1963 was the year Congress first spoke and said we are going to have equal pay for equal work in America, that America would show leadership internationally to say: Let's end discrimination against women in the workplace. That legislation fought sex discrimination in employment wages, including the fact that such discrimination not only depressed wages and living standards for female employees, but it affected our entire labor resources here in America, holding back the development of our country. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from engaging in discrimination against their employees based on gender. Today, women still face a pay gap. In 1963, women made 59 cents for every $1 made by a man. Those were the numbers in 1963. Today, women make just 77 cents for every $1 made by a man for equal work or comparable duties. That means a woman has to work 4 days to get 3 days' pay. That is not acceptable. I understand we have made some progress since 1963, but one would think that within a 50-year span we could have done better. The Paycheck Fairness Act will allow us to reach our goal of equal pay for equal work. Estimates indicate that the wage gap costs women, on average, $434,000 over their careers. While I am pleased we are making progress, this progress is just too slow, and we need to move more aggressively to close this pay gap in the year 2012. Congress took another important step forward for equal rights for women by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The legislation allows plaintiffs to sue for wage discrimination based on each new discriminatory paycheck they receive. In this case, Congress overturned a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that women were only allowed to sue their employers within 180 days after the discrimination began, even if the women were not aware the discrimination was occurring, as a result of not knowing their coworkers' wages. Quite frankly, I think the Supreme Court decision defies logic. How can someone possibly bring a case within 180 days if they do not know about the discriminatory pay differential? Congress did the right thing. But basically we held the line on allowing enforcement rather than advancing what we need to, to make sure we have an effective remedy for discrimination against women in our workplaces. That is exactly what the Paycheck Fairness Act does. It provides for an effective enforcement so women, in fact, can hold their employers responsible if the disparity is based upon their gender, which should not be in America. The Paycheck Fairness Act would require employers to show pay disparity is truly related to business justifications and job performance and not gender. It prohibits employer retaliation for sharing salary information with coworkers. Under current law, employers can sue and punish employees for sharing such information. In addition, this legislation strengthens remedies for pay discrimination by increasing compensation women can seek. The Paycheck Fairness Act also would strengthen the ability of the Department of Labor to help women achieve pay equity by requiring the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers to eliminate pay disparities and to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender. The purpose of this act is to avoid discriminatory pay, not to sue employers after the fact. Therefore, this bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is well balanced in providing remedies, yes, if, in fact, an employer is discriminating on pay based on gender but to provide help to employers so they can take the appropriate steps to make sure, in fact, their workforce is fairly paying their employees. The legislation makes clear that employers are liable only for wage differentials that are not bona fide factors. Bona fide factors include items such as education, training or experience and must be job related and consistent with business necessity. Employees will also be able to argue that employers should use alternative employment practices that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential. The legislation is crafted to avoid any undue burden on small businesses. I think the Presiding Officer and I both understand the importance of small businesses with the work we do on the Small Business Committee. This act is delayed from taking effect until 6 months after its passage so the Labor Secretary and EEOC can develop technical assistance materials to assist small businesses in complying with the new law, and the agencies are charged with engaging in research, education, and outreach on the new law. The EEOC is charged with issuing regulations to provide for the collection of pay information from employers. The law specifically states that these regulations should ``consider factors including the imposition of burdens on the employers, the frequency of required data collection reports . . . and the most effective format for data collection.'' We have heard about the cumulative information: Why can't we simplify it? Why can't we combine it? Why can't we be sensitive to small businesses? The Paycheck Fairness Act in our language makes it clear these regulations must be sensitive to the special needs of small businesses to make sure, in fact, this bill provides an effective remedy without excessive burdens on the business community. In my own State of Maryland, the gender pay gap is 14.6 percent, according to the Joint Economic Committee. In Maryland, women's median weekly wage for full-time workers is $822, while men's is $962. That is not right. In Maryland, over one-third of married, employed mothers are their families' primary wage earner. Maryland women contribute, on average, over 40 percent of family wages and salary income to their households. It is time for women who live in Maryland--or who live in any State in our Nation--to get fair pay for the work they do. I have the opportunity to chair the subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that deals with international development assistance. I have worked very closely with Secretary of State Clinton to deal with gender issues internationally. We have discovered something that should be pretty obvious, but it is something that is very telling. The way a nation treats its women will very much be a barometer as to how well that nation is doing--how well they are doing with economic growth, how stable their government is. The United States has been a leader in working with countries around the world to treat women right, to do land reform so that the women who work the fields also own the property they are working, to make sure they share fairly in the fruits of their labor. We have been a leader internationally. I am proud of the progress we are making. I am proud of what Secretary Clinton and President Obama have done in showing the world that it is in a nation's interests to make sure women are properly dealt with, that they have proper education, that they are included in the system for education, for health care, for job training, for all of those issues, and are treated fairly when it comes to the economic rewards for the work they do. But it starts with us doing what is right in America. Fifty years is too long for women to wait for equal pay after Congress took action in 1963. As a father and grandfather of strong, intelligent women, pay equity is a personal issue for me. I want my two granddaughters to know that when they grow up, they will be paid fairly for the work and not 77 cents for every dollar of their male counterparts. I am proud to stand with Senator Mikulski in this fight to finally ensure that equal pay for equal work becomes a reality for all women and men. I am pleased that this legislation is endorsed by a large number of organizations that have been in the forefront of fighting for equal justice in America. It is time to act and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Memorial Day is a time to pay tribute to those who have given ``the last full measure of devotion'' in the service of our great country. I believe this Memorial Day is especially significant as we pause to reflect on some of the events of the past year and acknowledge the passing of the last surviving veteran of World War I, the end the Iraq War, and a renewed commitment to wind down our engagement in Afghanistan by 2014. Since the first colonial troops took up arms in the fight for our independence in 1775, more than 1.1 million American soldiers, sailors, and airmen have died in the wars and conflicts fought to defend our Nation, our freedom, and our ideals. In the past 10 years, we have lost over 6,400 brave Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. The death of each one of these servicemen and women represents not only a tragic loss to their loved ones, but to their community, and to our Nation. The American tradition of Memorial Day--originally known as Decoration Day--has its roots in local springtime tributes that were held in the North and the South during and immediately after the Civil War and following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865. On May 1, 1865, nearly 10,000 freedmen, teachers, preachers, missionaries, and Union troops properly landscaped and covered with flowers the unmarked graves of some 250 or more Union prisoners of war who had died in captivity at the Charleston Race Course, a site now known as Hampton Park. On April 26, 1866, grieving mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters in Columbus, MS placed flowers on the graves of Confederate soldiers who had died in the Battle of Shiloh. While they grieved for their own lost loved ones, they saw that nearby graves of the Union soldiers were neglected, so they placed flowers on these graves as well. On May 5, 1866, an official commemoration was held in Waterloo, NY to honor local veterans of the Civil War. Businesses were closed and flags were flown at half-mast to honor the dead. On May 5, 1868, MG John A. Logan, who headed the Grand Army of the Republic, GAR, which was an organization of Union veterans, declared that May 30 of each year should be Decoration Day, a time for the Nation to festoon the graves of Union and Confederate war dead with flowers. Logan said, ``We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. . . . Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.'' The first large observance was held that same year at Arlington National Cemetery. In 1966, Congress and President Lyndon Johnson declared that Waterloo is the official birthplace of Memorial Day but it is apparent that many communities and people across America can claim some of the credit. Shortly after World War I, Decoration Day ceremonies were no longer limited to honoring those who had died in the Civil War. Rather, the commemoration was altered to embrace the men and women who have died in all American wars. In 1971, Congress passed legislation to make Memorial Day a national holiday and to fix its date as the last Monday in May. In December 2000, Congress passed ``The National Moment of Remembrance Act'' (Public Law 106 579, which encourages all Americans to pause wherever they are at 3:00 PM local time on Memorial Day for 1 minute of silence to remember and honor those who have died in service to our Nation. While the Memorial Day we will celebrate this Monday is approaching the sesquicentennial of its birth, the tradition of honoring those who have fallen in war is probably as old--or nearly as old--as human history itself. Over 2,400 years ago--in 431 B.C.E.--Pericles paid tribute to the Athenian soldiers who had fallen in battle at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, saying For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb; and in lands far from their own, where the column with its epitaph declares it, there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it, except that of the heart. This Memorial Day, in the spirit of compassion and empathy shown by the Confederate widows who placed flowers on the graves of Union soldiers in Columbus, MS nearly 150 years ago, I would like to mention some facts about those fallen servicemen and women we too often neglect to consider. According to a recent study by the Army, suicides among U.S. servicemembers increased 80 percent from 2004 to 2008. The study confirmed that there is an increased risk of suicide among those who experience mental health disorder diagnosis associated with the stress of combat. Protracted military operations requiring multiple deployments over the past decade have made mental health disorders the signature wounds for our military members returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. A comprehensive study by RAND found that approximately 18.5 percent of those servicemen and women returning from deployment reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of post- traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, or depression. Up to 30 percent of troops returning home from combat develop serious mental health problems within 3 to 4 months. And since mental health issues often are not immediately addressed while our servicemen and women are on active duty, or because of the lasting traumas of war, we see even higher numbers of mental illness diagnosis among our veterans. According to a Government Accountability Office report, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, data ``show that from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, the number of unique veterans receiving treatment for PTSD increased by 60 percent from over 274,000 to over 442,000.'' I believe that the best way we can truly honor those who have sacrificed themselves upon the altar of freedom is not just to fulfill our solemn obligation to care for their widows and orphans. More than that, we must care for their brothers and sisters in arms who have also borne the battle, and who have returned to us wounded, ill and injured, and for the family members and other individuals who selflessly care for them. These soldiers and sailors and airmen and their caregivers also deserve our gratitude, our accolades, our compassion--and our support. Therefore, I commend the VA Secretary Shinseki's recent decision to hire an additional 1,900 mental health staff at VA facilities to ensure greater care for our servicemembers suffering from the wounds of war, both physical and emotional. It is not just about providing adequate resources, however. Having an adequate number of mental health professionals is just one component of ensuring access to care. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates correctly acknowledged that the greatest obstacle to servicemembers receiving necessary mental health treatment is the stigma too often associated with seeking help for their psychological injuries. I frequently hear from servicemembers who believe that seeking mental health services will hurt their military and post-military careers. We must overcome these real and perceived barriers to care by changing the policies that govern how we provide mental health care to our active duty military members, reservists, and veterans. Those who suffer in silence will seek treatment only when they are assured they can truly seek such treatment and speak about their problems freely and off-the- record. Meanwhile, as more and more go untreated, we will continue to see a rise in suicides and other tragic incidents among our military members and veterans--a preventable epidemic, which is heaping tragedy upon tragedy. During this holiday weekend and on Monday in particular we will see many American flags and flowers adorning the graves of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. I will remember in particular the 114 Marylanders who have been killed in our most recent conflicts as I remind myself that our freedom is not free. And I will remind myself that the best way to honor their ultimate sacrifice is to ensure that we are unwavering in our resolve not only to care for their widows and orphans, but also for those who do return to us wounded, ill, and injured--including those whose injuries are emotional. Let us reaffirm our commitment to support all of these individuals and their families and other caregivers this Memorial Day, and every Memorial Day hereafter.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amended be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 2125.

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside so I may call up my amendment No. 2141.