Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, the first chartered chamber in the United States. When the United States Chamber of Commerce was formed at a conference held by President Taft in April 1912, four delegates from the Maryland's Frederick County Board of Trade were in attendance. Inspired by the conference, the Frederick County Board of Trade applied for membership to the newly formed chamber the very next day. The newly renamed Frederick County Chamber of Commerce committed itself to serving the business interests of Frederick County. During the ravages of the Great Depression, the chamber was a beacon of hope, advocating for Federal work programs and organizing the Community Chest, now known as the United Way of Frederick County. Over the past 100 years, the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce has successfully promoted economic vitality in Frederick, and has been a crucial partner to countless local businesses and organizations. The Frederick Arts Council and the Tourism Council of Frederick County were both chamber initiatives that grew into independently successful organizations. The Chamber has also been a leader in promoting women and minority-owned businesses. In 1969, the chamber worked with the NAACP to form the People's Opportunity and Information Center, and in 1997 they welcomed their first female president. Today, the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce works with nearly 1,000 member businesses to expand Frederick County's economy and improve the quality of life for Frederick County residents. By bringing business leaders together to tackle challenges and proactively plan for the future, the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce has strengthened the community and the region. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Frederick County Chamber of Commerce on 100 years of leadership and advocacy on behalf of the businesses and citizens of Frederick County.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the outstanding leadership and accomplishments of Mary Pat Seurkamp, Ph.D., president of Notre Dame of Maryland University. The College of Notre Dame of Maryland was founded in Baltimore by the School Sisters of Notre Dame to educate women and the poor. The institution was chartered in 1895 and was known as the College of Notre Dame of Maryland until September of 2011, when it was officially renamed Notre Dame of Maryland University. The undergraduate Women's College of the School of Arts and Sciences remains at the heart of the university and is the only women's college in Maryland. Under Dr. Seurkamp's leadership, Notre Dame of Maryland has flourished as one of the Nation's strongest women's institutions, fully embracing its role in preparing young women to understand and meet society's challenges. Under Dr. Seurkamp's leadership, the college has also found new ways to meet society's needs. The Accelerated College was founded to help working women and men earn their undergraduate degrees. Now known as the College of Adult Undergraduate Studies, this division has continued to adapt to the needs of working adults and community institutions, offering courses on the Baltimore campus and at regional higher education centers and partnering hospitals. Dr. Seurkamp, responding to expanding job opportunities in the area of health care, worked to found the Notre Dame of Maryland University School of Pharmacy, the second pharmacy school in Maryland and the first at a women's college in the United States. The School of Pharmacy, like the new School of Nursing and the School of Education, offers professional education rooted in the Catholic tradition of the liberal arts and service to others. As part of the implementation of the campus's 20-year master plan, Dr. Seurkamp worked not only to enhance the beauty of the university grounds but also to ensure that university buildings are environmentally sustainable. Dr. Seurkamp has been honored with numerous leadership awards, as well as the papal honor of Dame of the Order of St. Gregory. Her work reminds us of the critical role that higher education plays in defining our country's workforce and shaping our country's future. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Seurkamp on her 15 years of outstanding accomplishments as president of Notre Dame University of Maryland and in wishing her well in her retirement.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the ministry of Bishop John R. Bryant, senior bishop and presiding prelate of the Fourth Episcopal District of the African Methodist Episcopal, AME, Church. Bishop Bryant is a native of Baltimore and a graduate of Baltimore City College and Morgan State University. From a young age, he learned the importance of spiritual and civic leadership from his father, Rev. Harrison Bryant, who was a Baltimore pastor and civil rights activist. After John Bryant graduated from Morgan State, he served in Liberia with the Peace Corps, beginning his lifelong involvement in Africa. He returned to the United States and earned graduate degrees in theology and ministry and served as a pastor in Boston before returning to Baltimore in 1975, where he took on the mantle of leadership at Bethel AME Church, where his father had been pastor. At age 31, he was the youngest pastor in the church's history. He brought incredible energy to the pulpit and the congregation grew by the thousands. He was committed to both spiritual leadership and community development and transformed the church's Labor Day celebration into a job fair for the unemployed. He created an outreach center for the poor, 40 specialized ministries, and a Christian day school for children from kindergarten to fourth grade. In 1988, Rev. Dr. Bryant was named Bishop of the AME Church's 14th Episcopal District, which included 101 churches in West Africa and shortly added the 10th District, including Texas and the Southwest. In 2000, he was named bishop of the Fifth District, which included 200,000 church members in 14 Western States. In 2008, he was appointed senior bishop and president prelate of the Fourth Episcopal District, which includes much of the Midwest and Canada. Bishop Bryant's wife, the Reverend Dr. Cecilia Bryant, has been an integral partner in his ministry. She founded the AME Church in the Republic of Ivory Coast, cofounded the AME Church in India, and is currently serving alongside her husband as supervisor of the church's Fourth Episcopal District. Their children, the Reverend Dr. Jamal Harrison Bryant, pastor of Baltimore's Empowerment Temple, and Dr. Thelma Bryant-Davis, a psychologist, poet, dancer, and minister, continue the family tradition of spiritual leadership. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bishop John R. Bryant on 50 years of ministry in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He has built a legacy of outstanding leadership, and he has delivered a message of social reform and economic justice in Baltimore, in Maryland, throughout our Nation, and around the world.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to mark the fifth anniversary of Deamonte Driver's death. Deamonte was a 12- year-old who lived in Prince George's County, MD, only a few short miles from here. He died 5 years ago at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington, DC, from a brain infection caused by an untreated tooth abscess. The Driver family, like many families across the country, lacked dental insurance. At one point his family had Medicaid coverage, but they lost it because they had moved into a temporary shelter and their paperwork fell through the cracks. When advocates for the family tried to help, it took more than 20 calls just to find a dentist who would treat him. Deamonte began to complain about headaches on January 11. Then, an evaluation at Children's Hospital led beyond basic dental care to emergency brain surgery. He later experienced seizures, and a second operation was required. Even though he received additional treatment and therapy, and he appeared to be recovering, medical intervention came too late. By the end of his treatment, the total cost to our health care system exceeded $\1/4\ million--more than 3,000 times the $80 it would have cost for a tooth extraction. Deamonte Driver passed away on Sunday, February 25, 2007. Deamonte's death was a national tragedy. It was a tragedy because it could have been prevented if he had received timely and proper basic dental care. It was a tragedy because it happened right here in the United States, in one of the most affluent States in the Nation. It happened in a State with one of the best dental schools in the Nation--the University of Maryland's. It happened in Prince George's County, whose border is less than 6 miles from where we are standing in the U.S. Capitol. I have spoken on the Senate floor about Deamonte Driver several times since that tragedy, and in the intervening years, in both my home State of Maryland and nationally, we have made progress. When Deamonte's case was brought to light, I believe it served as a wake-up call for our Nation. It brought home what former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once said: ``There is no health without oral health.'' Medical researchers have discovered the nexus between tooth plaque and heart disease, that chewing stimulates brain cell growth, and that gum disease can signal diabetes, liver ailments, and hormone imbalances. They have identified the vital connection between oral health research and advanced treatments such as gene therapy, which can help patients with chronic renal failure. They know investing in basic dental care can save money down the road in costly medical interventions for other diseases. But for all the research findings, without insurance coverage and adequate access to providers, we know millions of children and adults will have oral health care needs that remain unmet. That is why the progress we have made over the past 5 years is so important to America's health. So I have come to the floor today to talk about what we have achieved and how we can move forward as a nation to ensure better access to oral health care. The Maryland delegation is proud that Maryland has emerged as a national leader in this area, launching a $1.2 million oral health literacy campaign, raising Medicaid reimbursement rates for dentists, and providing some allied health professionals and hygienists the opportunity to practice outside of clinics. Today, the Deamonte Driver Dental Project Van, which was dedicated in front of the U.S. Capitol in May 2010 provides services in underserved neighborhoods in Prince George's County, thanks to the efforts launched by members of the Robert T. Freeman Dental Society. This society, an arm of the National Dental Association, is named for Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, who in 1869 became the first Black graduate of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. Congressman Elijah Cummings and I were joined that day by Mrs. Alyce Driver and her sons; the project's cofounders Drs. Hazel Harper and Belinda Carver-Taylor; and the National Dental Association President, Dr. Walter Owens. In 2009, 2 years after Deamonte's death, Congress took up the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. In a frustrating attempt to locate a dentist for her child, Deamonte Driver's mother and her advocates had to contact numerous offices before locating one who would treat him. For a variety of reasons, it is difficult for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees to find dental care, and working parents whose children qualify for those programs are likely to be employed at jobs where they can't spend 2 hours a day on the phone to find a provider. So part of the CHIP reauthorization now requires HHS to include on its Insure Kids Now Web site a list of participating dentists and benefit information for all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Also, in 2009, Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. That law created the Healthy Futures Corps, which provides grants to the States and nonprofit organizations so they can fund national service in low-income communities. It will allow us to put into action tools that can help us close the gap in health status--prevention and health promotion. For too long we have acknowledged health disparities, studied them, and written reports about them. With the help of the senior Senator from Maryland, my colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski, we added language to that law specifying oral health as an area of focus. Now the Healthy Futures Corps can help recruit young people to work in the dental profession, where they can serve in areas that we have shortages of providers in urban and rural areas. It will fund the work of individuals who can help parents find available oral health services for themselves and their children. It will make a difference in the lives of the Healthy Futures Corps members who will work in underserved communities and in the lives and health of those who get improved access to care. Then, in 2010, we passed the Affordable Care Act which guarantees pediatric oral health care as part of each State's essential benefit health care package. The law also establishes an oral health care prevention education program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention targeted toward key populations, including children and pregnant women, and it created demonstration programs to encourage innovation in oral health delivery. It also significantly expanded workforce training programs for oral health professionals. Moving forward, the States have a critical role to play in ensuring that the Affordable Care Act benefit is designed to incentivize prevention, recognize that some children have greater risks of dental disease than others, and deliver care based on their level of risk. Among the most cost-effective ways to improve children's health care are investments in prevention. Dental sealants--clear plastic coatings applied to the chewing surfaces of molars--have been proven to prevent 60 percent of tooth decay at one-third the cost of filling a cavity. So we must make sure prevention is a key part of every State's benefit package. Further, in 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched its oral health initiative, establishing a coordinated multiagency effort to improve access to care across the Nation. Yet for all the progress we have made, we know more must be done. In 2009, the last year for which we have complete data that is available, more than 16 million American children went without dental care. That is not acceptable. Our Nation has made significant progress in improving children's dental care in the 5 years since the death of Deamonte Driver, but there is still much work to be done. Case in point: Last summer, 24-year-old Kyle Willis of Ohio died from an untreated tooth infection that spread to his brain. In fact, the health of millions of Americans is jeopardized because they cannot get treatment for tooth decay. The access problem has become so severe that many people are forced to seek treatment for tooth pain in the Nation's emergency rooms, increasing the overall cost of health care and receiving uncoordinated care in the least cost-efficient setting. In fact, more people seek treatment in emergency rooms for tooth pain than they do for asthma. The Pew Children's Dental Campaign produces report cards that grade the States on eight policies that are evidence-based solutions to the problem of tooth decay. Maryland received an A grade in both reports for meeting or exceeding these benchmarks, which include dental sealant programs, community water fluoridation, Medicaid reimbursement and enrollment, and collection of data on children's dental health. This is even more striking because in the late 1990s, Maryland had one of the worst records in the Nation regarding oral health care for its underserved population. But in 2011, the Pew Center on the States ranked Maryland as the top State in the country for oral health. However, the access issues remain. As Mrs. Driver's efforts to find care for her son showed, low-income families have great difficulty obtaining care due to a shortage of dentists willing to treat Medicaid patients. Nationally, the National Health Service Corps addresses the nationwide shortage of primary care oral health providers in dental health professional shortage areas by offering incentives in the form of scholarships and loan repayments to primary care dentists and registered dental hygienists to practice in underserved communities. I will continue to work to increase funding for grants to States and expand training opportunities for dentists. We do not have enough professionals who are trained and available to treat children and adults with dental problems, and it is our responsibility to fix that. We must improve reimbursement to dental providers in offices and clinics so no one who needs dental treatment will be turned away. I conclude my remarks with congratulatory wishes to Mrs. Alyce Driver. For as painful as Deamonte's passing was for all of us, nothing can compare to the loss of one's own child. Yet Mrs. Driver has worked hard and she has been awarded a dental tech degree. She is now out there helping others with dental care. She will be going back to school next month to receive training in radiology. Yes, in Maryland and throughout the Nation, there are signs of hope for the future of oral health care. February is National Children's Dental Health Month, and I wish to express my appreciation to the many nonprofit organizations, universities, and providers who are also working across the Nation to make sure we will never forget Deamonte Driver and never forget our responsibility to improving oral health care for America's children. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of MedStar St. Mary's Hospital in Leonardtown, MD. When St. Mary's Hospital was founded in 1912, it was Leonardtown's first community health care center, located in a modest two-story home. The surrounding population was small and rural, and the hospital's running water was heralded in a local newspaper. The new health care center was the first of many institutions that marked the beginning of St. Mary's County's transformation into the modern, thriving region it is today. As the county has grown and evolved from humble beginnings, so has the hospital. Today, St. Mary's is a full-service hospital facility which offers state-of-the-art emergency, acute inpatient and outpatient care. The emergency room serves over 50,000 patients per year, and St. Mary's is leading the way in using cutting-edge medical technology. St. Mary's was the first hospital in southern Maryland to achieve full certification as a stroke center and won the prestigious Delmarva Foundation Excellence Award five times for consistent improvements in patient safety and clinical outcomes. The hospital's fully integrated electronic medical records system is ranked among the top 5 percent nationally. St. Mary's is committed to a ``patients first'' philosophy, which is evident in consistently high patient satisfaction scores. At St. Mary's, treating every patient with respect and compassion is an essential part of the healing process. The hospital offers dignity, comfort, and support to each and every patient and his or her family. In 2009, St. Mary's joined the MedStar Health System. This partnership helps St. Mary's meet the expanding medical needs of the southern Maryland community and offer the region greater access to specialty care. A new name that blends the hospital's history and future--MedStar St. Mary's Hospital--has been unveiled to celebrate its centennial. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating MedStar St. Mary's Hospital on 100 years of providing outstanding patient-centered care to the residents of Leonardtown and the southern Maryland region.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to my colleague from Missouri as he talked about his amendment. I know he is very sincere in his efforts to protect the first amendment, and if that is what this amendment was about, he would have my support. But let me try to go over the amendment and put in context how it is drafted, because this amendment goes well beyond that. I would agree with my colleague that the genesis of this amendment was because of contraceptive services and the request from religious institutions not to have to provide coverage for those services. The amendment we have before us, however, would allow an employer--any employer--or any insurance company to deny essential medical services coverage based upon a religious or moral objection. So the concern with this amendment is that it would allow any employer in this country to deny coverage of essential medical services in the plan that employer provides. And that could cover women's health care issues; it could cover contraceptive issues, mammography screenings, prenatal screenings, cervical cancer screenings. An employer could very well say, I am against the moral issue concerning providing that coverage. I don't believe the historical interpretations my colleague went through apply to those types of circumstances. This amendment would go well beyond one particular service and would cover any medical service. In fact, it says if an employer or insurance plan had any religious or moral objection to a service it can choose to exclude that service from the essential benefit package or the preventive services provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Yes, it would affect women's health care. There is no question about that. It would also affect the health care of men and of children. The Affordable Care Act guarantees that all plans offered in the individual small group market must cover a minimum set of essential health benefits, including maternity and newborn care; pediatric services, including oral and vision care; rehabilitative services and devices; and mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment. Under the Blunt amendment, any employer could say, look, I don't want to cover rehabilitative services, for whatever reason--I have a moral objection to it--and they could exclude that service. Preventive care would be at risk, prenatal care would be at risk, life-saving immunization could be at risk, developmental screening, mental health assessments, and hearing and vision tests. Any employer could make it a judgment not to cover any one of those services. Any insurance company could, based upon a ``moral objection.'' That is a very broad standard. That is why pediatricians and advocates for children across the Nation oppose it. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians oppose it, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the Children's Dental Health Project, Easter Seals, Genetic Alliance, the March of Dimes, and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners oppose it. These are not political groups, these are health care groups. They know this amendment could put at risk what we were attempting to achieve in the Affordable Care Act, and that is to make sure we have coverage for essential health services for all the people in this country. Well, what if an employer could say, I don't want to cover preventive services based on a moral objection? That could happen. This amendment would allow employers to decline to offer life-saving screenings for prostate cancer screenings by simply citing a moral objection, even though one in six men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime. Last year, 33,000 Americans died from prostate cancer. An employer who claims a moral objection to cigarette smoking could, under the Blunt amendment, deny employees coverage for smoking cessation programs or treatment for lung cancer. I have a moral objection to smoking; I am not going to cover in my health care plans treatment for lung cancer. More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. More than 200,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer each year and more than 150,000 die from it. Last year, 85,000 were men. An employer who claims a moral objection to alcohol consumption could, under the Blunt amendment, deny coverage for substance abuse or rehabilitation or for medical treatment for liver disease, if it is found to be the result of alcohol abuse. Nowhere in the Affordable Care Act does it stipulate any American must take advantage of the expanded preventive health services. Here is where we have an agreement. We have an agreement that we are not trying to tell anyone what they have to do. I have been a defender of the first amendment my entire legislative career. If you have a religious objection to this, then don't use the services. Nowhere in the Affordable Care Act does it require a woman to use contraception or a man to have cancer screening or a child to receive well-baby visits. What the Affordable Care Act requires is that every American have access to these services so they can decide for themselves, with the advice of their physician, whether they are appropriate and healthy to utilize. If the Blunt amendment were used by employers to deny access to care, we are denying the people in this country the right to make that choice themselves. I agree it is not just contraceptive services, it is the choice to be able to have preventive services--to take care of your children, to have the screenings for early detection of cancer or to have treatment for serious diseases. All that could be put at risk. The Affordable Care Act views health care as a right, not a privilege, and it expands the freedoms available to American workers and their families rather than limits them. I understand the intentions may be very pure. And if we want to have a resolution saying we support the first amendment, you will have all of us in agreement on that. But when you say you are using that to remove from the Affordable Care Act the essential health coverage for services that I think all of us agree should be available to every person in this country, to make a decision whether he or she wants that health care, then this amendment could be used to deny them that ability to get that health care. Whether it is women's health care issues, which was the genesis of this amendment originally, in the debate we had a couple of weeks ago, or whether it is the care of our children or the care of each American, this amendment puts that at risk by allowing an individual employer or insurance company to make a decision to eliminate essential health service coverage. I don't believe we want to do that, and I urge my colleagues to reject the Blunt amendment. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 and the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' and to honor the memory of all Americans who came together in America's ``Second War of Independence,'' particularly those fallen heroes who gave their lives during the conflict. It is important Americans recognize the service and sacrifice of all those who have worn the uniform of this Nation. On behalf of the Senate, I thank the millions of brave men and women who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and risked their lives for our Nation, including during the War of 1812. The War of 1812 confirmed America's independence from Great Britain in the eyes of the world. Before the war, the British had been routinely imposing on American sovereignty. They had impressed American merchant seamen into the British Royal Navy, enforced illegal and unfair trade rules with the United States, and allegedly offered assistance to American Indian tribes that were attacking frontier settlements. In response, the United States declared war on Great Britain to protest these violations of free trade, sailors' rights, and sanctioning raids on American land. After 2\1/2\ years of conflict, the British Navy sailed up the heart of the Chesapeake Bay with combined military and naval forces, and in August 1814 attacked Washington, DC, burning to the ground the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and much of the rest of our capital city. Less than 3 weeks later, the British set their eyes upon the next prize: the strategic port city of Baltimore, MD. American forces, primarily made up of citizens of Baltimore, prepared Baltimore City's defenses. Marylanders fought the British army during the Battle of North Point and helped repulse the British Navy from Fort McHenry during the now infamous Battle of Baltimore. I want to point out that the American forces during the Battle of North Point were volunteer militia. In the battle, just 250 members of the 5th Brigade of the Maryland Militia, heavily outnumbered by the highly trained British infantry, managed to delay the British forces long enough for 10,000 reinforcements to arrive, preventing a land attack against Baltimore. The British assault also failed at sea. 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, an American lawyer, Francis Scott Key, who was being held onboard an American flag-of-truce vessel in Baltimore Harbor, beheld, by the dawn's early light, the American flag still flying atop Fort McHenry. Key realized then that the Americans had survived the battle and stopped the enemy advance. Moved by the sight of the American flag flying over Fort McHenry, he composed the poem called ``The Defense of Fort McHenry,'' which was later set to music, becoming ``The Star Spangled Banner'' that officially became the National Anthem on March 3, 1931. We will be celebrating this weekend the 82nd anniversary of the ``Star Spangled Banner'' becoming the official national anthem of our country. The flag that flew over Fort McHenry during that fateful night is now a national treasure on display at the Smithsonian Institution--an inspiration to all Americans--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 our newly established democratic government. Our young Nation battled against the largest, most powerful military on Earth at the time and emerged with an enhanced standing among the countries of the world. A new generation of Americans too young to remember the victory of the Revolutionary War were inspired by Francis Scott Key's poem to take pride in our Nation's flag, which embodies our universal feelings of patriotism and courage. As a Marylander, I am proud of the role my State played in the War of 1812, and I have been involved in legislative efforts to bring greater attention to this bicentennial celebration. My colleague Congressman Ruppersberger and I were sponsors of the Star Spangled Banner Commemorative Coin Act, signed into law by President Obama 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 formed the basis for the lyrics to our National Anthem. The coins are set to go on sale in March and will be sold only during this year. The surcharges from these commemorative coins will provide support to the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission to conduct bicentennial activities, assist in educational outreach, and preserve sites and structures relating to the War of 1812. I am also planning to introduce with my colleagues Senator Portman, Senator Kerry, and Senator Mikulski a resolution to mark this occasion, to celebrate the heroism of the American people during the conflict, and to recognize the various organizations involved in organizing commemorative events in Maryland and throughout the United States in the coming years, including the U.S. Armed Forces, the National Park Service, and the Maryland War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission. As we recognize all 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, and to join in the bicentennial celebration of our victory in the War of 1812. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. The Senator is absolutely correct. We need more jobs in America. I congratulate the Obama administration for turning our economy around. We have had 23 consecutive months of private sector job growth, but we don't have enough jobs yet. We have to create more jobs. Now is the time to be bold on looking for responsible programs that can move this country forward and creating more jobs, not only initially in road construction, in bridge construction and transit construction, but making us more competitive for the future and creating permanent job growth for America, jobs that cannot be exported. That is what we should be doing, and that is why the surface transportation bill is so important for us to bring up and debate and pass. And, quite frankly, the Senator from California had performed something unprecedented--well, not unprecedented but unusual here--in that she got bipartisan support from three committees, and we are working on the fourth now. Senator Boxer has gotten all the committees together, and so it is time to move this bill forward for jobs throughout America.

Mr. CARDIN. First, let me express my disappointment that we are not here debating the surface transportation reauthorization bill. We had a bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and came out of several other of our committees by unanimous vote, so it is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that will save jobs and create jobs here in America. It will reinvest in our own infrastructure to make America more competitive. And, as I said, it has been done in a bipartisan manner thanks to the hard work of many people. I see Senator Boxer on the floor. Thanks to her incredible leadership, we have an agreed path forward from the point of view of the relevant amendments. So what is holding up the process? It is these amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the transportation programs of this country. We are talking about policy in Egypt, which has nothing to do with our transportation needs. I would start by saying how disappointed I am that we haven't yet started the real debate on our transportation reauthorization bill which will create jobs, save jobs, modernize America, and make us more competitive. Let me yield for a moment, if I could, to my colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

Mr. CARDIN. It is 10 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Boxer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate to confirm Judge George Levi Russell, III, of Maryland to be a United States District Judge for the District of Maryland. The nomination of Judge Russell was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on February 16 by a voice vote, as the Acting President of the Senate knows. Judge Russell currently sits as a trial judge in the Baltimore City Circuit Court. I take seriously the obligation of the Senate in terms of the advice and consent role we play. I am concerned that our judicial confirmation process in the Senate has broken down due to partisanship, particularly for noncontroversial judges. Judge Russell's nomination now joins a long list of backlogged, noncontroversial judicial nominations that are stuck on the Senate floor. As of yesterday, the Senate calendar contained 20 judicial nominations approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee which are still awaiting a final vote. Fifteen of these nominees have been pending since last year, and 18 of them have received strong bipartisan support from the Senate Judiciary Committee. These are noncontroversial nominees that are due the up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate, and there is no justification for the delay in the Senate's carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. The Senate is responsible for the rising vacancy rate in our Nation's article III courts. The victims here are not only the nominee and his or her family, who are waiting on final Senate action, but the American people are also victims. They face increasing delays in courts that are overburdened and understaffed. A higher vacancy rate means lack of timely hearings and decisions by our Federal courts, affecting our citizens' access to justice and a fair and impartial resolution of their complaints. In Maryland, we are trying to fill a vacancy that was created during the end of President Bush's term of office when Judge Peter Messitte took senior status in 2008. So this vacancy has been there for a long time. It is time for us to act. Judge Russell is an excellent candidate. He received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and is ready to take office upon being confirmed by the Senate. The time for action is now. Judge Russell brings a wealth of experience to this position in both State and Federal courts. Earlier in his career, he served as a Federal prosecutor and as an attorney in a private law firm. He now sits as a State trial judge court in Maryland. He has the experience. He graduated from Morehouse College with a B.A. in political science in 1988 and a J.D. from Maryland Law School in 1991. He passed the bar examination and was admitted to practice law in Maryland in 1991. He then clerked for Chief Judge Robert Bell on the Maryland Court of Appeals, our State's highest court. He worked as a litigation associate for 2 years at Hazel, Thomas, and then briefly at Whiteford, Taylor. He then served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland from 1994 to 1999, handling civil cases. In that capacity, he represented various Federal Government agencies in discrimination, accident, and medical malpractice cases. He then worked as an associate at the Peter Angelos law firm for 2 years. In 2002, he went back to the U.S. Attorney's Office handling criminal cases until 2007. He represented the United States in the criminal prosecution of violent crime and narcotics cases during the investigatory stage, at trial, and on appeal. This included the initiation and monitoring of wiretaps to infiltrate and break up violent gangs in Baltimore City. He also served as the Project Safe Neighborhood coordinator for the office from 2002 until 2005. He participated in community outreach programs, including attending community meetings on behalf of the office, and attending meetings with the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office to reduce violent crime in Baltimore neighborhoods. In January 2007, Governor Ehrlich, who I am sure you are aware was the Republican Governor of our State, appointed Judge Russell to serve as an associate judge of the Baltimore City Circuit Court for a term of 15 years. As a trial judge, Judge Russell has presided over hundreds of trials that have gone to verdict or judgment and has experience in handling jury trials, bench trials, civil cases, and criminal cases. He has the professional experience which has been recognized by a Republican Governor and a Democratic President. He should receive a vote on the floor of this body and he should be confirmed. Judge Russell has strong roots, legal experience, and community involvement in the State of Maryland. He was born and raised in Baltimore City, and has extended family who live in Baltimore. He serves as director and trustee on the board of the Enoch Pratt Free Library, which serves the disadvantaged throughout the State of Maryland. He served on the board of directors of the Community Law Center, which is an organization designed to help neighborhood organizations improve the quality of life for their residents. So he brings experience as a community activist as well as his professional experience. He has also served as a board member of several organizations that devote substantial resources to helping the disadvantaged, including Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Maryland. I know he has often spoken to young people in schools about the obligation, duty, and mandate of a judge, and tries to demystify the role of a judge in a black robe. Judge Russell is particularly concerned with addressing the drug violence and mental health problems that plague Baltimore City. The reason I went through all of his qualifications right now, even though his nomination is not pending, is that we have to put a face on the people who are being denied the opportunity for an up-or-down vote before the Senate. You hear the numbers; I have mentioned them--20-- backed up. That is a large number when you look at the vacancy rates on our courts. When you look at this vacancy that has been pending now for the people of Maryland for 3 years, they have a right to action on the floor of the Senate. They have a right to have these nominees heard in regular order. But I want the people to know about this one individual and how qualified he is to assume the position on the District Court of Maryland. I urge my colleagues to do everything they can. Let's carry out our responsibility. I am absolutely confident that Judge Russell possesses the qualifications, temperament, and passion for justice that will make him an outstanding United States District Court judge for the District of Maryland. He will serve the people very well in this position. I therefore urge my colleagues not only to allow us to vote on Judge Russell's confirmation, but let us vote on the 20 nominees who have been reported out of the Judiciary Committee, and show the American people we are ready to carry out our responsibilities. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends: It is way past time for us to carry out our responsibility. Stop putting filibusters or holds on these judicial nominations. Let's vote on them and carry out our responsibilities as Senators. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. That is correct. And, again, I thank the Senator for his leadership and I thank him for his comments. We have 30 cosponsors of the Magnitsky legislation and I am going to be encouraging more of our colleagues to join us in cosponsorship. I want to talk a little bit about that, if I might. But let me underscore the point Senator Wicker made. Mr. Magnitsky died 2 years ago for crimes perpetrated on him that have been well documented. The Russian Federation is now charging him after his death for those crimes--after his death. Not even in Stalin's time did they try people after they died. This is the first time in Russian history that a man has been tried after his death. Further, they have summoned Mr. Magnitsky's widow and ailing mother as witnesses against their husband and son. This is a new chapter in brazen impunity. An editorial last week in the Financial Times observed that: If he is convicted, the accused's citizenship could be revoked, he could be exiled, and forced to die somewhere else. That might be funny if it weren't real. If that weren't enough, the Russian Justice Minister recently proposed that the United States and Russia conclude an extradition treaty. Legal farces like we have seen in the case of Sergei Magnitsky and many others bring reasonable people to only two conclusions, both of which are profoundly disturbing: Either senior leaders are not the ones running the country or the senior leadership is complicit in these outrages. The Magnitsky story sounds like a Hollywood thriller, but his case is real and the rampant corruption, violence, and lawlessness do exist in the Russian Government. His cause has become a global campaign for justice. As Senator Wicker pointed out, the popular opinion in Russia is on the side of justice. There have been over 4,000 stories on Sergei Magnitsky since his death in Russia. We know from countless historical cases, such as the death in police custody of the anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko in 1977, that one person's life and sometimes death can change the system. Since we are now living on the Internet, such change often comes much faster than expected. I am going to comment about the legislation I filed and the need for us to consider that, but I notice Senator Shaheen is on the floor. Senator Shaheen is a member of the Helsinki Commission. She also chairs the Subcommittee on European Affairs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been an outspoken champion on behalf of human rights. I am pleased she is here, and I wish to give her an opportunity to talk about this issue.

Mr. CARDIN. We are going to yield the floor. Let me agree with my colleague, Senator Shaheen. She is absolutely right. It is going to be easier for them to speak out if they know we are going to continue raising these issues. I thank Senators Shaheen and Wicker and I yield the floor.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes available for a colloquy controlled by Senator Wicker and myself.

Mr. CARDIN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. CARDIN. If I might, I thank Senator Shaheen for her comments, but more importantly I thank her for her leadership. The hearing she held on the Sergei Magnitsky bill was very helpful. First, I think in answer to the question of why we should care, we all understand America's leadership on moral issues. The world looks to America to stand against these fundamental abuses of human rights, so that in and of itself is a reason for us to act. It is also apparent from the hearings that actions of these criminals, these violations in Russia, involve our financial institutions. So we are talking about the integrity of American companies to be able to do business internationally. It is not only the moral issue about which we have a right to speak out. As my colleagues on the floor know, in the commitments we all signed onto in Helsinki in 1975, we had committed ourselves to basic human rights and the obligation of any member state to question the conduct in another state. Russia is a signator of the Helsinki Final Act. The United States is a signator. We have a responsibility to bring this to the world's attention. We can do more. What can we do about this? There are many aspects of the Magnitsky tragedy that are difficult for us to pursue in the United States. It cannot be through our justice system; it has to be their justice system that has to be reformed. But there are steps we can take. The legislation we all filed recognizes the right to visit America is a privilege granted by the United States. The visa is a privilege. There is no guaranteed right to come to America. One thing we can do is say those who are committing these gross human rights violations should not be given the privilege of entering the United States. I wish to acknowledge and thank Secretary of State Clinton for taking action against human rights violators. That is the right policy. The legislation we have authored institutionalizes a process where we deny the right for those individuals to visit, to come to the United States. Obviously, that has a price to them. Of course, what we are trying to do is get the government--in this case Russia--to do what is right. The second thing we could do is deal with their financial participation in U.S. institutions. These people do get involved in international finance. They do have resources that travel through U.S. financial institutions. We do have laws that allow us to hold those funds through due process. We can do that. That is the reason why the legislation we have talked about today, the legislation I introduced, along with my colleagues, would institutionalize those types of changes. For those who think it may not mean much, let me remind them about what we did when the Soviet Union denied the rights of Jews to be able to leave the country. In the Congress, we took action by legislation. Many said: Would that make any difference? It made a huge difference. It brought about change in the Soviet Union. Other countries followed our leadership. As both my colleagues have pointed out, if we act, other countries will act. It will become the norm and that will help us establish the expectation that countries do need to address tragedies such as Sergei Magnitsky's and, more importantly, take steps so it never happens again. That is what we are attempting to do by moving forward with this legislation. As Senator Wicker said, we do urge our colleagues to join us in this effort. Senator Wicker mentioned what is happening around the world. We see countries go through a democratic transformation we never thought we would see in our lifetime. It happened in Europe and they are now some model democracies, our NATO allies, countries that just a few decades ago we thought would be our enemies to this day. So we have seen change occur. We want to be on the right side of this issue, the right side of history, on moving Russia forward with the types of reforms to which the people of Russia are entitled. We have the right to do that under the Helsinki Act. We have the responsibility to point out these issues. We can take action that can make a huge difference. That is why we are engaged in this discussion, to say we want Russia to do the right thing. We want to speak out to the Russian people. We think we can play a very important role. The U.S. Helsinki Commission, of which I had the honor to be the Senate chair and Senator Wicker is the lead Republican on the Senate side, has a proud history of putting a spotlight on problems. People do not like name calling, but we have to point out where the violations occur. Unfortunately, if we do not do it, it becomes statistics. But if we do it, we put a face on it--so we realize these are people who have families who have been abused because they are trying to do the right thing--we can get action. That is why I am so proud of the legacy of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and what we have been able to do. This is another chapter in that proud history of saying we are going to stand for basic human rights, that is a priority for our country, we can do better and we can do justice for Sergei Magnitsky and we can do justice for the people of Russia.

Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Wicker for starting us off on the discussion of what is happening in Russia today. I rise today, along with some of my colleagues, to bring attention to the growing issue of human rights violations in Russia, typified by the case of Sergei Magnitsky. Just last week, as part of a bilateral Presidential commission, Attorney General Holder met with the the Russian Minister of Justice to discuss the rule of law issues. That same week, Russian officials moved in their criminal prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky. Mr. President, I remind you that Mr. Magnitsky has been dead for more than 2 years. Last May I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Wicker, and 11 other Senators from both parties to introduce the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. We now have nearly 30 cosponsors, and I urge more to join us and look at ways to move forward on helping halt abuses like this in the future. After exposing the largest known tax fraud in Russian history, Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer, working for an American firm in Moscow, was falsely arrested for crimes he did not commit and tortured in prison. Six months later, he became seriously ill and was consistently denied medical attention, despite 20 formal requests. Then, on the night of November 16, 2009, he went into critical condition. But instead of being treated in a hospital, he was put in an isolation cell, chained to a bed, beaten by eight prison guards with rubber batons for 1 hour and 18 minutes until he was dead. Sergei Magnitsky was 37 years old and left behind a wife, two children, and a dependent mother. While the facts surrounding his arrest, detention, and death have been independently verified and accepted at the highest levels of Russian Government, those implicated in his death and the corruption he exposed remain unpunished, in positions of authority, and some have even been decorated and promoted. Following Magnitsky's death, they have continued to target others, including American business interests in Moscow. These officials have been credibly linked to similar crimes and have ties to the Russian mafia, international arms trafficking, and even drug cartels. The money they stole from the Russian budget was laundered through a network of banks, including two in the United States. Calls for an investigation have fallen on deaf ears. In an Orwellian turn of events, the law enforcement officers accused by Magnitsky and those complicit in his murder are moving to try him for the very tax crimes they committed. Think of the irony. He exposed corruption in Russia. As a result, he was arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Now those who perpetrated the crime on him are charging him, after his death, with the crimes they committed. We cannot be silent. One of the most articulate voices in the Senate on this issue has been Senator Wicker, who is the leading Republican on the Helsinki Commission, and I applaud him for his efforts not only in bringing the Magnitsky abuse to public attention and what is happening in Russia, but in many other areas where human rights violations have occurred. I will be glad to allow my colleague some time on this issue, Mr. President.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take the time now to talk about the conference report that has been filed in regard to the extension of the payroll tax holiday, the Medicare physician issues so our seniors can continue to have access to their doctors, and the extension of the unemployment insurance. I was appointed to that conference, and the conference has been meeting now for the better part of the last 6 to 8 weeks. We were able to reach an agreement that was filed. I first wish to compliment Senator Baucus, the Senate chair of the conference committee. There was a real effort made that this conference would operate the way a conference should operate; that is, the House and Senate Members meeting, discussing the differences between the two bodies and trying to reconcile their differences in a somewhat open process. We had several open discussions where we talked about some of the issues. Each Member of the conference had a chance to express themselves on the issues, and we had a good exchange. I think during that exchange we were able to reach some consensus. Almost immediately we reached a consensus that all of us wanted to make sure the payroll tax holiday was extended. The payroll tax holiday provides tax relief for 160 million Americans. This is not the time for paychecks to actually go down for American workers. We are trying to build a confidence in the workplace, in the marketplace. The more money in the paychecks allows people the opportunity to be better consumers, helping to create jobs. There was general consensus that we needed to extend the unemployment insurance, that we are still in the recovery where unemployment rates are so high that it is important we use this countercyclical program to help people but to also build our economy. It helps create jobs, again having more money available for the consumers to help our small businesses and to help our economy. Lastly, we all understood we could not allow a 27-percent cut in Medicare rates for physicians, that that would deny many of our seniors access to health care. So very early in the conference process we reached consensus that those three issues should be extended, at least through the end of this calendar year. For the payroll tax holiday, that was our understanding, to extend it through the end of the year. We know the Medicare issues need to be extended for a longer period of time. We worked together. I thought it was very important that we allow the full Senate, the full House to consider that conference report. We have had too much gridlock. We have had too much of individual Members trying to block the consideration of important legislation, particularly in the Senate. So I think it is very important that we were able to bring this issue to the full Senate, and we are going to have, I hope, a good debate, and sometime tomorrow we are going to have a chance to vote on whether to accept the conference report. There is some good news. I do applaud again Senator Baucus and my colleagues Senator Casey and Senator Reed on the work that was done by the Democrats on the committee. We took a very strong position against adding these extraneous positions that came over from the House, the so-called Boiler MACT, which was a provision that would have affected the health of people in our community. There is no question that if we would have accepted the House position, it would have weakened our Clean Air Act, it would have led to more premature deaths, more hospital admissions, more lost days from work. The cost-benefit ratio of this rule is well documented, that it will help our economy, help save the health and workdays for American workers. We also removed a provision from the House bill that dealt with the Keystone issue. This has to go through a regular regulatory process. It should have no place in this conference. We were able to remove that provision. On the unemployment insurance front, let me mention that we were able to reserve the extension of unemployment insurance benefits. Under the current law, there is a maximum available of 99 weeks. Let me remind my colleagues that because of the way the extended benefit program is calculated, that at least in my State by April, those 20 weeks are likely to be not available for new people who become unemployed, and throughout the rest of our Nation, we are finding that extended benefit program will not be providing those extra weeks. So the conference committee recommendation is to try to use better triggers as it relates to the different tiers of benefits in the extended benefit program, so the high unemployment States have a greater number of weeks than those States that are doing better and to transition us to a more regular unemployment system as we go through the year. In regard to the Medicare provisions in this bill, we were able not only to extend the sustainable growth rate, the SGR system, so we do not get the automatic cuts that would occur against physicians, we were able to extend that through the end of the year. But we also extended the therapy caps. If we did not do that, those who are the victims of stroke or who have had a hip replacement would have run into an arbitrary cap which would provide them the therapy they need for their recovery. We were able to get that done. On the payroll tax, as I said earlier, there was an agreement we would extend that. The payroll tax is all about helping 160 million Americans. It is about creating jobs. That is where we were able to come to an agreement that I think was in the best interest of the conference. Let me talk about some serious problems I have with the conference report. It deals with how we decided to fund or offset the cost of unemployment insurance extensions. Let me remind my colleagues that this is a short-term extension, where we are phasing out the extra benefits through the end of this year. It is calculated to cost about $30 billion. Historically, we have extended unemployment insurance benefits during tough economic times without having offsets. Why? Because unemployment insurance is countercyclical. It is there to help people during tough times. During good times we pay money into the system. We are trying to put more money into the economy. It does not make sense to take money out of the economy when we are trying to create jobs and get our economy back on track. Unfortunately, that principle was violated in this conference report. The $30 billion is offset. Let me compare that to the payroll tax holiday, which is $100 billion, which many of us think should be offset, which is not offset. As you know, we came in with recommendations where we could fairly offset the extension of the payroll tax holiday without adversely affecting our economy. We had suggested we would have a surtax on income, exempting $1 million of taxable income from the surtax--a little bit of fairness in our Tax Code--in order to make sure we do not add to the deficit, do not hurt the economy but allow middle-income taxpayers to continue to get their tax relief. To me, that would have been the responsible thing for us to do. But we do not do that in this conference. Instead, we did not pay for the $100 billion for extending the payroll tax, but we paid for the unemployment insurance benefits, $30 billion, which I would suggest is an emergency. That truly is a matter that historically we have not paid for. All right. Here is the problem. In order to pay for that $30 billion, we picked on our Federal workforce. I tell you, I find that wrong. We put a provision in this bill that will require new Federal employees, those who start work after January of 2013, to pay more for their defined retirement benefit. That is how we funded about half the cost of extending the unemployment insurance. I think that is wrong. Let me also say that the extension of the unemployment benefits is temporary--only until the end of this year. The extra costs for the retirement benefits are permanent. It stays in the law. That doesn't seem like a good deal for what we are trying to do. We also are saying that one group of workers, and only one group, makes a contribution toward this. These are middle-income workers who will be paying for this, a large part of the unemployment insurance cost. I don't think that is right. I don't think we should have done that. Let me also point out, as we talk about the Federal workforce, that the additional cost the new workers will pay will be 2.3 percent of their payroll, which will go to a retirement trust fund that is already fully funded. So this is not to address a problem with the funding of the retirement plans for our Federal employees; I think this is strictly a punitive hit at the Federal workforce. Public servants have already given $60 billion toward deficit reduction in the form of a 2-year pay freeze and will give at least another $30 billion if the base pay adjustment for 2013 is .5 percent instead of the 1.2 percent, which is what the adjustment should be under the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Add it all together, and present and future Federal workers are providing over $100 billion in deficit reduction. That is $100 billion in deficit reduction coming out of our Federal workforce. Yet the Republicans continue to defend the most affluent Americans who won't pay one extra penny for funding this payroll tax package. I don't think that is right, I don't think that is fair, and I don't think we should have done it in that manner. Now, I want to say some positive things. You can always look at things and say it could have been a lot worse. And that is true, it could have been a lot worse. When you look at the House bill that included these provisions, it included a pay freeze for our Federal workers. That is not in this. We got that out. I worked very hard with my colleague, Congressman Chris Van Hollen from Maryland. We worked together. In the original package, all Federal workers would have had to pay more, including current Federal workers. This package does not affect current Federal workers. They will not have to pay extra for their pension plans. That is fair. When they signed up as a Federal employee, they knew what the ground rules were and they knew what the pension contributions would have to be and what the benefits were. It is right that we live up to that commitment. So this agreement will not affect current workers. Their pension contributions will remain the same. The bill that came over to us from the House also reduced pension benefits. We took that out of the bill. That is not in the bill. And the rate they would have had new hires pay is higher than what we agreed to in this package. Congressman Van Hollen and I worked very hard to try to accommodate the parameters of the conference and what was being required of our Federal workforce in a way that it would not penalize our existing workers and would not be anywhere near as punitive as the provisions that were put in the House bill. So we are at least grateful that the conference includes that, but I can't help but be disappointed that the unemployment insurance is being financed at least in half by a permanent change in the contribution rates to defined benefit plans by those who join the Federal workforce after January 1, 2013. They are the only ones who are affected by that proposal. Let me conclude by saying that we all should be pleased that the conference worked, that we took a difficult issue in which there are strong fundamental differences between the House and the Senate and we were able to come to an agreement to at least be presented to the Members of the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote where each of us can make our own judgment as to whether we think this is the right package for the American people. I might have a different view than the Presiding Officer, and we will both be able to express our views by our votes tomorrow. I hope that process will be used to get more work done for the American people. They want us to work together. They want Democrats and Republicans to say: OK, we know we differ on issues. Now let's get together and get things done. We have the Transportation bill that is on the floor and that we are talking about today. That Transportation bill should end up on the President's desk. That Transportation bill came out of our committees with bipartisan votes. So now let's not clutter that bill with issues that will divide us. Let's work in the spirit the conference committee did--a committee on which I was privileged to serve--and try to keep it relevant to the issues at hand so that at the end of the day we can not only pass the Transportation bill in the Senate, but we can get it passed in the House of Representatives--or work out our differences-- and get it to the President for his signature. That bill will create jobs. By the way, I think the American people will applaud us for moving forward with the people's business. That is what we need to do. If we could get that bill done, maybe--just maybe--we can get other issues done. I have talked to my Republican colleagues, and they all agree we can't allow sequestration to take place. That is these automatic cuts, if we can't do another $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction over the 10 years. We should be able to get that done. We shouldn't have to wait until after the November elections. Let's take a lesson from the conference committee on which I served. Let's sit down and work out our differences and not just say ``it has to be my way or it is not going to get done.'' That is what is in the best interests of the Senate, and that is in the best interests of our Nation. I hope we will have a robust debate on the conference report. I hope each Member will have an opportunity to review it, and at the end of the day we will have a chance to see how the votes turn out. Again, I am sorry I have certain reservations about it, and I needed to express them, but, quite frankly, I think we need to stand for our Federal workforce out there every day providing services to our people. Whether it is guarding our borders, whether it is finding the answers to the most dread diseases, whether it is helping us develop the technology that will make America competitive, or providing public safety as a correctional officer or helping us make sure we get our Social Security checks or get our disability checks, these are the people on the front lines. We are asking them to do more with less, and they deserve not just the respect of this body but they deserve our support. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Junior League of Baltimore. Mary Goodwillie founded the Junior League of Baltimore in 1912 with the goal of engaging educated young ladies to help alleviate the ills of the city. The league members began working with underprivileged women and children in Baltimore. Their early advocacy efforts helped bring about reduced work hours for women and better living conditions for children. Throughout its 100-year history, the league has harnessed the spirit of volunteerism to help countless families in Baltimore with projects ranging from a nursery school for blind and deaf children in the 1940s, a drug abuse education program in the 1970s, and the Kids in the Kitchen nutrition education program today. Once, the league was a volunteer activity for well-to-do women; today, it is a training ground where women interested in nonprofit management, social work, and public service professions receive hands- on experience. Volunteer activities are designed to empower diverse women from all walks of life to make a difference in their community. The Junior League of Baltimore is part of the Association of Junior Leagues International and continues its foremothers' legacy of service and advocacy, emphasizing collaboration, coalition building, and responsiveness to community needs. The Junior League of Baltimore's recent projects include art programs, family support services, and partnerships with various organizations such as Read Across America, in addition to its innovative nutrition education program designed to fight childhood obesity. I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Junior League of Baltimore on 100 years of service to Baltimore, and in thanking league members past and present for all that they have done and are doing to enrich the lives of the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes across the country and set up a grant program for applied water supply research. The act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109- 471. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on the research and development of green infrastructure. The research funded through the Water Resources Research Act has had lasting impacts on our Nation's waters. In fact, some of the tools we use today for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were a product of these research grants. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters clean through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. Moreover, WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. For example, the technology used in West Virginia's innovative nutrient trading program utilizes technology developed by WRRA researchers. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources. WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants must be matched 2 to 1 with non- federal funding. In the last authorization period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 to each type of grant. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional five years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This change in authorization levels reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. The Water Resources Research Institutes across the Nation have 45 years of experience assisting states and federal agencies through research, education and outreach. While the Institutes are only required to match Federal funding with outside sources at a ratio of 2 to 1, they regularly exceed that proportion, often with ratios of more than 5 to 1. Moreover, Federal grants are critical for the institutes to be able to leverage funding from their home State. Consequently, by focusing funds on the Water Resources Research Institutes, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers. Today water-related issues pervade the nation. Whether it is floods, droughts, or water degradation, American economies and lives depend on our water resources. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is just as relevant, just as critical, and deserves our support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Resources Research Amendments Act. First authorized in 1964, the Water Resources Research Act established 54 Water Resources Research Institutes across the country and set up a grant program for applied water supply research. The act was most recently reauthorized in 2006, in PL 109- 471. The bill I introduce today would reauthorize the grant program for the next 5 years and would add a program focused on the research and development of green infrastructure. The research funded through the Water Resources Research Act has had lasting impacts on our Nation's waters. In fact, some of the tools we use today for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay were a product of these research grants. WRRA Researchers across the Mid-Atlantic States have developed ways to keep the Chesapeake waters clean through urban stormwater treatment, improved roadway design, and eco-friendly poultry farming practices. Moreover, WRRA-funded projects develop innovative and cost-effective solutions for similar water resources issues across the country. For example, the technology used in West Virginia's innovative nutrient trading program utilizes technology developed by WRRA researchers. Undoubtedly, funding WRRA is an intelligent and necessary investment in the future of our water resources. WRRA authorizes two types of annual grants. First, it supplies grants to each Water Resources Research Institute for research that fosters improvements in water supply reliability, explores new ways to address water problems, encourages dissemination of research to water managers and the public, and encourages the entry of new scientists, engineers and technicians into the water resources field. Second, WRRA authorizes a national competitive grant program to address regional water issues. All WRRA grants must be matched 2 to 1 with non- federal funding. In the last authorization period, the program was authorized at $12,000,000 per year, providing $6,000,000 to each type of grant. Authorization for these grants expired in fiscal year 2011. Today's bill would reauthorize both grant programs for an additional five years by providing $7,500,000 for institutional grants and $1,500,000 for national competitive grants. This change in authorization levels reflects our efforts to adjust for present fiscal limitations. The proposed authorization maximizes economic efficiency of the program without compromising its efficacy. The Water Resources Research Institutes across the Nation have 45 years of experience assisting states and federal agencies through research, education and outreach. While the Institutes are only required to match Federal funding with outside sources at a ratio of 2 to 1, they regularly exceed that proportion, often with ratios of more than 5 to 1. Moreover, Federal grants are critical for the institutes to be able to leverage funding from their home State. Consequently, by focusing funds on the Water Resources Research Institutes, we can be sure that we are supporting top-notch science while maximizing cost-effectiveness. Moreover, by funding this network of institutes we are investing in our future. The Water Resources Research Institutes are the country's single largest training program for water scientists, technicians, and engineers. Today water-related issues pervade the nation. Whether it is floods, droughts, or water degradation, American economies and lives depend on our water resources. WRRA grants provide us with improved understanding of water-related issues and better technology to address them. Nearly half a century after the Water Resources Research grant program was first put in place, this program is just as relevant, just as critical, and deserves our support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, at the end of January, something remarkable happened: Slovak Deputy Prime Minister Rudolf Chmel made a positive statement about Roma. Saying something nice about Europe's largest ethnic minority may not seem newsworthy, but it is and here is why. The Deputy Prime Minister reacted to an escalation of anti-Roma rhetoric in the runup to Slovakia's March 10 parliamentary elections by calling on political parties not to play the ``Roma card.'' But more than that, he welcomed a landmark decision of the European Court on Human Rights holding that the sterilization of a Slovak Romani woman without her consent had been cruel and inhuman. He welcomed the findings of a Slovak court that concluded Romani children had been placed in segregated schools in eastern Slovakia. And he commended the human rights organization that had helped litigate both these cases. To say that statements like these are few and far between is an understatement. On the contrary, officials at the highest levels of government frequently perpetuate the worst bigotry against Roma. For example, after four perpetrators were convicted and sentenced for a racially motivated firebombing that left a Romani toddler burned over 80 percent of her body, Czech President Vaclav Klaus wondered if their 20-plus-year sentences were too harsh. Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi suggested that Roma were ``physiologically'' disposed to crime. Last year, President Silvio Berlusconi warned the electorate of Milan to vote for his party lest their city become a ``Gypsyopolis.'' And French President Nicolas Sarkozy has explicated targeted Roma--from EU countries--for expulsion from France. The common thread in most of this rhetoric is the portrayal of Roma as inherently criminal. Nearly 20 years ago in the New York Times--Dec. 10, 1993--Vaclav Havel described the treatment of Roma as a litmus test for civil society. Today, Europe is still failing that test miserably. As Hungary's Minister for Social Inclusion Zolton Balog has argued, Roma are worse off today than they were under communism. While a small fraction of Roma have benefited from new opportunities, many more have been the absolute losers in the transition from the command-to-a market economy, and vast numbers live in a kind of poverty that the United Nations Development Programme described as more typically found in sub- Saharan Africa than Europe. Endemic discrimination has propelled economic marginalization downward at an exponential pace, and the past 20 years have been marked by outbreaks of hate crimes and mob violence against Roma that are on the rise again. In the current environment, those who play with anti-Roma rhetoric are playing with a combustible mix. In the near term, there is the real prospect that fueling prejudice against Roma will spark interethnic violence. Before Bulgaria's local elections last October, the extremist Ataka party parlayed an incident involving a Romani mafia boss into anti-Romani rioting in some 14 towns and cities. In the Czech Republic, the government has had to mount massive shows of law enforcement to keep anti-Roma mobs from degenerating into all-out pogroms; its worked so far, but at a huge cost. Significantly, Roma are not always standing by while the likes of the Hungarian Guard mass on their doorsteps; they have sometimes gathered sticks, shovels, scythes, and anything else handy in an old-school defense. Even without the prospect of violence, there is a longer term threat to many countries with larger Romani populations: if they fail to undertake meaningful integration of Roma, they will find their economies hollowed out from within. More than a decade ago, then- Hungarian Minister of Education Zolton Pokorni said that one out of every three children starting school that year would be Romani. Some economic forecasts now suggest that by 2040, 40 percent of the labor force in Hungary will be Romani. A number of other countries face similar trajectories. A desperately impoverished, uneducated, and marginalized population will not serve as the backbone of a modern and thriving economy. But several studies have shown that the cost of investing in the integration of Roma--housing, education, and job training and the like--will be more than offset by gains in GNP and tax revenue. In order to undertake those integration policies, somebody has to build popular support for them. And that is where Mr. Chmel comes in. Until now, most popular discourse about Roma seems predicated on the ostrich-like belief that perhaps they can be made to go away. Few politicians have shown the courage and foresight to reframe public discourse in any way that acknowledges Europe's future will definitely include Roma. Mr. Chmel has taken an important step in that direction. I hope he will inspire others.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of the chartering and relocation of West Nottingham Academy in Colora, MD. West Nottingham Academy is recognized as the oldest boarding school in the nation 267 years after the school's original founding. West Nottingham Academy was founded in 1744 by Samuel Finley, a young Presbyterian minister from Ireland who later became president of Princeton. The school prepared boys for university study, and two early graduates, Benjamin Rush and Richard Stockton, went on to sign the Declaration of Independence. In 1812, West Nottingham Academy was granted a Charter by the State of Maryland, and moved to its present location. Notable alumni include Maryland Governor Austin Lane Crothers, Cincinnati founder John Filson, North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin, and Pennsylvania Congressman Peter Kostmayer. West Nottingham Academy has evolved from its humble beginnings as a log cabin addition to Samuel Finley's home to a modern campus that is home to 120 boarding and day students in grades 9-12 representing eight States and ten countries. Student life is enriched outside the classroom by interscholastic sports teams, service learning opportunities, student-led clubs, and educational excursions to Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington. West Nottingham Academy uses an innovative, student-centered academic approach which celebrates students' many learning styles through a variety of teaching methods. The student-centered approach is exemplified in West Nottingham's Chesapeake Learning Center, where students with learning differences receive support services uniquely tailored to help each student reach his or her full potential. I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating West Nottingham Academy on the bicentennial of its chartering and relocation, and on over 200 years of providing educational opportunity and leadership to Maryland and our Nation.