Floor Statements

Madam President, I take this time because I know that shortly we are going to be voting on Mr. Pompeo's nomination as Secretary of State, and I want to explain to my colleagues why I cannot support his nomination.

As I said in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his nomination hearing, I appreciate Mr. Pompeo's public service throughout his career--his service in the military and his service in Congress and as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I also appreciate the fact that he is willing to serve our Nation in this most important post as Secretary of State.

In the United States, we urgently need a confirmed Secretary of State, but it is our responsibility in the U.S. Senate to advise and consent on the President's nominations and to act as an independent branch of government.

I must state that we are in this urgent need because of Mr. Trump's abrupt dismissal of our former Secretary of State in the midst of many international challenges. In my view, though, Mr. Pompeo is not the right person. I reached that conclusion by his actions and his rhetoric.

If Mr. Pompeo is confirmed, he will be the top diplomat for the United States. He must be an independent voice in the White House. I have questions as to whether he will be that independent voice. He needs to engage our allies. That is how our diplomacy works. He has to be the loudest voice for diplomacy in our national security, in the use of our tools, and the military needs to be a matter of last resort.

I was reminded of this challenge for America when President Macron addressed the joint session of Congress yesterday. President Macron pointed out that the United States established multinational world order in the aftermath of World War II, which is embodied in the transatlantic partnership, and we, the United States, must lead in order to preserve that national security blanket. So it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to work with our allies--particularly our European allies but all of our allies.

As just one example, when I look at Mr. Pompeo's record in regard to the nuclear agreement with Iran, during that discussion as to whether we would have diplomacy, it was Mr. Pompeo who said that the solution rests with 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iran nuclear capacity. That is not diplomacy. That is not leading with diplomacy. Now he is espousing that, if necessary, we should pull out of the agreement if we can't change it, even though Iran is in compliance with the agreement. That is not diplomacy, and that is certainly not working with our European allies.

Yesterday, we heard President Macron assert that it is critically important that that agreement move forward if Iran is in compliance. Yes, we can build on it, but to walk away from it would be wrong.

Another example that gives me great concern is Mr. Pompeo's position in regard to the Paris climate talks. I know we all have different views about climate and what our individual policy should be in order to deal with the realities of climate change, but one thing should be clear: that we want to be in

the discussions with the international community.

In regard to Iran, Mr. Pompeo would isolate us from our European allies, but in regard to withdrawing from the Paris climate talks, he would isolate America from every other nation in the world. We would be the only nation not a part of that discussion. Let me remind my colleagues that the commitments made in Paris are only enforceable by us. There is no international enforcement mechanism.

Words matter. A top diplomat needs to engage a very diverse global community. Mr. Pompeo's words unfortunately make it very challenging for him to be able to have the confidence of the international community.

He associated American Muslims with terrorism by stating that their perceived silence in condemning attacks ``has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit.'' I know that after each of the horrible terrorist activities we have seen in America, Muslim leaders in Maryland and Muslim leaders around the world have stood up and said that they condemn in the strongest possible terms those terrorist acts.

That should have no space. Unfortunately, those types of comments give space to those who are promoting a form of nationalism that allows for hate-mongering, and that cannot be tolerated in our country.

The LGBTQ community is rightly concerned. I go to Mr. Pompeo citing verbatim the following passage from a sermon castrating members of the LGBTQ community.

America has worshipped other gods and called it

multiculturalism. We have endorsed perversion and called it

an alternative lifestyle.

That type of language should have no place for someone who wants to be the top diplomat of America.

So I have come to the conclusion, based upon the necessity of the Secretary of State to engage the national community, to provide leadership and the use of diplomacy, that based upon those--my priorities, policy priorities, not politics or partisanship--that I cannot support Mr. Pompeo for Secretary of State.

I want to conclude with this. I have had the chance to lead the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee my entire 12 years in this institution. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its leaders have had a long tradition of bipartisanship, of recognizing the independent role of the legislative branch and the critical role played by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and we are always stronger when we act in unity.

That is a tradition of our committee. I want to just point out that I don't question anyone's motives on how they vote on the nominee for the Secretary of State, but I have great confidence that we in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will continue the great tradition we have established as an independent voice and as a voice that tries to work in unity in the best interest of our Nation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the recent rise of anti-

Semitism and racism in our communities.

As Members of Congress, we have an enormous responsibility to take strong action and stand up against intolerance before it takes root in the next generation. It is incumbent upon all people to ensure that adequate tools are in place to counter the resurgence of fear and hate- mongering--whether directed at old targets or new--that led to the Holocaust and other atrocities.

America must maintain its leadership abroad, especially when it comes to the issues of human rights and religious freedom--the core foundations upon which our Nation was built. We must uphold these standards here at home and defend and promote them globally.

In my role as the representative on anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, I visited Paris and Copenhagen and met with local leaders in the aftermath of the violent, anti-Semitic attacks in 2015, including the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The gruesome murder of Holocaust survivor Mireille Knoll in Paris on March 24 is a grim reminder of the urgency of our task.

In Poland, there have been no attacks recently, but there is a growing climate of fear. Government officials have equivocated regarding Polish responsibility for the World War II massacre in Jedwabne and the postwar pogrom in Kielce, which occurred on our Independence Day--July 4, 1946. The Polish President recently signed into law an anti-defamation bill that makes it illegal to attribute responsibility for or complicity during the Holocaust to the Polish nation or state. This law will, in fact, restrict academic freedom, chill free speech, and hinder teaching about the Holocaust and the crimes committed in occupied Poland during World War II.

In Hungary, Viktor Orban has stoked a campaign of hatred against migrants and Muslims in his bid for a third term as Prime Minister. In the final days of his campaign and perhaps revealing some concerns for his margin of victory, his party has sharpened its call for a country that is White and Christian, escalating its anti-Semitic and anti-Roma rhetoric.

Here at home, we have witnessed extremists and neo-Nazis marching in the streets openly carrying painful hate symbols from the 1930s. In a brazen public display, neo-Nazis and White supremacist groups took to the streets in Charlottesville, VA, last August, inciting violence that cost 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer her life. Just this past weekend, another group of neo-Nazis marched in Newnan, GA, and burned a large swastika afterwards. Burt Colucci, a member of the National Socialist Movement, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that there was no particular reason Newnan was chosen for the rally. He said:

We pick these rallies randomly. It is always preferable

that it is in a white town.

How can we address these challenges and build a more tolerant, peaceful, and global community?

Earlier this year, in commemoration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Italian Government hosted the Rome International Conference on the Responsibility of States, Institutions and Individuals in the Fight against Anti-Semitism in the OSCE Area. At that event that convened on the 80th anniversary of the passage of Italy's ``racial laws,'' which discriminated against Jews and people of African descent, leaders from across Europe and the United States recommitted to address anti-Semitism in their societies--from collecting and reporting hate crime data to supporting education--at a time when few Holocaust survivors or witnesses to the atrocities of World War II remain.

The OSCE also reported on its Turning Words Into Action project, designed to assist governments and civil societies in bolstering security for Jewish communities, educate our own societies on how to recognize and address prejudice, and build coalitions between Jewish and other communities.

Yet, at this critical juncture, we have been cutting funding and other resources meant to bolster America's diplomatic efforts abroad. It is for this reason that I fought to include $1 million to combat global anti-Semitism in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill recently passed by Congress. I also wrote letters urging President Trump and his administration to select a new special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. This position has been critical in working with governments and organizations abroad to facilitate action against anti-Semitism in communities around the world.

We must all understand that a threat against one religion, race, or ethnicity is a threat against all religions, races, and ethnicities. Hatred unleashed rarely forms its own boundaries.

In the aftermath of World War II, a Protestant pastor famously said:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I

didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; and then they

came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I

wasn't a trade unionist; and then they came for the Jews, and

I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; and then they came

for me . . . and by that time there was no one left to speak

up.

History has shown time and again that the failure of governments and political leaders to denounce those who advance an agenda of hate and bigotry brings instability and violence.

As hate crimes continue to rise in our own Nation and as the number of refugees around the world fleeing political violence and persecution reaches record highs, we must reaffirm our sense of duty and our commitment to preserving freedom, equality, and fundamental human rights for all people.

Addressing the anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination and persecution takes a concerted and sustained effort from a coalition of governments, faith and community leaders, and global advocates to denounce these atrocities and promote peace and tolerance around the world.

Now more than ever, we need to join together and speak up to protect human rights around the globe because it is in all of our interests to do so. We must also use tools available to us, from hate crime laws to capacity-building measures for civil society and governments, such as those offered by the OSCE.

I will continue to stand alongside civil society and remain an advocate for equality and human rights, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering two important labor-related nominations: the nominations of John Ring to serve as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, and Patrick Pizzella to serve as Deputy Secretary of Labor, DOL. Unfortunately, given the nominees' well-documented hostility to the collective bargaining rights of working men and women, I will not vote to confirm either of them.

If Mr. Ring is confirmed, he will restore the Board to the 3-2 anti- labor majority, with no assurances that President Trump will fill the Democratic seat of former chairman Mark Gaston Pearce expiring this summer. It is important to note here that nominations to the NLRB have traditionally been confirmed in bipartisan pairs.

Mr. Ring authored blog posts calling the NLRB an ``activist'' organization during the Obama administration. In other blog posts, he characterized the NLRB's union election procedures as ``some of the biggest assaults on employer rights in recent history.'' In fact, the election rule simply modernized union election procedures and has actually resulted in slightly fewer union elections.

During the brief 3-2 Republican majority late last year before then- Board Chairman Phillip Miscimarra completed his term on December 16, 2017, the NLRB rushed to overturn landmark decisions, weakening workers' rights under the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, and undermining the statute's core purpose of promoting collective bargaining, including the Browning-Ferris Industries joint employer standard decision. The Board's inspector general has faulted those efforts, and the Board has been forced to vacate the joint employer decision. A new Republican majority may reorganize the NLRB in ways that are unfavorable to workers and their collective bargaining rights.

Mr. Pizzella is a vocal advocate of so-called right-to-work laws. They really ought to be called right-to-be-exploited laws. As Ross Eisenbray of the Economic Policy Institute reported last year, ``Wages are 3.1 percent lower in so-called `right to work' (RTW) states, for union and nonunion workers alike--after correctly accounting for differences in cost of living, demographics, and labor market characteristics. The negative impact of RTW laws translates to $1,558 less a year in earnings for a typical full-time worker.''

There is a clear correlation between the decline in union membership and stagnant wages. If the Senate confirms Mr. Pizzella and Mr. Ring, the Republican assault on unions and collective bargaining rights enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, will gain momentum, and working people and their families will suffer as a result.

Mr. Pizzella previously served at the Department of Labor, as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration and Management under President George W. Bush. During Mr. Pizzella's previous tenure at DOL, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, determined that the Department left workers vulnerable to unscrupulous employers while investigating complaints of minimum wage, overtime, and child labor violations. GAO found that the Wage and Hour Division's complaint intake, complaint resolution, and investigation processes were ineffective and discouraged workers from lodging wage-theft complaints.

Mr. Pizzella also has expressed his antipathy to Federal workers and their unions. I am proud to represent many of these public servants. The Federal workforce is one of our Nation's finest assets, and public sector unions make it more productive.

It is ironic that the Senate is considering two nominees this week who are

openly hostile to the collective bargaining rights of working people. Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, which symbolizes the number of extra days a typical woman who works full-time, year-round must work into 2018 to be paid what a typical man was paid in 2017. Women are still only paid 80 cents for every dollar paid to a man, a yearly pay difference of $10,086, and the disparity is even worse for many women of color.

Based on an analysis of Census Bureau data, the National Partnership for Women and Families is releasing a study which concludes that, in sum, women employed full time in the U.S. will lose nearly $900 billion to the wage gap this year. If the wage gap were closed, on average, a working woman in this country would be able to afford more than 1 additional year of tuition and fees for a 4-year public university, 74 more weeks of food for her family, nearly 7 more months of mortgage and utility payments, or 14 more months of childcare.

If Mr. Ring and Mr. Pizzella and President Trump are unwilling to protect female workers and try to close that pay gap, which seems likely, then let us let us arm women with the most powerful tool in our legal system: the U.S. Constitution. Let us finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA.

The ERA is barely longer than a tweet, but it would finally give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. Section 1 of the ERA states, quite simply, that ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''

When Congress proposed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States--38 States--within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution, but ultimately only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982. Note that the deadline wasn't contained in the amendment itself; the deadline was in the text of the joint resolution.

Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for the ratification of amendments, so the ERA deadline is arbitrary. To put the matter in context, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits congressional pay raises without an intervening election, was ratified in 1992, 203 years after it was first proposed.

The Senate should vote on a Senate Joint Resolution I have introduced--S.J. Res. 5--to remove the ERA deadline, and every State in our Union that has not yet taken up its consideration should do so without any further delay.

Nevada became the 36th State to ratify the amendment last March, leaving the ERA just two States short of the required three-fourths of the States threshold under the Constitution if the deadline were to be abolished.

The ERA would incorporate a ban on gender-based discrimination, explicitly written or otherwise, into the Constitution. It could change outcomes in discrimination cases by requiring the Supreme Court to use the higher standard of ``strict scrutiny'' when assessing those cases, the same standard used in racial and religious discrimination cases.

I think many--perhaps most--Americans would be shocked to learn that our Constitution has no provision expressly prohibiting gender discrimination.

In a 2011 interview, the late Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the need for an Equal Rights Amendment best. He said, ``Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''

So I ask my Senate colleagues this question most sincerely: Are we willing to do what must be done to prohibit gender discrimination in the Constitution? The people being affected by systemic gender inequality are our constituents. They are our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, and our granddaughters. They are American citizens who deserve basic respect and equality.

It is time to end the assault on working families in this country. Let's end discrimination by making it possible to ratify the ERA. Let's close the pay gap. Let's stop denigrating Federal workers. Let's support, not attack, the collective bargaining rights that are the cornerstone of a strong middle class. I regret that the Senate is poised to confirm two individuals who are unlikely to assist these efforts. We can and must do better.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the contributions of Renee Sprow, who dedicated over 30 years of service to the Small Business Development Center, SBDC, network. Ms. Sprow spent her career promoting economic development and the growth of small businesses, which means that she spent her career helping countless people and their families achieve the American dream.

One of many highlights of Ms. Sprow's service to the Federal Government and private industry was her critical role in helping to establish the National Minority Purchasing Council, now known as the National Minority Supplier Development Council, which reports private contracts exceeding $1 billion to minority suppliers. She designed and directed small, minority and women-owned subcontracting programs for major Federal and private-sector construction and revitalization projects, resulting in the award of multimillion dollar subcontracts.

Under Ms. Sprow's leadership as director of the Maryland SBDC, the value of contracts awarded to minority firms who met the U.S. Department of Defense's Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business Utilization qualifications increased by more than 200 percent.

Ms. Sprow also participated in the drafting of Public Law 95-507, which established the legal authority to reshape Federal procurement policy for contracting with minority and women-owned firms. As an entrepreneur herself, Mr. Sprow owned and operated two businesses that generated annual revenues exceeding $1 million.

Ms. Sprow's objective while serving as director of the Maryland SBDC was to contribute to economic development within the State by making the network responsive to the needs of Maryland's small business community. She deftly managed a $4.3 million annual budget and 50 staff members in 22 offices located throughout Maryland. During her tenure, she realigned the SBDC network to target assistance to businesses more effectively and efficiently. In 2009, one of her regions ranked first in region III and second nationwide for the annual SBDC of the Year award presented by the Small Business Administration, SBA. In addition, the Washington, DC, and Baltimore district SBA offices each selected a Maryland SBDC region as the winner of the 2009 SBDC Excellence and Innovation Center Award.

Ms. Sprow transformed the SBDC network's operational methods to favor economic outcomes over mere output. To do so, she instituted a management performance system to ensure accountability for network performance. This management tool for evaluating, measuring, analyzing, and improving SBDC operations also helped objectively determine economic impact and customer satisfaction.

Ms. Sprow established a subsidiary program to assist firms in obtaining government contracts. In 2008, the program's clients obtained more than $37 million in government contracts. In conjunction, she developed industry assistance programs for high technology, retail, construction, and green business opportunities in response to client needs. Under Ms. Sprow's leadership, the Maryland SBDC attained national accreditation in 2000, 2005, and 2009. It is no surprise that, thanks in part to Ms. Sprow's significant contributions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has named Maryland the No. 1 State in the Nation for entrepreneurship and innovation.

Ms. Sprow received a B.A. in business administration from Howard University and a master's degree in business administration, specializing in marketing, from The George Washington University. She was the guest of honor at a luncheon last week, while the Senate was in recess, to celebrate her career and her retirement, so I wanted to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to join me in thanking Ms. Sprow for her exemplary service to her community, to Maryland, and the Nation and to send our best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement.

Mr. President, I am deeply saddened by the recent death of my friend and colleague, Representative Louise Slaughter. We served together in the House of Representatives and on the Helsinki Commission, which monitors human rights commitments across the globe. Her time on the Commission is one of the many examples of her unwavering commitment to justice and human dignity.

Louise first became interested in the Helsinki Commission's work in the early 1990s when she joined congressional efforts to address the mass rape of women and girls as a deliberate and systematic part of the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In her calls for justice, she worked to ensure that rape wouldn't be considered as unfortunate violence incidental to conflict, but as a war crime and crime against humanity to be prosecuted as such. Her commitment to peace, justice, and reconciliation in Bosnia and the Balkans extended well beyond the period of conflict. In 2009, she joined a Helsinki Commission delegation I led to Sarajevo, where she championed the efforts of university students who saw the politics of ethnicity and nationalism--and the corruption it perpetuates--as denying them opportunities for a brighter future in a more prosperous Bosnia. She also worked to ensure those guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were prosecuted and to provide humanitarian relief to victims of the conflict.

As part of her efforts to promote human rights around the world, we traveled together on a commission delegation to Greece in 1998 to advance the rights of Roma, Europe's largest ethnic minority population that historically faced persecution, were the victims of genocide during the Second World War, and continue to face disproportionate levels of racism and discrimination to this day.

Few other Members of Congress, House or Senate, matched her ongoing and effective engagement. During her time on the Helsinki Commission, Louise represented the United States at numerous meetings of the Organization for Security and Co-operation In Europe, OSCE, Parliamentary Assembly, an interparliamentary body which has encouraged diplomats to focus on issues of concern and importance to the United States, especially human rights and fundamental freedoms. From 1993 to 2010, she participated in more than a dozen assembly meetings as a member of U.S. delegations, helping to show the depth of our country's commitment to transatlantic relations.

Louise was born in Kentucky. Her father was a blacksmith for a coal mine. She had a sister who died of pneumonia as a child, which impelled Louise to pursue degrees in microbiology and public health at the University of Kentucky. She moved to New York to work for Procter & Gamble and was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1982 and then to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986. We were House freshmen together. She coauthored the Violence Against Women Act--VAWA--secured funding for breast cancer research, and was responsible for establishing an office of research on women's health at the National Institutes of Health, NIH. In 2007, she became the first woman in U.S. history to chair the House Committee on Rules.

Louise was legendary in the Rochester area as her constituents know well. Her background as a microbiologist shaped her priorities in securing infrastructure upgrades, research funding for local universities, and bringing two manufacturing institutes to the area. She most recently secured funding for Rochester's new Amtrak station, which is rightfully being renamed in her memory.

Louise was universally respected, and it has been an honor to call her a friend and colleague, as well as to have served on the Helsinki Commission with her for two decades. My thoughts and prayers go out to her children and the rest of her family, friends, and constituents during this difficult time. She had an extraordinary life and her myriad accomplishments on behalf of her constituents, other New Yorkers, all Americans, and indeed all of humanity secure her legacy and are a wonderful testament of her commitment to public service.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate J. Michael ``Mike'' Nussman, who is retiring next week from the American Sportfishing Association, ASA, the trade association that represents the recreational fishing industry. Mr. Nussman joined the ASA's government relations team in 1992 and became president and chief executive office of the association in 2001. I am proud to call him a fellow Marylander.

Sportfishing provides outdoor recreation for more than 47 million Americans each year. In Maryland, we are blessed with some of the best fishing opportunities in the Nation. From fishing for striped bass-- ``rockfish''--on the Chesapeake Bay, to fly fishing for trout on the Gunpowder, to fishing for smallmouth bass on the Potomac, we have great waters and angling throughout our State. Whether casting for yellow perch and pickerel on the Eastern Shore or trolling for tuna and white marlin off Ocean City, fishing in Maryland provides opportunities for young people and families to get into the great outdoors and enjoy our public lands and waters.

Like many other outdoor industries, sport fishing is sometimes overlooked as a significant job generator and economic engine. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that, nationwide,

recreational fishing generates $48 billion in retail sales, $115 billion in total economic activity, and 828,000 jobs. In 2016, Congress passed the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act. Because of that legislation, in 2018, the U.S. Commerce Department Bureau of Economic Analysis included outdoor recreation's impact, including fishing and boating, in our Nation's gross domestic product, GDP, for the first time.

Possibly the most important aspect of recreational fishing is that sportfishing manufacturers, anglers, and boaters pay for most of State fish and wildlife agencies' fisheries conservation and boating programs. Through special Federal excise and fishing license sales, anglers and boaters are providing more than $1.2 billion each year in funds that are allocated to the States

Much of this progress is due to the leadership of Mr. Nussman, who hails from Crownsville, MD. While ASA has been a trade association since 1933, it has really been in the past 25 years--a period that coincides with his tenure--that the organization has assumed more of a leadership role in the angling community.

With the support of ASA, the aforementioned excise taxes have been expanded to cover programs such as wetlands restoration, boating safety and infrastructure, and the establishment of the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation, RBFF. In fact, Mike Nussman led the effort to establish RBFF to turn around a decline in recreational fishing participation, which started to appear in the 1990s. The most recent data indicate an upward trend in recreational fishing, including among more diverse and urban communities.

Mr. Nussman's success should come as no surprise. He worked for the Senate Commerce Committee and then-Chairman Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. Mr. Nussman was the lead professional staff member for the subcommittee that oversees fisheries policy, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Prior to that, Mr. Nussman worked for the South Carolina Sea Grant Program, earning undergraduate and graduate degrees in science, and an MBA from the University of South Carolina.

Mr. Nussman's tenure at the ASA also has improved the organization's business operations. The sportfishing industry's annual trade show is now the largest in the world. His leadership has made the organization financially strong, helping it weather economic downturns. He has also served on numerous boards of directors and advisory groups, from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership to the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources. He has served as a U.S. Commissioner on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Trade associations serve a unique role by allowing companies in the same industry to come together to express their views on issues affecting the entire industry. They are an important segment of our U.S. private sector and provide a legal, accepted mechanism to allow small and large companies in an industry to have a common voice when working with the Congress, the Executive, the States, and local governments. When Mr. Nussman joined the ASA, he brought special expertise as a former Senate staffer to the recreational fishing industry and conservation communities. So upon the occasion of his retirement, I think it appropriate that he be recognized and congratulated today for a job well done. Anglers and sportfishing- related businesses in Maryland and across our Nation can be thankful that he has been at the ASA helm.

I wish him all the best as he begins the next chapter in his life which will include, presumably, even more time for fishing.

Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Fairness Act of 2018, the common sense legislation I am introducing with the junior Senator from Maryland today. This legislation seeks to eliminate a barrier that potential college students with difficult personal and financial circumstances face when applying for Federal financial aid.

This body has worked to improve the college application process for students and their families over the last several years and successfully lobbied the Department of Education to allow students and their families to submit their FAFSA application in October and utilize prior-prior year tax data. These changes provide future college students and their families with several months to submit their financial information instead of a short time frame between January and February to meet State and institutional based deadlines for need- and merit-based financial aid programs. These steps have made it easier to students to sit with their families and make informed financial decisions on which college or university will provide the student with the highest quality yet least expensive college education.

Despite our work, a number of our students are being left behind and cannot take advantage of these changes. Those students, who face difficult personal and financial situations, including those who have left home due to abusive family environments, have parents who are incarcerated, or are unable to locate their parents are unable to fill out the FAFSA application. Rather than fill out one universal Federal financial aid application form, a potential college student must contact each institution they are applying to and undergo a ``dependency override'' process before a college or university will put together an estimated financial aid package for the student. Under this process, a student applying to one university in my state must submit nine different pieces of financial information, personal statement, and references in order to verify their independent status. These students, often first generation students unfamiliar with the process for applying to school, may give up on the dependency override process and fail to finish the college application process or leave significant Federal financial aid on the table.

The FAFSA Fairness Act would seek to correct this inequity for some of our most vulnerable students. If enacted, my legislation would allow students in these difficult personal and financial circumstances to fill out a FAFSA as a ``provisional independent'' student that colleges and universities would be able to provide those students with an initial financial aid award package. Once the student has had the opportunity to review the financial aid award packages from the schools they applied to and selected the school of their choice, that school's financial aid administrators will work with the student to complete the ``dependency override'' process and finalize the student's financial aid award package.

I'm proud to lead the Senate efforts with my seatmate from Maryland and appreciate the work of my colleague from Maryland's 7th Congressional District to lead this effort in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help students achieve their dream of higher education despite their difficult family and financial circumstances.

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

Mr. President, I would like to bring the Senate's attention to Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Fairness Act of 2018, the common sense legislation I am introducing with the junior Senator from Maryland today. This legislation seeks to eliminate a barrier that potential college students with difficult personal and financial circumstances face when applying for Federal financial aid.

This body has worked to improve the college application process for students and their families over the last several years and successfully lobbied the Department of Education to allow students and their families to submit their FAFSA application in October and utilize prior-prior year tax data. These changes provide future college students and their families with several months to submit their financial information instead of a short time frame between January and February to meet State and institutional based deadlines for need- and merit-based financial aid programs. These steps have made it easier to students to sit with their families and make informed financial decisions on which college or university will provide the student with the highest quality yet least expensive college education.

Despite our work, a number of our students are being left behind and cannot take advantage of these changes. Those students, who face difficult personal and financial situations, including those who have left home due to abusive family environments, have parents who are incarcerated, or are unable to locate their parents are unable to fill out the FAFSA application. Rather than fill out one universal Federal financial aid application form, a potential college student must contact each institution they are applying to and undergo a ``dependency override'' process before a college or university will put together an estimated financial aid package for the student. Under this process, a student applying to one university in my state must submit nine different pieces of financial information, personal statement, and references in order to verify their independent status. These students, often first generation students unfamiliar with the process for applying to school, may give up on the dependency override process and fail to finish the college application process or leave significant Federal financial aid on the table.

The FAFSA Fairness Act would seek to correct this inequity for some of our most vulnerable students. If enacted, my legislation would allow students in these difficult personal and financial circumstances to fill out a FAFSA as a ``provisional independent'' student that colleges and universities would be able to provide those students with an initial financial aid award package. Once the student has had the opportunity to review the financial aid award packages from the schools they applied to and selected the school of their choice, that school's financial aid administrators will work with the student to complete the ``dependency override'' process and finalize the student's financial aid award package.

I'm proud to lead the Senate efforts with my seatmate from Maryland and appreciate the work of my colleague from Maryland's 7th Congressional District to lead this effort in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to help students achieve their dream of higher education despite their difficult family and financial circumstances.

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

Mr. President, today, as the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish to recognize America's small business development centers, SBDC, and the vital role this national business assistance and counseling network plays in supporting economic development, job creation, and success at our Main Street small businesses.

The mission of the nationwide SBDC network is to help America's entrepreneurs realize the dream of businessownership and assist existing small businesses in adapting to the changing marketplace and compete in the global economy.

SBDCs are hosted by universities, colleges, and State economic development agencies and funded in part by our Small Business Administration. There are nearly 1,000 SBDC service centers and 4,000 SBDC consultants available to provide free and low-cost business consulting and training to help entrepreneurs write a business plan, access capital, market their products, and recover when a disaster strikes.

SBDCs offer a great return on investment for taxpayers. It is estimated that SBDC small business clients create a new job every 5 minutes and a new business every 30 minutes and generate $100,000 in capital every 10 minutes. Job growth for SBDC clients is more than 14 times higher than job growth for an average business.

Last year, the Maryland SBDC at the University of Maryland in College Park assisted almost 8,000 businesses, counseled 2,200 entrepreneurs, and helped train nearly 5,700 businessowners. Small business services provided by the Maryland SBDC led to the creation of 208 businesses and 1,251 jobs and access to $49 million in capital.

Behind the statistics are real Marylanders who realized their small business dream with the help of an SBDC consultant, like a women-owned restaurant in Baltimore called Flavor.

In 2015, Julia and Vanna Belton went to their local SBDC office for help securing a business loan. After months of tinkering with their business plan and adjusting their loan paperwork, their SBDC consultant guided Julia and Vanna to approval on an $800,000 SBA loan they used to purchase and renovate a building for their restaurant.

Today, the restaurant has $1.2 million in revenue and 30 full and part-time employees. Last year, they were named Maryland's ``2017 Women-owned Business of the Year.''

Flavor is just one of the millions of small businesses and entrepreneurs who have been touched by America's Small business development centers over the last 35 years. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated men and women of America's small business development center network and to thank them for their commitment to the small businesses that drive the American economy.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and under the leadership of Senator Menendez to point out that now--I guess it has been 14 months under President Trump's leadership--we have seen a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy that jeopardizes our standing globally and our national security. It starts with this administration's hollowing out the State Department and our capacity to participate in diplomacy.

As my colleagues have pointed out, so many vacancies exist today, unfilled by this administration. It is not the slowness of the Senate in confirming the positions. Many of these positions are not even positions that require Senate confirmation. We have seen an exodus of the most experienced people in the State Department, and the capacity of the State Department has been dramatically reduced. President Trump's budget speaks volumes about his support for diplomacy, as we see 30-percent reductions in the State Department budget being proposed by this administration.

The role of diplomacy in solving international issues is at an all- time low. There are many times I disagreed with Secretary Tillerson, but he at least was an independent voice in the White House as it related to certain issues on Iran or climate change. Now his voice has been silenced in this administration.

America first is America alone. It is the isolation of our country. We have seen that with the United States under

President Trump and pulling out of the climate talks--the only country in the world. We see it now, potentially, in Iran, with reports that the President may unilaterally withdraw the United States from the nuclear agreement, putting the United States as the outlier where we should be putting our attention on Iran. This is reflected in the Gallup polls, showing that the global opinion toward the United States has dropped dramatically. We see the President embracing oppressive leaders around the world, such as the leaders of Russia, China, Turkey, and Egypt, and embracing the autocratic practices of the President of the Philippines. Then, he attacks our closest allies, calling into question the transatlantic partnership.

Perhaps more than anything else, this administration has trampled on America's values. As Secretary Tillerson said early in this administration, America's interests will no longer be dictated by our values. That is not what the trademark of America is about. The President over and over has questioned universally what America stands for when he gave space to hate in his response to Charlottesville and when he implies that people who come to our country of certain religions or certain races are less favored than others. When he suggests he cannot have a conflict because he is President of the United States and does not have to divest of his business interests or when he says things that we know are not true and the President of the United States is standing up for matters that are outright lies, it diminishes the value and strength of America and our global leadership.

One issue I want to talk about in the time I have is that of ignoring one of our greatest national security threats--what Russia is doing to the United States under Mr. Putin. We just saw in Russia's most recent election that it was neither free nor fair. The opposition candidates were not allowed to participate, as they were handpicked by Mr. Putin, and he controlled the media. As the OSCE observed, the election took place in an overly controlled legal environment, and it had pressure on the critical voices of the Russian people.

We find a Russia today under Mr. Putin that is contrary to the values we stand for. In January, I authored a report on Russia, with the other Democrats on the committee, that talked about the asymmetric arsenal Mr. Putin uses that includes propaganda. We saw this on display when he was asked about what happened in the United States. According to the transcript, as reported by the Washington Post, these are Mr. Putin's own words: ``Maybe they're not even Russians,'' in his talking about who attacked our country and referring to those behind the election interference. ``Maybe they're Ukrainian, Tatars, Jews--just with Russian citizenship.'' He also speculated that France, Germany, or Asia might have interfered in the election or even Russians who were paid by the U.S. Government.

That type of rhetoric is straight out of the Soviet and Russian playbook to cast Jews and other minorities as undesirables--enemies of the state. As an American Jew who has family roots in Eastern Europe and Russia, I find that kind of rhetoric to be dangerous and frightening, but at its most basic, such rhetoric is part of Mr. Putin's grand design. That is what he does.

We saw it play out in the UK just 2 weeks ago when a person was poisoned in England who was an enemy of Mr. Putin's. We see it play out over and over again. Prime Minister May spoke out. She called it for what it was. She sent a clear signal to Moscow that that type of behavior by the Russian state against the British people would not be tolerated and that there would be consequences. This is how a leader of a great nation should speak out in defense of its people to counter a major threat from a global adversary.

Yet what happened here in Washington with the threat we saw to our own country by Mr. Putin? The President has said virtually nothing. His spokesperson condemned the crime but ignored that likely Russian link. The Secretary of State later did what the President could not or would not do by calling out the Russians. Maybe that was his swan song because it was the last thing we heard before he was silenced by Mr. Trump.

Never before in America's history has such a clear threat to our national security been so clearly ignored by the President of the United States. The President's difficulty in publicly acknowledging the Russia threat and leading our country forward to combat that threat is one of the most perplexing and reckless pieces of Mr. Trump's disastrous foreign policy. We in Congress took action. We passed legislation. We passed mandatory sanctions against Russia. Yet this administration has not taken full advantage of the law we passed. The President needs to protect America's interests, not appease Mr. Putin.

Congress's role in shaping and advancing U.S. foreign policy has never been more important. I will continue to advance legislation, conduct oversight, and speak out about these important issues in the name of the American people and the values and norms that define us and our place in this complicated world. I am proud to be a part of the group of Senators who will stand on this floor and work to make sure we protect our national security interests.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take this time because I think this issue is an extremely important issue. I am talking about the authority of the Congress of the United States versus the President on the introduction of our troops into war or hostilities. This has been a struggle we have been debating for a long time. Congress passed the War Powers Act over the objections of the President because we recognize that the Constitution gives us the power to introduce troops into harm's way.

The resolution says very clearly that the introduction of the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities will allow Congress to have an expedited process if the administration has not gotten the authorization for the use of that military force. The Supreme Court decision made it very difficult for us to enforce that, causing us to pass, in the State Department authorization, a process in which a joint resolution could be filed in order for Congress to express itself if the President has not sought the authorization for the use of military force.

We now have a circumstance where the United States, in my view--the President has introduced American troops into hostilities by assisting the Saudis in refueling missions in regard to the campaign in Yemen. To me, that is introducing troops. Whether it is right or wrong, Congress has a responsibility to respond to this. I say that knowing that our Presiding Officer has been very articulate about the need for us to pass an authorization for the use of military force in regard to our campaign against ISIS.

Here is the challenge we have. The administration and previous administrations have interpreted hostilities in such a narrow way, it would take away

from Congress our ability to have the authorization for the introduction of American troops into hostile circumstances. Yet compare that with this administration's and previous administrations' interpretations of the 2001 authorization for use of military force, which we passed after the attack on our country on 9/11. They would have you believe that authorization, which was limited to those who planned the attack against us in 9/11, applies to our military campaign against ISIS in Syria or ISIS in Yemen or wherever we may find ISIS anywhere in the world. I think that is an absurd interpretation.

Yes, I know the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is on the floor. I think our committee needs to take up this issue. We need to take up what is happening in Yemen with our support of the Saudis and what is happening in regard to the authorization for the use of military force. But this campaign has been going on for a long time. Congress needs to weigh in whether we are for or against it. We need to exert our jurisdiction, and we haven't done that. It is very frustrating that those of us who believe very deeply in our constitutional responsibilities, assume that responsibility--and I have a lot of confidence in the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but I question whether we are going to get more time in the future to debate this issue. I know the chairman will give us time in committee, but will we have time on the floor of the Senate to debate this issue? I think we need to debate it and vote up or down whether American troops should be assisting in this mission.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in recognizing that we must take action to protect the safety of our communities.

Senator Van Hollen and I are on the floor, proud of the Maryland students who are here today to speak in solidarity with the students from Parkland, FL, in recognizing and remembering the 17 victims of that tragic episode. We also wish to point out that so many others have lost their lives to gun violence.

In the State of Maryland, we have not been spared. Just Monday night, 10 people, including 2 teenage boys, were wounded in 5 separate shootings in Baltimore. They are the lucky ones who will likely survive their injuries.

Two men killed in separate shootings on Monday were Montrel Rivers, age 20, and Ronald Preston, age 30, both from East Baltimore.

On March 5, 23-year-old Devonte Rhodes was lost to gun violence in Baltimore. One day earlier, Jashawn Ivory, also of Baltimore, was the fatal victim of a shooting.

In February, 28-year-old Jasmine Chandler and her pregnant friend, Mia Robinson, who was also 28, were shot as they sat in a parked car in Northwest Baltimore. Also last month, off-duty Prince George's County Corporal Mujahid Ramzziddin lost his life to gun violence.

Fatal victims of gun violence in Maryland include young people like Tre'Quan Bullock, age 18, the first of seven students at Excel Academy in West Baltimore shot and killed since October 2016.

Lavar Douglas, age 18; Bryant Beverly, age 18; James Martin, age 55; ``Sonny'' Buchanan, age 39; Prenkumar Walekar, age 54; Sarah Ramos, age 34; Laurie Ann Lewis-Rivera, age 25--the list goes on and on and on.

In memory of all of those who have lost their lives to gun violence, it is imperative that we speak out and act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak on the importance of helping our community banks and credit unions. These institutions are on the ground daily helping our families and small businesses. They deserve recognition. They also deserve our careful consideration of regulatory adjustments that will help them continue their work.

Let me be clear: There are parts of S. 2155 I disagree with, as do many of my colleagues, but what I think that we can all agree on is the good works that our local credit unions and banks do for our communities.

Community banks and credit unions anchor our towns, helping our workers and businesses. These institutions provide more than just savings and checking services. Many provide credit counseling and financial management. They help individuals save for education or for a financially secure retirement. They provide the mortgage loans that make homeownership a realistic goal for many families. They get to know our small businesses and provide them with much-needed financial support. Most importantly, they do so in a way that is tailored to their communities.

I would like to emphasize the role that community banks and credit unions play with respect to small businesses especially. We talk a lot about Main Street businesses in this body. As the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I am keenly aware of the need to provide our small businesses with adequate resources and support, including through access to capital. This is especially the case for underserved communities, where the bigger banks simply don't have a presence.

There are provisions in this bill that will help. For example, for credit unions, the bill changes the designation of certain real estate loans which have previously been classified as business loans. This will free up capital for small business lending. It is through changes like these that we can carefully tailor regulations, address regulatory unfairness or duplication, and help our local lenders.

In Maryland, we are fortunate to still have a good number of these local institutions. We have almost 90 credit unions in Maryland who have about 1.9 million members. These credit unions serve many of the Federal workers that we in Congress work with every day. They provide services and support for our Department of Defense employees, our Library of Congress employees, our National Institutes of Health employees, and our State and county workers who keep our communities going. Because of their close ties with their membership, these credit unions and others like them are able to offer special services that big banks may not have the incentive to provide.

Similarly, our community banks remain strong. There are 54 community banks chartered in the State. Our community banking sector employs over 35,000 Marylanders. These banks have withstood the Great Recession and even the Great Depression. For instance, Eastern Savings Bank in Baltimore was established in 1905, pulled through the chaos of the Depression in 1929, and still operates four service branches throughout Maryland today, with a customer base of primarily local residents. All of our Maryland community banks are essential to our urban, suburban, and rural communities. They are critical to economic growth in my hometown of Baltimore. They provide nearly half of the industry's small business loans, despite making up less than 20 percent of the banking industry's assets.

It would be naive to ignore the fact that the number of these institutions is shrinking. They have a difficult market to navigate. One-size-fits-all regulations can exacerbate this trend. This doesn't mean that we should not provide oversight of this sector of our economy; however, I think carefully considering ``tailoring'' our approach to regulating is more than appropriate here. I think we can all agree on this principle. Many of the credit union and community bank provisions we are considering, standing alone, have broad bipartisan support. If those provisions stood alone, my vote on such a bill would be a yes.

S. 2155, of course, contains more than community bank and credit union provisions, and I share some of the concerns voiced by my colleagues on this bill, especially regarding consumer protections in certain industries. At the same time, I cannot stress enough how important it is to strengthen our credit unions and community banks. I look forward to continuing to work on these issues, especially on small business lending, with my colleagues going forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 200th speech the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, will make here on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the need to act on climate change.

When global challenges arise, countries throughout the world look to the United States for leadership. Climate change is an issue that affects billions of people worldwide, and the United States can and should be a leading voice in combating it.

Despite making significant progress under President Obama, President Trump has decided to reverse course and take a backseat while the rest of the world tackles this issue head-on. Over the last year, the United States has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, weakened air and water protections here at home, moved away from renewable energy, and implemented drastic funding and staffing cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

President Trump's decision to retreat from our commitment to combating climate change comes at a critical time for the state of our environment. His abdication of responsibility is calamitous. The vast majority of scientists have concluded that climate change is real and caused by human activity, and Americans are already feeling the effects.

Last year, for instance, our Nation experienced one of the most destructive hurricane seasons on record and a series of deadly wildfires. On top of this, sea levels continue to rise at record pace, posing an existential threat to coastal communities throughout the country. This is especially dangerous for the State I represent, as many Marylanders live in areas that are acutely susceptible to rising tides and flood damage. As such, much of our essential communication, transportation, energy, and wastewater management infrastructure is at risk.

This begs the question: What kind of environmental legacy do we want to leave for our children and grandchildren? I believe that it is our responsibility to leave our beaches, farms, towns, and wetlands healthier than we found them.

The most recent research suggests that our actions over the next 5 years will shape the course of sea level rise for generations. Therefore, the time is now to take decisive action on climate change. If we fail to do so, we will be left to explain to the next generation why we failed to act in the face of so much incontrovertible evidence.

Some of my colleagues argue that tackling climate change is too costly an undertaking. They claim that any action we take to protect human health and the environment will inevitably cost jobs and hurt the economy. The reality is that nothing poses a bigger long-term threat to our economic and national security than climate change.

As sea levels and temperatures climb higher, so do the costs of doing business. Changing weather patterns increase risk for homeowners. Our attempts to cool a heating planet will strain our energy supply. These are just a few of the economic consequences that we will face if we fail to take action.

The progress we have seen in Maryland demonstrates that we can preserve our environment while maintaining a robust economy. Marylanders have taken decisive action on a range of environmental issues, and the State is currently on track to meet the guidelines established in the Paris Agreement. Thanks, in part, to the partnerships within the Chesapeake Bay Program, the health of the Bay has been steadily increasing for years.

At the same time, Maryland's farming industry, which employs over 350,000 Marylanders, has remained vibrant. Our success in Maryland is a testament to what we can do as a nation on climate change.

The key to our success will depend on the degree to which we are willing to cooperate with each other. This includes interstate partnerships such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, as well as international partnerships like the Paris Agreement. We should not let President Trump's decision to remove the United States from the Paris Agreement discourage us from working together to achieve our goals. In the spirit of collaboration, we should continue to partner with the States, localities, universities, and business that have decided to honor the global commitment we made under President Obama.

I am especially proud to see the city of Baltimore, Hyattsville, Takoma Park, the University of Maryland School System, and all the other localities and organizations lead this effort in Maryland by joining the America's Pledge project.

America's Pledge is a new initiative co-led by California Governor Edmund G. ``Jerry'' Brown, Jr., and the U.N. Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael R. Bloomberg, which aims to assess the scope and scale of climate actions being taken by U.S. States, cities, businesses, and other non-Federal actors. I am proud the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland is among the institutions providing the project their research support.

I encourage my colleagues to put our planet, our environment, and the future of humanity over partisan politics and President Trump's stubborn insistence on retrograde policies. We must do what is best not just for ourselves, but for future generations, too. The United States of America has been a world leader on so many issues, which redounds to our own benefit. Now is not the time to abdicate that role. The world and our children are watching.

We are fortunate to have climate change leaders like Senator Whitehouse. With a dogged persistence, he has come to this Chamber month after month to educate, to cajole, and to inspire us to take action.

Most of all, he has warned us of the grave danger climate change presents. Will we be like the Trojans of ancient Greek mythology, who ignored the prophecies of Cassandra about the imminent destruction of their city? We do so, like the Trojans, at our own peril. Cassandra's prophecies came true. If we listen to Senator Whitehouse and learn from him and take action now, we can change our fate for the better.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize March as Women's History Month and today, March 8, as International Women's Day.

Both at home and abroad, how a country treats its women is very much a barometer of its success. When women live without limitations on their ability to work, societies prosper. When women live without restrictions on their access to jobs, healthcare, or justice, societies prosper. When women succeed, so do their families, their communities, and their countries.

International Women's Day reminds us that America's global leadership starts with our progress here in the United States. Unfortunately, President Trump moved the United States in the wrong direction when he decided not just to reinstate the global gag rule but to expand it. The global gag rule disqualifies international organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if they use any non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services or even counseling.

What President Trump fails to realize is that access to the family planning services that these organizations provide is one of the best tools we have to prevent abortions. When enforced, the global gag rule has closed the door on some of the most effective, lifesaving women's health programs in developing countries. By reinstating and expanding the global gag rule, President Trump is denying millions of women and their families access to critical healthcare services and is endangering their lives and the lives of their children.

International Women's Day is the appropriate time to remind my Senate colleagues that we must end the global gag rule once and for all.

It was also recently reported that the State Department is removing references to women's rights from this year's human rights report. I am troubled to learn that the Trump administration, apparently, doesn't feel that women's rights are important enough to include in our conversation on human rights. I was equally troubled to learn that the State Department removed gender equality integration from the Foreign Affairs Manual. The Foreign Affairs Manual is the chief document for instructing our foreign policy leadership on the ways to integrate gender considerations into our diplomatic efforts. Abandoning that signals a reversal of decades' worth of work in promoting global gender equality.

The United States should be taking the lead on fostering an open and honest dialogue about women's issues internationally, not silencing it. We are better than this.

Here at home, women have succeeded this past year in taking control of the narrative on sexual harassment, and they have forced deaf ears to listen. We are witnessing the rise of a new, more equitable social order that is built on the raw guts and courage of women who are speaking out to say, ``Me too.''

Hearing so many of my fellow Americans--mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, friends--retell and relive some of their most traumatic experiences has been deeply troubling, but it has also been a lesson in bravery, in tenacity, and in women's unbreakable spirits.

It is that bravery which we must now meet with our own as individuals and collectively. If we witness harassment, we must be brave enough to intervene. If we are told about abuse, we must be brave enough to take decisive action. If we hear about gender discrimination, we must be brave enough to fight it even when doing so may not be politically expedient or popular. Scores of women have proved their moral strength. It is time for us to demonstrate ours.

This Women's History Month, let us take a moment to reflect on the thousands and thousands of ``Me Too'' stories that go untold and unheard.

Let us recognize the single working mother making barely more than minimum wage, living paycheck to paycheck, and struggling to turn $5 into a meal for three. When her coworker begins propositioning her, there are no cameras and cable talk shows waiting to expose him. She bears the burden alone, often feeling forced to choose between enduring disparaging behavior at work or providing for her children at home.

Let us recognize the college graduate working in an office, empowered and excited about the direction of her career. Yet, in every meeting, her boss undermines her ideas and, one day, when they are alone, questions her suggestively about her method of birth control. Weeks later, his lewd remarks evolve into inappropriate physical contact, and he tells her that if she ever complains, he will ensure she never finds another job in her chosen profession.

Let us recognize the immigrant woman working hard at her new job in her new home, motivated to become part of the American dream. Her male coworker calls her by disparaging names and suggests openly to their supervisor that she should make less than he does in the event she ever becomes pregnant and costs the company money. She begins to fear both for her job and for herself, but to quit would mean to lose the new life she has so painstakingly built.

For an untold number of women, these stories are painfully familiar. The ``Me Too'' movement has proven that sexual harassment and discrimination know no age and no income level. These experiences are felt by all women of all backgrounds, so it is up to all of us to combat it. Sexual harassment is about power. It is about the harassers and authority figures feeling emboldened by being able to behave the way they want, wherever they want, with impunity. So let us end the sense of impunity.

If behavior is about exerting a twisted kind of power, let us arm women with the most powerful tool in our legal system--the U.S. Constitution. Let us finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment is barely longer than a tweet, but it would finally give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. Section 1 of the ERA states, quite simply: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''

When Congress proposed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States--38 States--within 7 years. This deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution. Ultimately, only 35 out of 38 States had ratified the ERA when the deadline expired in 1982--three short. Note that the deadline was not contained in the amendment, itself. The deadline was contained in a joint resolution.

Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for the ratification of amendments, so the ERA deadline is arbitrary. To put the matter in context, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits congressional pay raises without an intervening election, was ratified in 1992--203 years after it was first proposed. The Senate should vote to remove the ERA deadline immediately, and every State in our Nation that has not yet taken up its consideration should do so without further delay.

Nevada became the 36th State to ratify the amendment last March, leaving the ERA only two States short of the required three-fourths of the State threshold under the Constitution if the deadline were to be abolished. I think many--perhaps most--Americans

would be shocked to learn that our Constitution has no provision expressly prohibiting gender discrimination.

The ERA would incorporate a ban on gender-based discrimination to be explicitly written into the Constitution. It would change outcomes in unequal pay cases by requiring the Supreme Court to use the higher standard of ``strict scrutiny'' when assessing those cases--the same standard it uses on racial and religious discrimination cases.

Just as importantly, it would provide a constitutional basis for claims of gender-based violence and give the Congress the constitutional basis to pass laws that would give women who have been victimized by gender-based violence legal recourse in Federal courts.

In a 2011 interview, the late Justice Antonin Scalia summed up best the need for an Equal Rights Amendment.

He said:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination

on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits

it. It doesn't.

So I, most sincerely, ask my Senate colleagues this question: Are we willing to do what must be done to prohibit gender discrimination by including protection against it in the Constitution? Progress has no autopilot feature. We must be its agents. We must be its champions. When we wake up each day to the loud and growing chorus of women saying ``me too,'' how can we deny them the legal tool as powerful and important as our own country's Constitution?

The people being affected by systemic gender inequality are our constituents. They are our wives, our daughters, and our granddaughters. They are American citizens and human beings who deserve basic respect and equality.

We are capable of so much more than lip service. We are capable of celebrating Women's History Month by making history. I call on this Senate to remove the deadline on passing the Equal Rights Amendment and show the American people we are the leaders they sent us here to be, and we will take action. Let us prove that we will use our voices when silence becomes complicity, and we will use our votes when our values need defending.

Women deserve to see that their Nation's founding document values them and treats them in a fashion equal to men. They are right to expect that gender equality should be an explicit, basic principle of our society. Let us all work together to get this done.

Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are not and never should be a partisan issue.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a common sense piece of legislation that will expand the ability of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to nurture innovative and high-growth small businesses in Maryland and across the country.

Let me first say, I recently returned to the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship as the Ranking Member. I look forward to continuing the important work of helping America's 29 million small businesses--the job creating engine of the country--access the essential capital to grow, to earn their fair share of Federal contracts, and to take advantage of SBA's counseling and mentoring programs that help entrepreneurs market and manage their businesses.

The Small Business Investment Opportunity Act is straightforward. It

modifies SBA's Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program by increasing the amount of capital that SBICs with a single fund can invest in qualifying small businesses.

The SBIC program stimulates investment in America's high-growth small businesses. SBICs are privately-owned and managed investment funds that use their own capital--plus funds borrowed with an SBA guaranty--to capitalize small businesses.

Last year, SBICs made 36 investments totaling $61.3 million in 12 innovative Maryland firms. Over the past five years, the program has channeled more than $21 billion of capital to 6,400 American small businesses across a variety of industries.

The program operates at no expense to taxpayers. Instead, the cost of the program is covered by fees paid by SBICs and their portfolio companies.

Consider this: since the program launched in 1958, SBIC has:

Deployed more than $67 billion of capital;

Made more than 166,000 investments in American small businesses; and

Licensed more than 2,100 investment funds.

Some of America's most iconic brands have received investment capital from SBICs, including Apple, Tesla, Whole Foods, Staples, Intel, FedEx and Costco, among others.

Under current law, SBA can guarantee up to $150 million of an SBIC investment fund. Our legislation increases that cap to $175 million and unlocks additional capital for small businesses with high-growth potential. The cap has not been raised since 2009.

Raising this cap would simply keep up with inflation and maximize the amount of capital SBICs can direct to innovative small businesses that hire our workers, support our communities, drive innovation and help our country maintain its competitive edge.

This bill also builds upon a change that Senator Risch, Senator Shaheen and I passed in 2015 to increase the maximum amount of leverage to SBICs with more than one fund. As some of my colleagues will recall, those types of SBICs are known as ``Family of Funds.''

As with the bill in 2015, the legislation we are introducing today is also bipartisan and bicameral. I am pleased the Small Business Investment Opportunity Act has the support of our Chairman, Senator Risch, as well as Senators Shaheen and Kennedy. An identical bill passed the House last year, and the legislation is endorsed by the Small Business Investor Alliance.

Thank you, I yield the floor.