Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of the passage of the Paterson Great Falls National Park Act, H.R. 189. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the Speaker, Chairman Rahall and Chairman Grijalva for their tireless work in bringing this worthy legislation to the floor. I want to thank all the members of the New Jersey delegation, Democrats and Republicans. All of them endorsed this legislation.

As a lifelong Paterson resident, as the city's former mayor, I fought for many years to bring recognition to this site that has played such a seminal role in American history. The National Historic Park is the only way to properly showcase the significant cultural and historic landmarks and natural beauty that the Great Falls Historic Park District has to offer. This legislation ensures that it will get the recognition and support that it richly deserves.

Mr. Speaker, 15 miles west of New York City, the Great Falls was the second largest waterfall in Colonial America. At the Great Falls, Alexander

Hamilton conceived a plan to harness the force of water to power the new industries that would secure our economic independence. He told the Congress of the United States and the American people that at the Great Falls he would begin to implement his ambitious strategy to transform an agricultural society, dependent upon slavery, into a modern economy based on freedom.

How dare anyone imply that this is not significant. It was the power of the Great Falls. True to Hamilton's vision, Paterson became a great manufacturing city. It produced the Colt Revolver; the first submarine, John Holland, 1878; the aircraft engine for the first transatlantic flight; more locomotives than any city in the United States; more silk than any city in the world. This is not significant, Mr. Speaker? Cotton sails for the U.S. Navy early in the 19th century.

Mr. Speaker, scholars have concluded that Pierre L'Enfant's innovative water power system in Paterson and many factories built later constitute the finest remaining collection of engineering and architectural structures representing each stage of America's progress from a weak agrarian society to the leader in the global economy.

The Great Falls Historic District is the only national historic district that includes both a national natural resource and a national landmark, the only one in the entire Nation.

In a special bicentennial speech in Paterson, with the spectacular national beauty of the falls behind it, the President of the United States, the late Gerald Ford, in 1976, and I had the honor as a Democrat to introduce him that day, Mr. Speaker, said this: ``We can see the Great Falls as a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make America the most powerful Nation in the world.'' Now, so many years later, we are that much closer to making the dream of a national park in Paterson a reality.

I do not see facts and figures here, Mr. Speaker. I see the faces of hardworking people from all over the world, who came to Paterson, came to the falls and worked in those factories. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about people who came here and made this country the greatest country in the world, who asked nothing, who didn't get a real living wage until years later. I am talking about those people who are not faceless, who do have names, who worked hard to give their children a better opportunity, a better place.

That was Alexander Hamilton's dream, to bring economic superiority to the United States, so that we would not pretend to be an agrarian society for the rest of our history. He introduced the Industrial Revolution; and then, secondly, to give equal opportunity to each person regardless of where he came from, what he looked like, how he cooked his food, how he spoke.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys bipartisan and widespread support. It is cosponsored by every member of the New Jersey congressional delegation. National conservation and historic organizations, our Nation's most renowned Hamiltonian scholars and distinguished professors throughout America have documented that this historic district is worthy of National Historic Park designation. When the park service says it is not worthy because we have other places, they were even against Lowell, Massachusetts. They didn't support Lowell, Massachusetts either.

This has to do with urban parks. This has to do with how we became the country we are today. Editorial boards, Federal, State, local officials and community groups have also endorsed the campaign to create a National Park Service unit. Today, on page 3, U.S. News, a full page on the Paterson Falls and two other places in the United States, where that historic district, where the park service was able to in partnership with the locality, with the State, to bring economic opportunity.

It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this park will be run as a partnership between the State of New Jersey and the Federal Government, as they already have a State park designated at the site. The National Park Service has a long history of Federal and State cooperation, from the Lowell National Historic Park to the Redwood National State Parks in California. It is park service policy to foster State and Federal partnerships to fund and manage parks. Great Falls will be no different.

Mr. Speaker, if the Great Falls District were added to the park system, Federal resources could be leveraged to revitalize the falls, the entire city, the entire area. Through this Federal partnership, the Great Falls will be transformed into an attraction for visitors and Patersonians alike that can lead to the economic revitalization of this entire area, be a living reminder of our Nation's rich industrial history with so many of our star places where we put purple ropes around them, ``don't touch.'' That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about living history.

Congress must act now to pass this vital piece of legislation, so that we may fully recognize these cultural and historic landmarks that have played such a decisive role in America's history. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have that opportunity. I hope we will all come together and support that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, the State of New Jersey has designated this as a State park. It has committed $10 million to the project in true partnership. The municipality has also done the same thing.

I want to address some of the cogent points that have been presented by the other side.

We are not talking about hundreds of square miles here. We are talking about 110 acres of land. We are talking about in the middle of that property the second largest falls in the East. We are talking about what Alexander Hamilton said in 1774, before the establishment of the Society of Useful Manufacturers, before America decided that it was going to go that industrial route so that we would have a multifaceted economy, he discerned that at that falls that water power would bring tremendous job growth and tremendous facilitation to economic growth and industrial growth.

He was right. He was absolutely right. No other industrial city, no other city that brought the technology and science from England and from other parts of Europe had the success that Paterson had. There were seven or eight major areas, and I pointed them out and I am not going to do it again. I am going to tell you, there is no other area, and all powered by the falls.

Today, when we talk about alternative energy sources, and both sides of the aisle have been talking about it, and talking and talking and talking and talking, it was really at the falls that we had the beginnings of hydroelectric power.

I think the significance is not to be simply caught up in how beautiful the place is. We are not talking about aesthetics; we are talking about what the meaning of this place is, where all races and all creeds and all nationalities worked during what we call the Industrial Revolution.

This is a national landmark and a national natural landmark, and there is no other place in the United States that meets that criteria. Isn't that interesting. So while the park system opposed Lowell and opposed a lot of things, it is the Congress that will determine in the Constitution, the Congress will determine what is a park system and what is not. That is our authority; that is our responsibility. And today I hope, with your good sense, we will have bipartisan support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help millions of Americans overcome a deadly addiction: the addiction to tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 will help make smoking cessation therapy available to recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health, MCH, Program.

More than 45 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. Approximately 90 percent started smoking before the age of 14. Despite the fact that we have known for decades that cigarette smoking are the leading preventable cause of death, 1,600 adults become regular smokers each day, including 4,000 kids. Depending on your race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, even where you live, the likelihood that you are a smoker varies greatly. African-Americans are twice as likely as the general population to smoke. Communities in the South are more likely to be smoker-friendly than other communities in the U.S. While 22.5 percent of the general adult population in the U.S. are current smokers, the percentage is about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.

We have a moral argument and an economic argument to end the addiction to nicotine. Morally, how do we ignore the deaths of 438,000 smokers or 8.6 million Americans living with serious smoking-related illnesses? Smoking causes virtually all cases of lung cancer and contributes to primary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and other deadly health ailments. It is too often a bleak future for smokers and their families. An American Legacy Foundation report reminds us that second- hand smoke in children of smokers leads to asthma and chronic ear infections in children but also that 43,000 children are orphaned every year because of tobacco-related deaths.

We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as well. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, health care expenditures caused by smoking is approaching $100 billion. Our federal government pays $17.6 billion in smoking-caused Medicaid payments and $27.4 billion in smoking-caused Medicare expenditures.

Ironically, we do not hear that much about how many smokers America-- 70 percent--want to quit. Unfortunately, they face long odds--in 2000, only about 5 percent of smokers were successful in quitting long-term. Overcoming an addiction to tobacco is arguably one of the single most important lifestyle changes that can improve and extend lives. However, most smokers who want to quit don't appreciate how hard it really is to break an addition to nicotine.

This is why it is essential that we make this decision and the courage that it takes as easy as possible. States are already stepping up to the plate when it comes to smoking cessation. Last year in my home State of Illinois, a record-breaking 36 cities and counties enacted smoke-free laws, more than any other State in the Nation. More and more Illinoisans and Americans nationwide are realizing that life without smoking is possible. And the support for cessation does not end there. In fact, in 2003, 37 States had some form of coverage under Medicaid for at least one evidence-based treatment for smoking addiction. States like New Jersey and Oregon now have some of the lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.

Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health improvements and cost savings. Shortly after quitting smoking, blood circulation improves, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease, the risk of heart attack decreases, lung function and breathing are improved, and coughing decreases.

Pregnant women who quit smoking before their second trimester decrease the chances that they will give birth to a low-birth-weight baby. Over the long term, quitting will reduce a person's risk of heart disease and stroke, improve symptoms of COPD, reduce the risk of developing smoking-caused cancer, and extend life expectancy.

We are fortunate to have identified clinically proven, effective strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped millions kick the habit. An updated clinical practice guideline released in May of 2008 by the U.S. Public Health Service urges health care insurers and purchasers to include counseling and FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments as a covered benefit. The Guideline also emphasizes the role that counseling, especially in conjunction with medication, increases the odds of success in quitting. As we urge healthcare insurers and purchasers to offer this important benefit, so too should our government sponsored health programs keep pace.

I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Lautenberg to introduce the Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 and require government-sponsored health programs to cover this important benefit. The Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 makes it easier for people to have access to smoking cessation treatment therapies. It does three meaningful things.

First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat tobacco related diseases over the next 20 years.

Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows States to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under Medicaid. Despite the fact that the States have received payments from their successful Federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over 7 years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save $572 million in direct medical costs.

Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered part of quality maternal and child health services.

As Congress begins to examine more closely the impact of tobacco on our country--considering regulation by the FDA or raising taxes to pay for public health priorities--we must make sure we assist those fighting this deadly addiction. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and taking a stand for the public health of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008, which is a modified version of my earlier legislation by the same name. This legislation, which adds original cosponsors, continues to address the Department of Justice's corporate prosecution guidelines. Those guidelines, last revised by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in December 2006, erode the attorney-client relationship by allowing prosecutors to request privileged information backed by the hammer of prosecution if the request is denied.

Like my previous bill, S. 186, this bill will protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting federal prosecutors and investigators from requesting waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections in corporate investigations. The bill would similarly prohibit the government from conditioning charging decisions or any adverse treatment on an organization's payment of employee legal fees, invocation

of the attorney-client privilege, or agreement to a joint defense agreement.

The new version of the bill makes many subtle improvements, including defining ``organization'' to make clear that continuing criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations will not benefit from the bill's protections. The bill also clarifies language that the Department of Justice had previously criticized as ambiguous. The bill also makes clear in its findings that its prohibition on informal privilege waiver demands is far from unprecedented. The bill states: ``Congress recognized that law enforcement can effectively investigate without attorney-client privileged information when it banned Attorney General demands for privileged materials in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(c)(2).''

There is no need to wait to see how the McNulty memorandum will operate in practice. There is similarly no need to wait for another internal Department of Justice reform that will likely fall short and be the fifth policy in the last 10 years. Any such internal reform will not address the privilege waiver policies of other government agencies that refer matters to the Department of Justice and allow in through the window what isn't allowed through the door.

As I said when I introduced S. 186, the right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The 6th Amendment is a fundamental right afforded to individuals charged with a crime and guarantees proper representation by counsel throughout a prosecution. However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law. As the Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ``the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.'' When the Upjohn Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege protections apply to corporate internal legal dialogue, the Court manifested in the law the importance of the attorney-client privilege in encouraging full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, as well as the broader public interests the privilege serves in fostering the observance of law and the administration of justice. The Upjohn Court also made clear that the value of legal advice and advocacy depends on the lawyer having been fully informed by the client.

In addition to the importance of the right to counsel, it is also fundamental that the Government has the burden of investigating and proving its own case. Privilege waiver tends to transfer this burden to the organization under investigation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware of the enormous power and tools a prosecutor has at his or her disposal. The prosecutor has enough power without the coercive tools of the privilege waiver, whether that waiver policy is embodied in the Holder, Thompson, McCallum, McNulty--or a future Filip--memorandum.

As in S. 186, this bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by adding a new section, Sec. 3014, that would prohibit any agent or attorney of the U.S. Government in any criminal or civil case to demand or request the disclosure of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The bill would also prohibit government lawyers and agents from basing any charge or adverse treatment on whether an organization pays attorneys' fees for its employees or signs a joint defense agreement.

This legislation is needed to ensure that basic protections of the attorney-client relationship are preserved in Federal prosecutions and investigations.

I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion of the gentleman from New Jersey. I share his passion for national parks, and I am sure that this area is a beautiful and a wonderful area. As such, it has already been designated as a National Historic District, which makes it eligible for about $3 million in funding.

I would point out, as my friend from Texas said, that it is the National Park Service that said it didn't meet the criteria, not us. I am pleased, though, to hear from my friend from New Jersey that, in fact, the partnership with the State will be ongoing. I had understood that the State of New Jersey had not agreed to provide matching funds. I wonder if the gentleman might be able to clarify that.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. That is information I had not had. My concern is kind of rising to the 30,000- or 40,000-foot view for the National Park Service.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the Sixth District of Georgia, which is on the northern side of the City of Atlanta, and through my district runs the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, a 48-mile long linear park, the longest linear park in our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to get accurate communication from the National Park Service about how they determine how much of their resources, their finite resources that they have, come to the various national parks across this Nation.

We asked that because, as my friend from Texas mentioned, the National Park Service appears to be at least $1 billion, if not more, in arrears on their maintenance and operations budget. So the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area has trails that are, in fact, a danger to those that visit this beautiful park. It is unable to patrol the park, again, a 48-mile linear park. It doesn't have the number of full-time equivalent employees that ought be there for this size park. When we look at other parks around the Nation, we see that parks of equivalent visitation, the same number of folks visiting each year, get a significantly greater budget. So as we try to drill down and find

out why that is, it appears that that is all political. For example, there is a park that a former Speaker of the House of Representatives had in his district, and that park gets four or five times the amount of funding that parks with the same visitation across this Nation get.

So we asked the National Park Service, what is your formula? How do you determine how much of your budget goes to various national parks and national recreation areas. Of course, we haven't been able to get that answer. It hasn't been just a week or two, Mr. Speaker; it has been years, years, that we have been trying to get that answer.

So I rise with great concern about the political nature of the relationship of the National Park Service and the priorities that they set. And as my friend from Texas raised, there may be some concerns about this bill that we have on the floor today about that matter as well.

So I raise a greater concern, a concern that I believe would be appropriate, to pull back this resolution and find out from the National Park Service the answer to those pivotal questions that Americans want to know, and that is is there any rationale to how you are spending your money. Where is the accountability in how you spend your money.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey and his passion for this area. I am sure it is a beautiful and wonderful area, and I look forward to visiting it at some point in the future. But I believe we have got challenges and problems within the National Park Service. I hope we address those first.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.