Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on December 19, 2015, in Paris, France, diplomats representing more than 190 countries finalized the world's most ambitious, comprehensive, and achievable multilateral agreement to combat climate change at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's 21st Conference of Parties, or COP21.

I led a delegation of 10 Senators to COP21 to bolster U.S. leadership and to provide confidence in the U.S. commitment to the global effort to fight the existential threat of climate change. The result was an agreement that has nearly universal support, with every party committed to reducing carbon emissions. The momentum coming out of COP21 felt unstoppable.

That momentum continued through 2016. On Earth Day, an impressive 175 nations signed the Paris Agreement. Six months later, and in less than a year's time, the Paris Agreement reached the threshold for entry into force. Up until recently, the United States has led this global effort. The strength of our commitment and diplomacy spurred global enthusiasm for the Paris Agreement.

Some have said that we are the first generation to feel the effects of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it. Climate change impacts are apparent in my home State of Maryland. Recently, Annapolis began experiencing routine tidal flooding. Today's generations of Smith Islanders may be the last as a rising Chesapeake Bay encroaches further ashore each year.

Around the world, climate change is expanding the range and duration of regional wildfire seasons, prolonging extreme droughts in the Middle East and Southern Africa, which I have witnessed firsthand, and has caused Bolivia's Lake Poopo to evaporate entirely, and entire island nations are being swallowed up by the South Pacific.

The good news is, acting to prevent the worst effects of climate change holds tremendous economic and job growth opportunities for our Nation. The world looks toward the United States for leadership, not just in terms of domestic emissions reductions but also in our private sector and academia for clean energy solutions to power the world. Maryland is positioned to be at the forefront of U.S. leadership in technology innovation.

For example, the University of Maryland, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy and a number of Maryland private sector companies like Redox Energy, are leading the way in developing commercial-scale, in-demand technology that the global energy market is demanding.

In 2015, global investment in renewable energy was nearly $350 billion, which was more than the global investment in fossil fuel energy. The Department of Energy's 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report showed that nearly 1 million Americans work in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors. This is almost five times the current employment in

the U.S. fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. Even though gas and oil have hit record-low prices on the global market, current and projected price per watt for renewables is also low, making clean energy remarkably affordable and competitive in the market.

The United States stands at the crossroads of global clean energy and climate change leadership, and the policy path we take on these issues could not only shape the strength of our economic future but our overall standing in the world. Forward thinking domestic climate change and clean energy policy, including substantial investments in clean energy R&D and clean energy production incentives, have made the United States an incubator for clean energy investment and entrepreneurship.

We see these things in every State of the Nation--new innovators and investors in the clean energy sector.

Creating a robust domestic market helps U.S. companies develop tested records of accomplishment, skilled workforces, and scalable products to export around the world to a global energy market that is hungry for clean energy solutions. This is where domestic policy intersects with U.S. climate diplomacy, which is priming that export market by building good will and faith in U.S. capacity and commitment.

The United States must not squander the considerable time and effort it took to build the world's confidence in the United States when combating climate change.

The rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States severely strained a wide range of diplomacy issues for the Bush administration. That is not just a Senator saying this. Let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he stated:

Kyoto--this is not talking out of school--was not handled

as well as it should have been, and when the blowback came I

think it was a sobering experience that everything the

American president does has international repercussions.

That was General Powell warning us about the importance of international diplomacy and that our actions have consequences.

Hindsight on the impact U.S. participation in Kyoto would have had on the protocol's success and on the U.S. economy is another debate entirely--and we will leave that for a different day--but a clear lesson from the episode is that the United States must not underestimate how seriously the world takes the issue of international cooperation to combat climate change.

Should the Trump administration withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, it will be an incredible insult to our global partners and severely tarnish the trust nations have in the United States. That distrust will bleed over into all areas of U.S. diplomacy and cooperation.

While the Paris Agreement does not have enforceable, binding provisions that would punish parties for missing self-determined mitigation targets, nothing precludes other countries from acting outside the confines of the agreement to create uncomfortable conditions for nonmembers. It is worth noting here that if we were to pull out, we would be in a club with Syria and Nicaragua.

For example, in November of last year, immediately after the election and during COP22, the New York Times reported that leaders from other countries--so deeply offended by the President-elect's ill-informed rhetoric on climate change and the Paris Agreement--were contemplating implementing border tariffs on goods imported from nations failing to account for carbon emissions.

Staying in the agreement and continuing to advocate for what is in the best interests of the United States could prevent countries from taking such actions.

Many critics of the Paris Agreement sound as though they are stuck in 1997, echoing concerns about the 20-year-old Kyoto Protocol that are simply untrue about the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement takes a different approach to international climate change cooperation by creating an action model that allows for ambitious action and accountability through peer review.

The agreement takes a radically different approach to pollution mitigation that incorporates many conservative principles our Republican colleagues routinely espouse: increased transparency and universal reporting requirements for all parties. All parties, both developing and developed nations, commit to reducing greenhouse gas pollution. All parties determine their own greenhouse gas pollution mitigation commitments. Nationally determined commitments are nonbinding.

Let me repeat that. The nationally determined commitments are nonbinding. It is up to us, our country, to determine how we will meet our targets and when we will meet our targets, and the enforcement is solely within our own means. No international group can enforce any of these commitments on us. That was at the request of many Members of this body, and that was followed in the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement was forged by the lessons the United States learned from the Kyoto Protocol process. Each addressed commonly criticized elements of the Kyoto Protocol.

I cannot stress enough how seriously committed leaders around the world are to the success of the Paris Agreement. For example, it is the top agenda item for both the upcoming G7 and G20 meetings. As such, we absolutely cannot underestimate how thoroughly insulted our friends and allies around the world will be if the United States retreats from the agreement.

Make no mistake, callously disregarding cooperation and partnership with the global community on a crisis that is literally threatening the very physical existence of countries will have consequences for our foreign policy, diplomacy, national security, and U.S. economic opportunity in an undeniably globalized economy. Retreating from the Paris Agreement puts America alone, not America first, and being alone is tantamount to being last.

The expectation among our partners to the Paris Agreement is that the United States will remain engaged, although a common refrain among foreign delegations is that the world is moving ahead regardless. I take that to mean that if U.S. leadership falters, other countries will jump at the opportunity and fill the void we create and receive the gains which should have been ours.

U.S. energy policy should support the goals of the Paris Agreement. We have already seen hundreds of American corporations make commitments in the agreement's name. There is infinite potential from enhanced U.S. production of scalable and exportable clean energy technology that the world is demanding to power our collective future. If we do the opposite and retreat from the global effort to combat climate change, then we can expect to lose out on this economic growth potential because countries like Germany, China, and India will gladly take our place as the world's leader for clean energy innovation and finance. I will do what I can to protect against this loss.

It is in our national security interests for the United States to remain actively engaged with the world community to fight climate change.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a special member of the Senate family, Nancy Iacomini. Nancy, who has served as the Democratic Secretary's administrative assistant since 1998, is retiring after 34 years of devoted public service. I know I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues when I say I am going to miss Nancy, but she has certainly earned a respite, and I want to wish her all the best in her retirement.

Nancy is a proud Pittsburgh native. She earned her bachelor of arts degree in art history from the University of Notre Dame. She was an excellent student: she was on the dean's honor list, she was a Notre Dame scholar, and she graduated cum laude. Then she earned a master of arts degree in art history with a concentration in museum practice from George Washington University. Armed with her degrees and proven academic success, Nancy went to work for the National Gallery of Art, NGA. She spent 5 years at the NGA, holding positions of increasing responsibility. During this time, she also contributed entries and artist biographies to ``La Vie Moderne: Nineteenth Century Paintings from the Permanent Collection of the Corcoran Gallery of Art,'' Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1983.

In 1988, Nancy decided to shift her focus from art history to the art of the possible, and she joined the Democratic Policy Committee as a staff assistant. Within a few short months, she was promoted to the position of special assistant to the floor staff and then again a short time later to the position of executive assistant. The art world pulled her back, though, and from 1994 to 1998, she served as deputy congressional liaison at the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA. Some may recall that this was a critical time in the NEA's history when its very existence was at stake. Nancy helped the NEA weather the storm and then returned to the Senate to work in the Democratic Secretary's office.

Since Nancy came to work in Washington, she has lived in Virginia. Nancy has held leadership roles in the Ballston/Virginia Square Civic Association, the Cherrydale Citizens Association, and the Neighborhood Conservation Advisory Committee. She is a past member and chairman of the county's transportation commission, a past member and chairman of the historical affairs and landmark review board, and past chairman of the towing advisory board. She also chaired the fire station No. 3 relocation task force. Nancy has also participated in the East Falls Church Working Group, the Clarendon Sector Plan Update, neighborhood traffic calming measures ad hoc advisory group, the subdivision ordinance working group, and the joint George Mason University/ Arlington County advisory board. She served as Arlington's representative to WMATA's Riders' Advisory Council from 2006 to 2009 and chaired the council in 2008.

Here in the Senate, Nancy has had so many responsibilities that it would be hard to list them all, but I would note a few. Every Tuesday when the Senate is in session, there is a conference lunch. Nancy has been responsible for organizing the lunch, the topics for discussion, and the materials to be distributed. Despite much complaining from Senators whom I shall not name, she singlehandedly made the lunches more nutritious, with healthier entrees and more salads. That is no small accomplishment. My staff and I worked with Nancy and Gary Myrick on updating and revising the conference rules. Nancy's institutional memory and patience and helpful suggestions were crucially important and much appreciated in that endeavor. She helped people find jobs. She answered every imaginable inquiry from Senators and staff. I could go on, but suffice it to say that Nancy Iacomini has kept the ``Democratic trains'' running on time here in the Senate. She has done so with diligence and grace and good humor and skill. Will Rogers famously said, ``I am not a member of any organized political party; I am a Democrat.'' Well, he didn't know Nancy. Of course, if he did, he would have liked her--just as we all do.

We are going to miss Nancy's quiet competence and her sense of humor. We are going to miss the pumpkin outfits she would put on for Halloween. We are going to miss her wonder dog Flash. I hope Nancy will come back to visit us every now and then and even bring Flash with her, but I know she is looking forward to spending more time with her husband, Dan, and the rest of her family, pursuing her myriad hobbies, interests, and community activities and rooting for the Notre Dame football team.

Nancy Iacomini has devoted 34 years of her life to government service. We are all better off because of that service. As the fictional Inspector Morse reminds us, ``To make an end is to make a beginning.'' I would ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Nancy and wishing her all the best as she begins the next chapter in her life.

Mr. President, July 18, 2017, marks the 70th anniversary of the day that the ship Exodus 1947 arrived in Haifa, Israel.

The story of Exodus 1947 is as important today as it was 70 years ago. In 1947, the world was horrified and outraged by the British policy of violently preventing Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine and forcing their return to Europe and refugee camps in Germany. Watching the British Navy ram the Exodus 1947, which had 4,515 Holocaust survivors on board, inflamed world opinion and prompted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, UNSCOP, to scrutinize the actions of the British. Eventually the British were forced to end their policy of preventing Jewish immigration to Israel, and the State of Israel was born.

Why is the story of the Exodus 1947 so important that we are still talking about it 70 years later? After all, geopolitical transitions have launched multiple large-scale refugee migrations around the world in the 20th century, including Armenians in 1915, Russians in 1917, Chinese in 1949, Hindus from Pakistan and Muslims from India in 1947, East Germans between 1945 and 1961, Bosnians in the 1990s, Rwandans in 1994, Syrians in 2016--and many more.

The story of the Exodus 1947 is important to remember and consider today because it reminds us of our responsibility to protect human rights, help people outside of our own borders, stand up for Americans values, and work with our allies and international organizations to advance our goals. It reminds us that our work is not finished. It reminds us that, while it was the Jews on the Exodus 1947 70 years ago, political outrages around the world continue to require our leadership and our action.

As a U.S. Senator from Maryland and vigilant friend of the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's Maritime history, I would like to highlight the fact that, prior to its service in support of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust, the Exodus 1947 was called the President Warfield and it sailed the Chesapeake Bay for the Baltimore Steam Packet Company. The President Warfield changed hands many times, from the Baltimore Steam Packet Company to the British Navy to the U.S. Navy to the Potomac Shipwrecking Company, which was actually acting as clandestine purchasing agents of the Haganah who wanted the

ship because the conditions that made it ideal for navigating the Chesapeake Bay, shifting sand of 3 feet or less in depth, made it ideal for getting immigrants quickly and closely up to the coastal areas of Palestine.

After the Haganah secured the ship, she was retrofitted in Baltimore from where she sailed towards France to pick up 4,515 Holocaust the refugees and deposit them in Palestine--a plan which was destroyed after the British rammed the ship, prevented the refugees from disembarking in Palestine, detained them in inhumane conditions, and eventually returned them to Germany.

The world witnessed the inhumane treatment of the Exodus's passengers and some righteous people cried out. We continue to talk about the Exodus 1947 to remind ourselves never to forget both our suffering and our empowerment.

I would like to acknowledge all who have made the creation of this memorial possible. Along with a series of associated commemorative projects, the Exodus 1947 memorial is the culmination of decades of tireless effort by the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, JASHP, to recognize the historic events that led to the formation of Israel. In particular, I applaud the work of Dr. Barry S. Lever, chairman of the 50th Anniversary Commemoration of the Final Voyage of the SS President Warfied--Exodus 1947, the Jewish Museum of Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay Museum, and the individuals and organizations here and abroad who have aided in the efforts to honor the Exodus 1947 and its passengers.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act of 2017. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller, has agreed to cosponsor this bipartisan, no-cost legislation that would allow occupational therapists to perform the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments in cases in

which occupational therapy is ordered by the physician, along with speech language pathology and/or physical therapy services, and skilled nursing care is not required. Our bill will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive timely access to essential home health therapy care.

Occupational therapists have long been recognized as a valuable component of our Nation's healthcare workforce and a critical aspect of home healthcare because of their focus on patients' functional capabilities and their expertise in home safety. Physicians frequently order occupational therapy as part of an initial plan of care for patients requiring home health care, alongside the qualifying services of physical therapy, speech-language pathology, and skilled nursing. Under certain circumstances, an occupational therapist is allowed to perform the comprehensive assessment to determine a Medicare beneficiary's continuing need for home healthcare. However, under current Medicare law, occupational therapists are not permitted to conduct the initial assessment for home health cases, even when occupational therapy is included in the physician's order and when the case is exclusively related to rehabilitation therapy. Additionally, occupational therapists are not allowed to complete the comprehensive assessment unless occupational therapy is the qualifying service.

By permitting occupational therapists to perform initial home health assessment visits and comprehensive assessments in limited circumstances, the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act can help prevent delays in the time it takes for Medicare beneficiaries to receive essential home healthcare, especially in underserved areas where access to physical therapists and speech language pathologists may be limited. On January 13, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, released the final conditions of participation, or COPs, for home health agencies participating in Medicare and Medicaid. These new COPs expand the content of the home health comprehensive assessment to include the patient's functional, psychosocial, and cognitive status, all of which are areas of expertise for occupational therapists. The new COPs also require the creation of a patient-centered plan of care that is informed by the comprehensive assessment. As a result of their comprehensive education and unique training, occupational therapists are qualified to perform the necessary assessments to adhere to these new CMS home health guidelines.

It is important to note that the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act would apply only to rehabilitation therapy cases in which skilled nursing care is not required. Nurses would still be required to conduct the initial assessment for all home health cases in which skilled nursing care is ordered by the physician. Also, although the legislation would allow occupational therapists to conduct the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments, it would not alter the existing criteria for establishing eligibility for the Medicare home health benefit.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller and to support the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act to correct the discrepancy in Medicare regulations between therapy providers and to help ensure timely access to essential, high-quality home health therapy care for Medicare beneficiaries.

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

Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act of 2017. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller, has agreed to cosponsor this bipartisan, no-cost legislation that would allow occupational therapists to perform the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments in cases in

which occupational therapy is ordered by the physician, along with speech language pathology and/or physical therapy services, and skilled nursing care is not required. Our bill will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive timely access to essential home health therapy care.

Occupational therapists have long been recognized as a valuable component of our Nation's healthcare workforce and a critical aspect of home healthcare because of their focus on patients' functional capabilities and their expertise in home safety. Physicians frequently order occupational therapy as part of an initial plan of care for patients requiring home health care, alongside the qualifying services of physical therapy, speech-language pathology, and skilled nursing. Under certain circumstances, an occupational therapist is allowed to perform the comprehensive assessment to determine a Medicare beneficiary's continuing need for home healthcare. However, under current Medicare law, occupational therapists are not permitted to conduct the initial assessment for home health cases, even when occupational therapy is included in the physician's order and when the case is exclusively related to rehabilitation therapy. Additionally, occupational therapists are not allowed to complete the comprehensive assessment unless occupational therapy is the qualifying service.

By permitting occupational therapists to perform initial home health assessment visits and comprehensive assessments in limited circumstances, the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act can help prevent delays in the time it takes for Medicare beneficiaries to receive essential home healthcare, especially in underserved areas where access to physical therapists and speech language pathologists may be limited. On January 13, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, released the final conditions of participation, or COPs, for home health agencies participating in Medicare and Medicaid. These new COPs expand the content of the home health comprehensive assessment to include the patient's functional, psychosocial, and cognitive status, all of which are areas of expertise for occupational therapists. The new COPs also require the creation of a patient-centered plan of care that is informed by the comprehensive assessment. As a result of their comprehensive education and unique training, occupational therapists are qualified to perform the necessary assessments to adhere to these new CMS home health guidelines.

It is important to note that the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act would apply only to rehabilitation therapy cases in which skilled nursing care is not required. Nurses would still be required to conduct the initial assessment for all home health cases in which skilled nursing care is ordered by the physician. Also, although the legislation would allow occupational therapists to conduct the initial home health assessment visit and comprehensive assessments, it would not alter the existing criteria for establishing eligibility for the Medicare home health benefit.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Heller and to support the Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act to correct the discrepancy in Medicare regulations between therapy providers and to help ensure timely access to essential, high-quality home health therapy care for Medicare beneficiaries.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Rod J. Rosenstein to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States at the Justice Department. Rod has served the people of Maryland extraordinarily well since 2005 as the U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I hope the Senate will confirm him in very short order.

I might point out that he received a favorable recommendation from the Judiciary Committee by a lopsided vote of 19-to-1.

Rod Rosenstein is the total package. He has committed his life to public service. Rod graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a B.S. in economics, summa cum laude, in 1986. He earned his J.D. degree from Harvard Law School in 1989, where he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then served as a law clerk to Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. After finishing his clerkship in 1990, he became a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. He has remained at the Justice Department for his entire career.

Mr. Rosenstein has devoted his life to public service. In Maryland, Rod was appointed in 2005 by President Bush and then held over by President Obama, with the strong support of his two home State Senators, which include myself and the senior Senator at that time, Senator Barbara Mikulski. Rod has now become the longest serving U.S. attorney in the country today.

I really want to underscore that point. I know my colleagues know the prerogatives we have when we come into office and there is an opening at the U.S. attorney's office because of an election of a President from your own party where the previous U.S. attorney was appointed by the other party. In this case, it was a Republican who appointed Mr. Rosenstein. President Obama came into office, and the senior Senator and junior Senator had the opportunity to replace that U.S. attorney, which has been the tradition in the Senate. Senator Mikulski and I had no hesitation when asking Mr. Rosenstein to remain on as the U.S. attorney in Maryland. We did that because we knew how valuable he was for law enforcement in our State.

As U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, Rod has garnered broad bipartisan support from the State and local law enforcement officials across our great State as he has tackled problems of crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, gun and gang violence, civil rights enforcement, environmental crimes, intellectual property fraud, and corruption. I just mentioned a couple of those.

I sat down with the U.S. attorney to talk about gang violence in our State because I had been to Central America and I saw the exporting of gang violence from Central America to Maryland. The U.S. attorney, Mr. Rosenstein, and I had a chance to talk about

the strategies we would use in Maryland to combat that. But he didn't just work by himself at the U.S. attorney level; he worked with local law enforcement to make sure we had a team approach.

In terms of his pro bono work, Rod wrote in his Judiciary Committee questionnaire:

My entire legal career has been devoted to public service,

and much of my work directly benefits disadvantaged persons.

In addition to my official duties and public speaking, I have

taught without compensation at area law schools, served as a

judge at law school moot court and mock trial competitions,

and counseled other lawyers who have devoted some or all of

their career to public service.

He has truly been a model for many others in public service, a real role model.

Let me share a few examples with my colleagues of how State and local officials in Maryland have viewed Rod's work over the past decade. Let me begin with the city of Baltimore, which has just entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice to reform its police practices after the death of Freddie Gray in custody 2 years ago.

Baltimore police commissioner Kevin Davis wrote:

Mr. Rosenstein and the Baltimore Police Department have

collaborated on numerous large-scale investigations and

resulting indictments of violent criminal organizations

operating in Baltimore City. Under Mr. Rosenstein's

leadership, the U.S. Attorney's Office and its prosecutors

operate with the highest sense of justice and integrity in

the course of these investigations and trials.

Commissioner Davis continues:

It is undeniable that Baltimore City is a safer place as a

result of Mr. Rosenstein's tenure as U.S. Attorney. Through

our professional collaborations, I have come to know Mr.

Rosenstein on a personal basis as well. Mr. Rosenstein is a

man of utmost character and intellect.

Former State's attorney for Baltimore City, Gregg Bernstein, a Democrat, wrote:

Simply stated, Rod was a terrific partner. Even a cursory

review of his body of work as the United States Attorney for

the District of Maryland makes readily apparent that Rod was

committed to reducing the level of violent crime in

Baltimore. His commitment and effort trickled down to other

law enforcement agencies as well, including the Baltimore

City State's Attorney's Office.

In Rod, we saw a person who was not interested in personal

credit or accolade, but instead, one who created an

atmosphere of collaboration that had not been seen in

Baltimore for some time. It was much more important to him

that everyone was working as hard as they could to fight

crime in the City and the rest of Maryland.

Mr. Bernstein continues:

As a result of his tireless efforts, Rod helped to reduce

the homicide rate in Baltimore to historically low levels not

seen in decades. He also was responsible for supervising a

United States Attorney's Office that was able to dismantle

many of the gangs in Baltimore that were responsible for much

of the illegal drug trade and violence that have plagued the

City. He has earned the universal respect and admiration of

not only his colleagues in the United States Attorney's

Office, but other law enforcement agencies, and a debt of

gratitude from the public that has greatly appreciated his

work to make Baltimore a safer place to live and work.

State and local elected prosecutors of both political parties in Maryland have also weighed in in support of Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. Scott Shellenberger, the Baltimore County State's attorney, wrote on behalf of the Maryland State's Attorneys' Association:

Rod has been an outstanding partner with every local

prosecutor in the State of Maryland. Whether it is partnering

with prosecutors in the City of Baltimore to stem gun

violence, to the prosecution of prison gang corruption both

in the city and in rural counties . . . Rod has always been

there for law enforcement. When prosecutors in this State ask

Rod for assistance, he does not care if you are a ``D'' or an

``R,'' he has only cared about making this State a safer

place. Rod makes his decisions based on the law, the

evidence, logic and reasons, never allowing emotion or

passion to move him from his core mission.

I have full confidence that Rod will call it like he sees it without regard to partisan or political considerations and that he will continue to uphold his oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.

I must tell you that I have heard from State and local officials directly who have worked with Rod on political corruption cases and thanked Rod for the manner in which he collaboratively worked to root out corruption and misconduct by State and local officials in Maryland. As you can imagine, State and local officials do not always welcome Federal investigations or prosecutions into their domain, so this really speaks volumes about Rod as a prosecutor and a person and his ability to get along and accomplish results.

Former Maryland attorney general Doug Gansler wrote:

I have always found [Rod] to be totally by-the-book and

completely apolitical. Rod understands the importance of

staying out of the political limelight. The fact that I am a

Democrat who served in elected office for 16 years and that

Rod was appointed by a Republican President never was

mentioned. He makes decisions for the right reasons and

articulates those reasons with aplomb. . . . Rod is and

always has been extremely ethical and conscientious,

qualities which have earned him the respect of his peers and

colleagues.

As Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein would basically serve as the chief operating officer at the Justice Department and manage the daily operations of the Nation's largest firm. The Department of Justice is a sprawling Cabinet Department with more than 100,000 employees and a $28 billion budget. That is a pretty big undertaking. It is good to know that a person of his reputation has shown that he will not yield to partisan pressure but do what is right. It is good to know that we have that type of person whom we can confirm as the Deputy Attorney General. That is why it is so important that we have an effective manager and leader.

Maryland attorney general Brian Frosh, a Democrat, wrote:

I have found [Rod] to be intelligent, principled, and fair.

As U.S. Attorney, Mr. Rosenstein has been an exemplary

leader. He inherited an office that was in turmoil. With a

steady hand and superb management, he has built it into an

institution that is universally respected in our state. He

has been able to recruit and retain extremely talented

attorneys, investigators and staff, and the office has been

effective and successful in carrying out its mission.

I expect Rod to exercise the same management style as the Deputy Attorney General overseeing the dozens of divisions, offices, and agencies at the Department of Justice. He will use that same commitment that he used as the U.S. attorney for the State of Maryland.

Lastly, let me quote from former Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who served in President Obama's administration under Attorney General Holder. I know Mr. Cole well. He was the special counsel during the House ethics investigation of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, which committee I was on. Mr. Cole supports Mr. Rosenstein's nomination. Mr. Cole writes:

Rod brings with him the knowledge, skill, experience, and

wisdom that is required for this job. He also brings an

understanding of, and respect for, the important role the

Department of Justice occupies in our government--the need

for it to not only enforce the laws, but to also maintain a

level of independence that enables it to have credibility in

the eyes of our citizens. Rod will make an excellent Deputy

Attorney General. . . . Even at an earlier age, he exhibited

the sound judgment and careful thought that was necessary to

handle the very sensitive public corruption cases that were

prosecuted by the [Public Integrity Section of the Criminal

Division].

That is Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole was a former Deputy Attorney General, and he understands this role very well and understands Mr. Rosenstein is uniquely qualified to hold this position.

I want to conclude by urging my colleagues to support Mr. Rosenstein's nomination.

I especially thank Rod's family for their contribution to public service as well. As we know, we can't do this without a supportive family, and this service comes at a steep price in terms of time spent doing public service and sacrifices made by his family. I thank his wife Lisa and his daughters, Julie and Allison, for being willing to share their husband and father with our country.

I urge the Senate to confirm Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to be the next Deputy Attorney General of the United States at the Justice Department.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my Senate colleagues to join me in designating April 2017 as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia, also known as CDH, is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop, allowing abdominal organs to move into the chest cavity and preventing lung growth. When the lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for the baby to breathe after birth, or the baby is unable to take in enough oxygen to stay healthy. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a birth defect that occurs in 1 out of every 2,500 live births worldwide. Only about 50 percent of CDH cases are diagnosed in utero. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimates that CDH affects 1,600 babies in the U.S. each year. Every 10 minutes, a baby is born with CDH, adding up to more than 700,000 babies with CDH since 2000. According to the CDC, babies born with CDH experience a high mortality rate ranging from 20 to 60 percent, depending on the severity of the defect and the treatments available at delivery; yet most people have never heard of

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my Senate colleagues to join me in designating April 2017 as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia, also known as CDH, is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop, allowing abdominal organs to move into the chest cavity and preventing lung growth. When the lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for the baby to breathe after birth or the baby is unable to take in enough oxygen to stay healthy. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia is a birth defect that occurs in 1 out of every 2,500 live births worldwide. Only about 50 percent of CDH cases are diagnosed in utero. The Center for Disease Control & Prevention, CDC, estimates that CDH affects 1,600 babies in the United States each year. Every 10 minutes, a baby is born with CDH, adding up to more than 700,000 babies with CDH since 2000. According to the CDC, babies born with CDH experience a high mortality rate ranging from 20 to 60 percent depending on the severity of the defect and the treatments available at delivery, yet most people have never heard of

Madam President, I take this time to explain to the people of Maryland and our Nation my views on Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There is no more important responsibility that a Member of the Senate has than the advice and consent of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Of the many important responsibilities we have, this is one of the most important responsibilities.

I have taken this on to try to understand as much as I can about Judge Gorsuch, to understand the dynamics of what his membership on the Supreme Court would mean, because I recognize it is not just an appointment for this term of Congress. This is a lifetime appointment, and it is very possible that he, if confirmed, will serve on the Supreme Court for a generation. So his impact on the workings of the Supreme Court is something that is extremely important to each Member of the Senate.

I think many of us are looking for an Associate Justice who can bring about more consensus on the Supreme Court, who can try to deal with some of the great divisions in our Nation in a way that represents the values of our Constitution, that will allow our Nation to move forward in a united way.

We also recognize that the Senate must give an independent evaluation of a Supreme Court Justice. This is not because the President of your party nominated someone to the Supreme Court, whether you support or oppose; it is the independent review process that each Senator undertakes to determine whether the nominee should get our support.

So what I look at is someone who would be a mainstream jurist, who is sensitive to the civil rights of all Americans, who would understand the importance of our Constitution, which has been a Constitution that has expanded rights and not one that we would look at ways to move in the wrong direction on extending constitutional protections--that is, move backward rather than forward.

First, let me start by stating that I am troubled by the process President Trump followed in nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. During his campaign, he talked about a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices, that they must be pro-life in the mold of Justice Scalia. The list that was submitted to him in which Judge Gorsuch was a part was proposed by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. That is not a good way to start a process of bringing in a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.

To my knowledge, there was no consultation with any Democrats prior to the nomination being made. The reason why consultation with all Members of the Senate is important is that if you engage in real understanding as to what the Senate--and we represent the entire country--is looking for in a Supreme Court Justice, you have a much better chance of ending up with a nominee who is going to enjoy broader support, bipartisan support, real bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, and then the 60-vote threshold does not become a hurdle.

There is a reason we have the rules we do in the Senate, and the 60- vote concept on a controversial nominee is so that we don't end up with an extreme candidate who would end up being on the Supreme Court of the United States, that there must be that process that would generate 60 votes.

So despite my concern about the process that was initiated by President Trump in the nomination, I have tried to look at all of the opportunities to understand Judge Gorsuch's record and his likely actions as a member of the Supreme Court. I took the time to meet with Judge Gorsuch, and I found that interview, that process, to be extremely helpful in understanding his judicial philosophy. I monitored the hearings that took place in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I found that testimony to be helpful. I reviewed the testimony of experts who had submitted both verbal and written comments in regard to Judge Gorsuch. I have reviewed his extensive legal record. We do have an extensive legal record that I am going to comment about that went into my own process in determining whether I can support him.

I came to the conclusion that I could not support Judge Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States because he is not a mainstream candidate. I am concerned that he would put corporate interests before individual rights. The strength of our Constitution is in the individual. Individual rights should be paramount to special interests or corporate interests.

I saw in his legal opinions a hostility toward environmental interests, women's health, marginalized students with disabilities, and other vulnerable types of individuals, that had me greatly concerned.

I was particularly concerned about whether he could separate his political views from his legal views. This is an extremely important point. We want our Justices on the Supreme Court not to be influenced by the politics around us.

In the legislative branch, it is perfectly legitimate to take into consideration political views. The President of the United States is nominated by a political party; that is understood. But the Supreme Court--the Justices on the Supreme Court need to leave their political views outside of their responsibilities. I was deeply troubled, after reading the opinions of Judge Gorsuch and his writings, that he would not be able to separate his political views from his legal views.

I was concerned about whether he would truly be an independent check on the Presidency. We know that President Trump is testing the constitutional reach of his office. We have seen that in some of the Executive orders he has issued. And I have little confidence by his responses at the hearings that Judge Gorsuch would be an independent voice toward the President of the United States.

Let me cite some examples to fill in the blanks on what I am saying. Judge Gorsuch challenges the Chevron deference doctrine. In the Gutierrez case, he indicates that judges rather than agencies should be basically administering our laws. The longstanding deference to agencies to interpret our law has allowed agencies to carry out their mission. Without that authority, it is extremely challenging to see how an agency can carry out the missions of laws we have passed. Judge Gorsuch raises questions as to whether that document is still relevant.

Let me make it clear. Who benefits from the Chevron doctrine? The Chevron doctrine has allowed agencies to protect workers' rights, protect our environment, protect consumers, food safety, and the list goes on and on. Each of our States has examples to show how important the Chevron doctrine has been. In my State of Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay is critically important to Maryland's economy, critically important to the character of our State we have in Maryland and our future. The protection of the public health of the Chesapeake Bay has very much been advanced by the Chevron deference doctrine.

Judge Gorsuch wrote: ``Chevron appears to qualify as a violation of the separation of powers.'' Then he argued that its ``primary rationale is no more than a fiction.'' Looking at what he has said about a fundamental document that is there to protect our environment, protect workers, protect public health, versus what Justice Scalia once explained--and I quote from Justice Scalia: ``In the long run, Chevron will endure and be given its full scope, because it more accurately reflects the reality of government and thus more adequately serves its needs.'' In the Gutierrez case, Judge Gorsuch was showing a more activist conservative agenda than Justice Scalia.

Let me move on to Citizens United. We have talked about Citizens United probably more than any Supreme Court case on the Senate floor. We know it is a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision. We know it opened up the floodgates for dark money, allowing corporations to have constitutional rights which we thought were only for individuals.

In the Riddle case, Judge Gorsuch announced a strict scrutiny standard to political contribution limits that quite frankly would make the Citizens United case even worse and would gut campaign finance law limits. I think each of us should be concerned about that decision.

Let me move on to the TransAmerican Trucking case. Here, Judge Gorsuch was in dissent. He was in the minority. What he basically said was that a truckdriver had to sacrifice his life in order to protect his job; otherwise, he could be fired. What I mean by that, as I think many of our colleagues know, but let me say to those who might not be totally familiar, the truckdriver found himself abandoned because the brakes of his trailer were frozen in subzero temperatures. He contacted his dispatcher for help and after several hours recognized that his life was in danger because of hypothermia. He did not have adequate heat in his cab.

He had one of three choices. He could try to maneuver the cab and the trailer with frozen brakes, maybe costing himself his life or the lives of other people on the road; he could remain as he was instructed by the dispatcher and perhaps freeze to death; or he could do what I think any reasonable person would do: He disconnected the cab, took care of making sure he was safe, warmed himself up, and returned to the trailer in order to complete the mission. For that, he was fired, and Judge Gorsuch said that was acceptable. That is an extreme opinion and one that gives us great pause as to how Judge Gorsuch will act on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Let me talk about NLRB v. Community Health Services, wherein Judge Gorsuch was again in the dissent. It had to do with backpay for workers. In this opinion, he showed real hostility to workers and unions--something that had me greatly concerned.

Another case that received a great deal of publicity in this body was Hobby Lobby. I raise it here for one principal reason. What the Court was saying and Judge Gorsuch was agreeing with was that the religious protection that is provided under the Constitution--that it is more important for a company to be able to exercise that religious freedom than the employees. Once again, one of my principal concerns is whether Judge Gorsuch will protect the rights of individuals or whether he will side on behalf of business. Clearly, in the Hobby Lobby case, he decided on business, to the detriment of women's rights, the LGBT community, and others.

In the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah case, he showed a direct hostility to Planned Parenthood. Quite frankly, this case is very difficult to understand because Judge Gorsuch would have allowed the Governor to cut off funds even though the case had been settled and the parties had not asked to have the case retried.

We talk about activism and that we do not want to see activist judges. To me, that demonstrates that Judge Gorsuch, indeed, will be an activist judge in his trying to move a particular political agenda.

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, which is a case that came in during the confirmation hearing process, we had a severely autistic child, and Judge Gorsuch was responsible for the absurd reading of the de minimis benefit of defending against private placement. The Supreme Court rightly rejected that logic on an 8-to-0 decision.

Justice Roberts wrote the opinion about the IDEA law in that there are protections for disabled students in our school system. Judge Gorsuch would turn back the progress that we have made on civil rights and on constitutional protection.

As I mentioned earlier, I am very concerned about whether Judge Gorsuch can keep his political views separate from what he says--how he acts as a potential Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I go to a 2005 National Review article in which he wrote:

American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom,

relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and

the ballot box as the primary means of effecting their social

agenda. . . . This overweening addiction to the courtroom as

the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and

bad for the judiciary.

I mention that particular case and quote Judge Gorsuch because we do not want a judge to side with either being a liberal or a conservative. We do not want a judge to say: I have a responsibility to promote an agenda as a judge. We do not want a judge to be able to take a political view and take that onto the bench. Whether it is a person whom we agree with politically or disagree with politically, we want to have an independent judiciary. This National Review article causes me grave concern as to whether Judge Gorsuch can, in fact, be that neutral person on the Court.

Judge Gorsuch appears to be an activist judge and will become an activist judge and will turn back progress to protect individual constitutional rights. That is something that gives me grave concern. It is the reason I cannot support this nominee to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let me turn to process for one moment, because it looks as though, sometime tomorrow, we are going to be called upon to vote on a cloture motion. I want to comment on that if I might.

As I said earlier, to me, Judge Gorsuch is not mainstream. He will put

corporate interests above individual interests. He shows a hostility toward the environment and women, health, women's health, et cetera. He has political views that, I think, he would not be able to differentiate, and he would not be an independent check and balance in our political system.

For all of those reasons, it seems appropriate to me that this is why we have a 60-vote threshold--to make sure that we do not take extreme nominees and allow them to be confirmed by a partisan vote. We want to have a broader consensus, and Judge Gorsuch did not earn that broader consensus.

There are additional considerations here, and this goes back a few years with the Republican leadership. What they did to President Obama's judicial nominations must be underscored because this is not in a vacuum. We did not get to this place in a vacuum from what has happened already but in our going back to President Obama when his district court nominees were delayed--in some cases, totally blocked-- and required a record number of cloture motions to have been filed and acted upon--a record number. We had, as I understand, more clotures and more filibusters of President Obama's nominees by Republicans than we did in the entire history of the U.S. Senate.

There has been a direct effort by the Republican leadership to filibuster judicial nominees. That is wrong. It should not have been done. Yes, there are reasons for some but not for the record numbers that were done. You should be able to allow for the comity.

Quite frankly, in 2013, the Republican leader told President Obama: No more DC Circuit Court judges. Let me repeat that. In 2013--this was the first year of the President's term--the Republican leader said: No more DC Circuit Court judges. We had 3 vacancies in the DC Circuit Court; 8 of the 11 had been filled, and 3 were vacant, and it had nothing to do with the nominees. They just said that they were not going to consider any of them, and they used a filibuster to block any filling of these positions.

First, I quote from Chief Judge Henry Edwards when he talked about the DC Circuit:

The review of a large, multi-party, difficult

administrative appeal is the stable judicial work of the DC

Circuit. This long distinguishes the work of the DC Circuit

from the work of other circuits. It also explains why it is

impossible to compare the work of the DC Circuit with other

circuits by simply referring to the raw data of case filings.

Chief Justice Roberts noted that about two-thirds of the cases before the DC Circuit involve the Federal Government in some civil capacity. That figure is less than 25 percent nationwide. He also described the DC Circuit's unique character as a court with the special responsibility to review legal challenges of the conduct of the national government.

My point is clear. This is the second most important court in our land, and in the first year of President Obama's term, the Republicans announced that they would filibuster any attempt to put any judge on this circuit. Then we had the ultimate filibuster by the Republicans, and that was Merrick Garland.

In February 2016, after Justice Scalia's death, a nominee was submitted to us by President Obama who was acknowledged to be mainstream, acknowledged to be well qualified, acknowledged to be a consensus nominee, and he got the ultimate filibuster. Most of the Republicans in the Senate would not meet with him. He did not have a committee hearing or a committee vote, and he did not have a floor vote. That was the ultimate filibuster. It was wrong, particularly when we know that he would have received 60 votes.

So you cannot compare Judge Gorsuch with Judge Garland because, unlike Judge Garland, Judge Gorsuch does not share the same evaluation of being able to be a consensus, mainstream candidate who would receive a 60-vote threshold.

For all of these reasons, if the majority leader is going to pursue the cloture vote on the Gorsuch nomination, I will not vote in favor of cloture. I would hope that we would be able to return to the comity that is important in the U.S. Senate, but we recognize there are times in which you should have a 60-vote threshold. When the President of the United States goes outside of the norms and the process has already been employed by the Republicans, I urge my colleagues to rethink the course that we are on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week, I introduced, along with Senators Perdue, Feinstein, Rubio, Blumenthal, Collins, Merkley, Booker, and Leahy, the Combating Global Corruption Act of 2017.

Global corruption is a fundamental obstacle to peace, prosperity, and human rights. It is fueling transnational criminal networks and violent extremism, and combatting it should be elevated and prioritized across our foreign policy efforts.

I know my colleagues understand the crucial importance of addressing corruption because it undermines public confidence in government institutions and fosters resentment and instability. There is growing recognition across the United States and around the world that corruption is a serious threat to international security and stability. The countries and names might be different, but the characteristics and the impact on innocent people are the same.

The bribery scandal surrounding the huge Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht has tarnished politicians and governments from Peru to Columbia to Mexico. Rampant corruption in oil-rich Angola is depriving children of a quality education and contributing to the highest child mortality rate in the world. While progress is now being made, extensive corruption in Afghanistan resulted in billions of dollars of assistance winding up in the pockets of crooked elites.

The connections are clear: Where there are high levels of corruption, we find fragile states, political instability, and people suffering from hunger and violence.

Corruption is a global problem, but its consequences take the harshest toll at the local level, and it is very tough to fight. The problem of corruption, and the disruption and suffering it causes, involves many corrupt actors, from government officials to businessmen, from law enforcement and military personnel to street gangs. Corruption is a system that operates via extensive, entrenched networks in both the public and private sectors.

We know that corruption is the lifeblood of Vladimir Putin's Russia, and it is the glue for his regime's survival. Parasitic at home, deeply corrupt regimes like Putin's seek to enrich themselves, hollow out their own countries' institutions, and subvert rules-based democratic states abroad. An anticorruption platform run by opposition activist and aspiring, Presidential candidate Alexei Navalny recently released information uncovering four mansions, an Italian vineyard, yachts, and other high-value assets reportedly held by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Anticorruption demonstrations, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and across the country in recent weeks reflect the ongoing resistance of the Russian people to government corruption. Hundreds were arrested. Prominent anticorruption activist Ildar Dadin, who has already spent over a year in prison for earlier protests, was among those arrested.

Corruption feeds the destructive fire of criminal networks and transnational crime. Citizens lose faith in the social compact between governments and the people. In Venezuela, we have seen how rampant corruption has collapsed the country's economy, sparked a humanitarian crisis, and produced chains of money laundering that span several continents. The ongoing crisis there now threatens to collapse the last few remnants of the rule of law.

Corruption also fuels violence by security forces. South Sudan's kleptocrats have either failed to pay or delayed salary payments to their soldiers who have in turn taken out their rage on innocent civilians, attacking them, looting and burning their homes, and engaging in other violent criminality.

We should take heart that in just the past 2 years, popular protests against corruption have broken out in Iraq, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Lebanon, Malaysia, Moldova, and Venezuela. In Romania, efforts to weaken anticorruption laws there prompted an estimated 500,000 protesters to take to the streets last month, even after the government repealed its decree, showing the degree to which citizens are fed up with graft and determined to push back. These were the largest demonstrations since the fall of communism.

Some victims express their frustration through peaceful protest, but not all. The revolutions of the Arab Spring and Ukraine began, in part, as determined anticorruption protests.

In every country where protests erupted in 2011, demonstrators condemned the corruption of detested ruling elites and demanded accountability and the return of looted assets. These

revolutions have degenerated into some of the chief security challenges we confront now--Russian aggression in Ukraine, 6 years of slaughter in Syria, the implosion of Libya, a brutal war in Yemen, the fraying of Iraq, and an expanding insurgency in Egypt.

Official corruption fuels radical extremism and terrorism, too; it gives credibility to militant religious extremists and helps them gain recruits and increasing footholds in Afghanistan and Iraq to Pakistan, Central Asia, the Sahel, and West Africa. It may seem like a spurious example, but it can be persuasive to a young Nigerian man whose sister was molested by a teacher as the cost for attending school.

Let's be clear-eye. Any fight against corruption will be long-term and difficult. It is a fight against powerful people, powerful companies, and powerful interests. It is about changing a mindset and a culture as much as it is about establishing and enforcing laws.

As my colleagues and constituents know, my attention has long been focused on fighting corruption. I introduced the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act to target human rights abusers and corrupt individuals around the globe who threaten the rule of law and deny fundamental freedoms, but the problem is so big--we simply have to do more.

This is why this week I introduced with bipartisan support the Combating Global Corruption Act of 2017 in the U.S. Senate.

We must meet the scale of entrenched corruption with greater resolve and commitment. To do that, I believe we must focus on three things which I will lay out in my legislation.

First, we must institutionalize the fight against corruption as a national security priority. In my bill, the State Department will produce an annual report, similar to the Trafficking in Persons Report, which takes a close look at each country's efforts to combat corruption. That model, which has effectively advanced the effort to combat modern day slavery, will similarly embed the issue of corruption in our collective work, so that we hold governments to account.

The bill establishes minimum standards for combating corruption-- standards that should be every government's duty to its citizens. These include whether a country has laws that recognize corrupt acts for the crimes they are--violations of the people's trust--and that come with serious penalties for breaking that trust; whether an independent judiciary decides corruption cases, free from influence and abuse; whether there is support for civil society organizations that are the watchdogs of integrity against would-be thieves of the state. This bill aims to build anticorruption DNA into the basic functions of government.

Second, the bill would improve the way we look at our own foreign and security assistance, and promote more transparency--let in some daylight. For countries that fall short on their corruption efforts, the bill calls for an assessment of the risk of corruption for our foreign assistance and steps to combat corruption, including the ability to claw back any funds diverted from their intended purpose and terminate compromised programs. American taxpayers should know how our foreign assistance is spent, and they should feel confident that we are doing the kind of risk assessments, analysis, and oversight that ensure our assistance to other countries is having the effect we want it to have.

Third, the bill consolidates information about anticorruption efforts abroad and puts it online, where citizens can see the numbers and the programs. That kind of transparency is essential to open government, but in my experience, it also has the effect of making us better at self-policing our work. We can use the data to capture redundancies and analyze trends, improving our decisionmaking.

I urge my colleagues to join me and the bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation in this effort. The success of our diplomacy, and the ultimate impact of our international security efforts depend on it.

Thank you.

Madam President, I wish to express my opposition to S. 89 because it exempts certain vessels--actually one specific vessel called the Delta Queen--from current fire retardant construction standards and, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, represents ``an unacceptable degree of fire safety risk. . . . ''

Maritime history has numerous examples of catastrophic on-board fires followed by the passage--or attempted passage--of laws designed to improve safety and protect passengers and crew.

In response to the sinking of the RMS Titanic, in 1914, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, prescribed emergency equipment and safety procedures IMO-flagged ships were required to have in place.

The 1934 fire on the SS Morro Castle prompted the adoption of multiple Federal safety regulations, including the use of fire retardant construction materials.

A series of fires aboard international passenger ships in the early 1960s prompted the U.S. to enact the Safety of Life at Sea Act, SOLAS, which mandated that ``no passenger vessel of the United States shall be granted a certificate of inspection [. . .] unless the vessel is constructed of fire-retardant materials.''

Congress delayed the implementation of the SOLAS mandate first until 1968, then until 1970, then again until 1973, but only for U.S. passenger vessels operating on inland rivers.

In 1973, Congress again delayed the effect of the mandate, but this time EXPRESSLY for one ship--the Delta Queen--and only for one 5-year period ``while a new [overnight passenger] riverboat is being constructed.''

Despite the clear intent of Congress in 1973, the various owners of the Delta Queen successfully secured exemptions from SOLAS for the Delta Queen in 1986, 1991, and 1996.

Their attempts to seek a 10-year extension in 2007 and a 15-year extension in 2013 were unsuccessful, so they made another run in the 114th Congress and now in the 115th Congress with S. 89.

Current law requires passenger vessels with overnight accommodations for 50 or more passengers to be constructed of fire-retardant materials, unless an exemption is made, but in the case of the Delta Queen, the U.S. Coast Guard has consistently opposed legislation to provide the Delta Queen an exemption to remain in service as an overnight passenger cruise vessel.

A Coast Guard Special Inspection Report on the Delta Queen in 2008 found ``an unnecessary and unacceptable accumulation of combustible fire load.'' In a January 8, 2016, letter to Senator Bill Nelson, the Coast Guard's then-Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs wrote ``the Department of Homeland Security is resigned to oppose continuously any legislation that would provide any form of statutory relief for the steamer Delta Queen.''

S. 89 is contrary to public safety. It is contrary to the Safety of Life at Sea Act regulations which have been in full force in the U.S. since 1966, and it is contrary to the guidance of the U.S. Coast Guard.

The Delta Queen is an old ship made of wood. The boilers are original and open to the wood superstructure. There are no structural boundaries to contain a fire and only one means of egress.

I understand that supporters of S. 89 are concerned about the historic preservation of this ship and the economic opportunities that operation of the ship could bring to its homeport.

We should first and foremost be concerned with the safety of the people who will work on the ship and vacation on the ship and that they can have the same opportunities and experiences on a ship that is compliant with the reasonable safety standards that have been in place in this country for more than 50 years.

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

Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval with respect to the title X regulation--a resolution which effectively endorses discriminatory practices toward family planning and safety net providers.

Title X is the Nation's only Federal grant program that is dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related

preventive health services. Last year, title X funding made it possible for nearly 4,000 health centers to provide basic primary and preventive healthcare services to over 4 million low-income women and their families. I am talking about critical services, such as Pap tests, cervical cancer screenings, contraception, breast exams, and HIV testing.

In Maryland, there are 55 title X funded health centers that span the State. These include federally qualified health centers, local health departments, Planned Parenthood clinics, and school-based health centers. In fiscal year 2015, Maryland received over $3.8 million in title X funding and provided health services to over 64,000 patients. These are low-income, underinsured, and uninsured individuals who would otherwise lack access to such basic healthcare.

As many of my colleagues know, Planned Parenthood, a high-quality health provider, has been under constant attack by the Republicans, who want to eliminate the organization's Federal funding. Just last week, the Republicans' Affordable Care Act repeal-and-replace bill threatened to defund Planned Parenthood, which is a trusted healthcare provider, by eliminating clinics' Medicaid reimbursements. This week, Republicans want to roll back protections that were put in place for family planning clinics and allow for discrimination against our Nation's family planning providers.

What I find even more disappointing is that this is a major policy shift for our Nation, and we are using a procedure known as the Congressional Review Act to make that decision. Yet those who support this are not even taking to the floor to defend it. This is outrageous that one would use a procedure to repeal this type of funding and not even be on the floor to defend those actions.

In December of 2016, the Obama administration finalized the regulation before us today to protect family planning providers from such discrimination. The regulation was intended to protect access to care in States that have issued their own regulations and legislation that block family planning providers from receiving title X funds. By overriding this regulation, Republicans will empower States to pick and choose who provides these services, but it will be based on arbitrary criteria that will have nothing to do with the quality of services the patients will receive. Republicans are actively condoning discrimination against providers, which will, ultimately, deny women and their families access to family planning and preventive health services.

It is not just Democrats who are concerned. Multiple healthcare providers have come out against this resolution because discrimination against any healthcare provider is wrong. Let me name just a few of the groups that oppose this action: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They are all alarmed because they know low-income, underinsured, and uninsured patients will be unable to access needed health services if it passes.

In Maryland, for example, 84 percent of the 64,000-plus patients served with title X funds have incomes at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty line. That means that they earn $11,770 a year or less--under $12,000 a year. How do you expect these families to be able to get their healthcare needs met if this resolution of disapproval is passed? Ninety-four percent of title X patients in Maryland earn less than $29,425 a year. Overturning this regulation will hurt our most vulnerable communities.

Let's be clear about this. This is not about abortion. There is no Federal funding for abortion. This is about low-income men and women not having access to pregnancy testing, contraceptive services, pelvic exams, high blood pressure and diabetes screenings, STD and HIV/AIDS screenings, infertility services, and health education. It is a war on the poor, and it is a war on access to preventive healthcare.

The American people deserve better from their elected officials. I am committed to fighting these reckless attempts to repeal a reasonable regulation that has been promulgated to prevent discriminatory practices that will harm thousands of low-income women and their families in Maryland and across our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to reject this procedural resolution, which will allow discrimination and deny adequate care to low-income families.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I take to the floor to urge my colleagues to vote against two of the resolutions that are on the floor, H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67--both under the Congressional Review Act--which would not allow two regulations under the Obama administration to go forward that would allow for increased retirement security for American workers and families.

Throughout my time in office, I have fought hard for measures that increase the retirement security for American workers and families. One of the most prominent examples is the private retirement improvements that I championed with my friend Senator Portman when we were both in the House of Representatives.

More recently, Senator Portman and I have joined together to support other changes to our pension laws that enhance retirement security. For instance, the Cardin-Portman Church

Plan Clarification Act, which became law in 2015, clarified the application of certain tax laws and regulations to the unique structures of church pension plans. The Cardin-Portman Retirement Security Preservation Act, which was reported out of the Finance Committee unanimously last September, amends nondiscrimination regulations to protect older workers in pension plans that have been closed or frozen. I hope the bill will be taken up again in this Congress.

I mention these efforts over the years with Senator Portman because I think they show two things: First, they show that ensuring all Americans can retire with dignity is an ongoing effort. We need to work continually with workers, retirees, and other stakeholders to make sure retirement security is achievable, especially as our economy changes. Second, they show that this ongoing work has been and hopefully will continue to be strongly bipartisan. That is why I need to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67. These resolutions are an unnecessary step backward in our ongoing retirement security work.

As my colleagues are aware, H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 eliminate the ERISA safe harbor that was created by the Department of Labor for IRA plans that are administered by State and local governments. We are considering the local government resolution today, but I want to stress the importance of both types of plans.

The provisions of this safe harbor are very similar to an existing safe harbor that is already in ERISA that allows employers to establish payroll deductions to IRAs. So long as the State- and municipal-run plans meet the requirements of the safe harbor, the businesses--usually small businesses--that offer State-run retirement plans to their workers will not inadvertently be subject to liability under Federal law.

The Department of Labor rules were meant to provide legal certainty to the increasing number of States that have decided, in the absence of any action by the Congress, to address the retirement coverage gap in their communities. Maryland is one of those States. Our State is active. Last year, Republican Governor Larry Hogan signed legislation creating a Maryland-run automatic IRA program. The legislation was backed by the Democratic leaders in the general assembly. In fact, it passed unanimously out of our Senate.

The reason for this bipartisanship was, in part, in recognition of the stakes. At the time the law went into effect, which was last July, an estimated 1 million Marylanders worked for businesses that did not offer retirement savings plans. Without the rule, the businesses that choose to use the Maryland-run option to provide retirement plans for their workers may face legal liability. At the very least, the repeal of the safe harbor will slow the entire implementation process.

I understand that my colleagues who oppose the Department of Labor rule want to be sure that strong ERISA protections apply to retirees; however, under current law, most IRAs do not have ERISA protection. For these IRAs, the only chance for any kind of consumer protection is for States to do it. H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 are seeking to undo that.

I am also confused by claims that the adoption of these resolutions would necessarily lead to the complete ERISA preemption of State programs. The Department of Labor does not take that position. To claim that these resolutions alone would have such a broad effect on the interaction of ERISA with State law is troubling, to say the least.

Let me be clear. I would prefer Federal action in this space. Retirement security is one of a seemingly dwindling number of bipartisan issues we can tackle in Congress, and the concerns raised by many of the stakeholders I have worked with in the past on retirement reform are understandable. I am concerned that a lack of Federal action will lead to a State-level patchwork that will be hard for employers and more mobile workers to navigate. I would much rather build on the efforts of the States to create a uniform Federal system under which employers would adopt high-quality, well-managed plans. I am also concerned that providing a State-run option could diminish robust competition with the private sector.

The point of these State-run programs is to decrease our coverage gap. However, we must not also create a race to the bottom whereby employers opt for a one-size-fits-all minimum and do not consider other plans that may be better tailored to their workforces. This is not, in my view, the case in Maryland.

The answer to these problems is not H.J. Res. 66 or H.J. Res. 67; it is for Congress to continue its ongoing bipartisan work on retirement security, not to undermine what our States have chosen to do to help our mutual constituents. This is federalism the way federalism is supposed to work. The States adopt policies and hopefully give us some guidance as to how we can develop uniform national policies.

I am, frankly, surprised that my Republican colleagues have chosen to take up these resolutions. It is hard to see what the disapproval of the Department of Labor rules achieves other than notching the repeal of another Obama-era rule, but at what cost?

To me, the resolutions take a fairly clear, anti-States'-rights stance, all to create potential liability for small employers who will take advantage of the new State laws. Essentially, supporting this resolution means sowing unnecessary legal confusion in an area in which States have already acted in a bipartisan way. We can do better. We can work together on this issue. Instead of focusing on haphazard repeal measures, I am confident that we can produce thoughtful, substantive, bipartisan solutions.

I urge my colleagues to oppose these resolutions. As I have in the past, I stand ready to work with them to ensure all Americans can save with dignity for their financially secure retirement.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to join the American people in celebrating Women's History Month. I would like to begin that celebration by paying homage to several women whose ingenuity and inventions have shaped modern society, but who, like innumerable women throughout history, have not received the credit or recognition they are due.

Katherine Blodgett is a good place to start. In 1935, she invented the first transparent glass that eliminated distortion and glare. Before her, glass contained small bubbles and inclusions that was suitable for windows, but little else. Her method of producing and cutting glass revolutionized the material and is the reason we have camera lenses, microscopes, and eyeglasses today. Without her pioneering work, our ability to see and our ability to look into the universe would be degraded.

In 1942, the actress Hedy Lamarr and a partner were granted a U.S. patent for a secret communication system that involved manipulating radio frequencies to form an unbreakable code to prevent classified messages from being intercepted. The significance of her invention was not fully realized until the 1960s, when it was used by naval ships during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were able to navigate that perilous nuclear threat successfully in part because of her self-taught inventiveness and skill. Lamarr's coded communications system has been used by numerous military agencies since.

Just 2 years later, in 1944, Grace Hopper made her own kind of history, becoming what many consider to be one of the world's first computer scientists. She invented the compiler that translated written language into computer code and coined the terms ``bug'' and ``debugging.'' Fifteen years later, she led the team that developed COBOL, one of the very first programming languages.

More recently, in 1965, Stephanie Kwolek invented Kevlar. We know Kevlar best as the material used to manufacture bulletproof vests, protecting our police officers and first responders in their greatest moments of crisis, but Kevlar is widely considered to be one of the strongest, most durable materials ever invented and has become a critical component in the manufacturing of airplanes, boats, cars, and bridge cables.

I pause to honor these great inventors and scientists because their names should be familiar, but they aren't. As long as toxic, gender- role stereotypes persist, these women serve as important examples that such stereotypes are hollow and wrong. Women have been serving on the frontlines of war, science, and invention since long before men ``allowed'' them.

These women and others are part of our untold history. You will rarely hear them discussed in American classrooms, and you will seldom find their stories printed in textbooks. Most people wouldn't even recognize their names; yet our lives and fortunes have been shaped by them. Every day, men go to work protected by Kevlar vests, live their daily lives with the benefit of eyeglasses, or boot up their laptop computer using the devices and tools women gave them. That is both the majesty and tragedy of women's history: it is inextricable and powerful and entirely undervalued.

This Women's History Month should not pass without each and every one of us at the very least taking the time to acknowledge and appreciate the women of history who helped to invent modern society, who fought alongside men in every war, who gave us more complete rights and equality, who endured the habitual and everyday scorn of sexism--and who did so generation after generation without accolade or recognition.

Perhaps the best way to honor the past is to secure the future. The denizens of women's history didn't endure systemic misogyny or work so hard to change our world so that we would peer backward and applaud. They did so with the hope we would look forward and make progress.

We still have a long way to go, but we have made progress. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, being a woman is no longer considered a ``preexisting condition'' that warrants higher premiums and deductibles. Also thanks to the Affordable Care Act, preventative services for women--like mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and prenatal care--are covered by insurance companies. Today more than 48 million American women take advantage of that.

Thanks to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, women have extended protection in cases of wage discrimination. The Lilly Ledbetter Act finally recognized that, when pay discrimination occurs, it is not a single event, but a chronic and repeated offense that inflicts ongoing damage with each and every substandard paycheck. This simple and commonsense recognition has allowed women to seek justice against the kind of economic disenfranchisement that has plagued generations.

Progress, however, does not have its own autopilot button. We must be its stewards and its champions. We must be its agents. We must protect it actively, each and every day, or else we will be complicit in its loss.

I am talking about women's reproductive rights. A woman's right to make her own decisions is under threat today. Her body is her body. It is not ours, and it certainly is not the government's. Roe v. Wade decided that in 1973, yet 44 years later, the Federal Government is run by a party that uses every tool at its disposal to chip away at reproductive rights. Whether it is State policies to limit the types of buildings abortions can be performed in or the threat to defund Planned Parenthood, women's rights are under attack.

Let's be clear that Federal funding for abortion services is already banned under the Hyde Amendment. Today's witch hunt against Planned Parenthood is not substantive in nature; it is a thinly-veiled attempt to prolong a culture war with the hope of assuaging far-right voters. Women's reproductive rights deserve more than to be treated as a political punchline. Reproductive rights were hard-won by centuries of activism and pain, and we--all Members of this Chamber--must vow this month and every month to honor that with our votes and with our voices. We must vow not to let women's reproductive rights be diminished on our watch.

It is 2017, and still, women are expected to be everything simultaneously, all while they are refused the tools and the freedom to balance such difficult demands. It is 2017, and still, families-- mothers most of all--are too often forced to choose between parenthood and economic security, between recovering from childbirth and their career. No woman, no matter what her line of work or Zip Code may be, should be forced to make such an impossible decision. It is our job to pass legislation to ensure no woman has to.

Even with the Lilly Ledbetter legislation, women today are paid, on average, just 77 cents for every dollar men receive for performing the same work. That gap is even worse for women of color: African-American women only earn 64 cents to the dollar, while Latina women earn only 55 cents. That is a problem begging to be solved by Congress. That is a problem for all of us. Women are powerful economic engines in this country, and if we continue to stand idly by while their work is underpaid and undervalued, we will all suffer. We will all have to explain to our daughters and granddaughters why we didn't fight harder for them.

Critically, there is also the issue of violence against women. It is a moral outrage that women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical and sexual assaults every single year. When women stand up and tell us the stories behind this number, we must sit down and listen. We must stop speaking over them with advice on how to protect themselves or avoid certain social situations. They shouldn't have to. It is insulting to presume they require lectures on personal safety, but that men don't require lectures on consent. This problem demands a cultural shift, and we must be its purveyors.

There is the issue of college affordability. A related issue is access to and participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, programs and--of equal importance--encouragement to join them. Women need to be better represented in positions of power.

These and other issues are what is at stake. These and other issues are why we recognize Women's History Month: to remind ourselves and each other that women helped build this Nation and this world. We need to remind ourselves that women are therefore entitled to equal representation in it and equal access to its opportunities. We need to remind ourselves that women deserve equal respect and equal protection under the law and that women's rights are human rights. We all prosper when we fight to protect them.

Toward these ends, I have led the charge in Congress to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Many Americans would be shocked to learn that the Constitution still lacks a provision ensuring gender equality. That is wrong, but it is fixable. I have introduced S.J. Res. 5, legislation to remove the deadline for States to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which would pave the way for its formal adoption. Nevada recently passed the Equal Rights Amendment, leaving us just two States shy of success.

The Equal Rights Amendment is only slightly longer than two tweets, but its ratification would finally give women full and equal protection under the Constitution. It reads as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be

denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on

account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by

appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after

the date of ratification.

It is that simple, and it is both necessary and past time to adopt it.

When Congress passed the ERA in 1972, it provided that the measure had to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, 38 States, within 7 years. The original deadline was later extended to 10 years by a joint resolution enacted by Congress. Ultimately, 35 States ratified the ERA by the time the revised deadline expired, leaving advocates a little short.

Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for ratification of constitutional amendments. In fact, in 1992, the 27th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting immediate congressional pay raises was ratified after 203 years. The Senate could pass my legislation removing the 10-year deadline right now. I strongly encourage the majority leader to bring S.J. Res. 5 up for a vote as soon as possible. American women deserve to know that their most fundamental rights are explicitly protected by our nation's most venerated document.

I have often said that how a nation treats its women is a good barometer of that nation's potential for success as a whole. I hold the United States of America to that standard. Every day, I weigh the successes and failures we have had along the path toward fair treatment and gender equality, and I assess ways Congress can facilitate more successes. Every day, I reevaluate how best to fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, how best to protect reproductive rights, how best to fight for

paid family leave and affordable higher education and greater representation in this very Chamber.

I invite every Senator to do the same, both because those are the right battles and because fighting them protects gender equality progress that has been so hard-won by the women of this Nation. We must not allow those victories to be reversed. We must keep progressing.

This Women's History Month, I am reminded of what the poet G.D. Anderson once said: ``Feminism is not about making women strong. Women are already strong. It's about changing the way the world perceives that strength.'' Let us remember it is precisely that strength that has propelled our world forward. It is precisely that strength that serves as the foundation of so many of this country's successes, and it is precisely that strength we must remember and meet with our own, when women's rights are under siege.