Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``Implementing Derivatives Reform: Reducing Systemic Risk and Improving Market Oversight.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 11 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 22, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my enthusiastic support for our efforts to elevate international food security commitments through the G8, which is being held this weekend in Maryland.

I understand that President Obama has invited the Presidents of Benin, Ghana, Ethiopia, and Tanzania to participate in the summit and strategize on ways in which we can all work together to accelerate progress on food security. With over 1 billion poor and hungry people around the world, there is no time to wait.

Just 3 years ago, in L-Aquila, Italy, G8 leaders committed to support developing-country plans for agriculture to the tune of $7 billion a year over 3 years. African governments also committed to allocating 10 percent of their budgets to support agriculture, because they recognize that three-fourths of Africans make a living from agriculture.

This week we expect the G8 leaders to focus on private sector investment, donor coordination, innovation, and partnership. I see this as a natural next step in which we strive to amplify the truly historic commitments that we have made to ending world hunger.

As Secretary Clinton said in 2009, ``We have the resources to give every person in the world the tools they need to feed themselves and their children. So the question is not whether we can end hunger. It's whether we will.''

We must harness the good will of the private sector, do a better job of coordinating among ourselves in the

donor community, and show the American people that we are doing development better. With such a limited foreign assistance budget, getting the most out of every dollar that we spend is vital if we are going to beat global hunger and human suffering.

To that end, I am very pleased that the U.S. will be following up on not only what the members of the G8 committed but what they actually delivered. In order for our new food security initiative to succeed, all pledges must have clear accountability mechanisms.

I believe that our own Feed the Future Program, our global hunger and food security initiative, does just that. Feed the Future focuses on small farmers, particularly women. It helps countries to develop their agriculture sectors to generate opportunities for broad-based economic growth and trade, which in turn support increased incomes and help reduce hunger. It is strengthening strategic coordination to align the efforts of the private sector, civil society, and multilateral institutions. And it is delivering on sustained and accountable commitments through robust monitoring and evaluation systems. I look forward to hearing more about the Feed the Future success stories in the months to come, as USAID officials develop and release their accountability reports.

There are a few other elements of the program that I would just like to underscore as someone who cares very deeply about the status of women. First, Feed the Future developed and launched the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index, a research method which measures the quantity and quality of gender integrated programs. This is essential is we are to continue designing better development programs.

Second, Feed the Future has launched a fund to advance innovative approaches to promote gender equality in agriculture and land use and integrate gender effectively into agricultural development and food security programs. And third, Feed the Future has harnessed the capabilities of other U.S. Government partners such as the Department of Agriculture to develop science-based solutions to many of the problems faced by women farmers.

Feed the Future is already working with the private sector in Africa; just recently USAID announced a unique trilateral partnership between PepsiCo, USAID, and the World Food Program. Through this partnership they will provide a nutritionally fortified feeding product while helping to build long-term economic stability for smallholder chickpea farmers in Ethiopia by involving them directly in PepsiCo's product supply chain.

Ending global hunger is a monumental task. But when the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, and the United States join together with our African partners and the most powerful private sector and civil society organizations in the world, I believe it is one that we can achieve.

Mr. President, the budget document is a very important document.

It speaks to the priorities of our Nation, and it gives instructions to our committees to report out legislation consistent with that of the budget resolution. It gives instructions to the Appropriations Committee to pass appropriations bills and to other committees as it may affect revenues or mandatory spending.

We have that budget document for the fiscal year that begins October 1 of this year. That was included in the Budget Control Act which passed this body by 74 votes. It has the force and effect of law.

So our appropriations committees know the numbers for the appropriations bills for the year that begins October 1, and the other committees know what the requirements will be. The question is whether we should have a longer term commitment on dealing with our budget problems.

We do need a bipartisan, credible program that involves not only the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate,

but also the Democrats and Republicans in the House, and the President of the United States. We need to avoid sequestration, and we need the predictability for our economy and for those who act upon our actions to know what the rules will be. We need to have a responsible plan to deal with the long-term deficit that is balanced and fair, that involves more revenue and spending cuts, that allows our recovery to continue, and is bipartisan.

I compliment Senator Conrad for his leadership in giving us an opportunity to move in that direction. I think Senator Conrad showed tremendous leadership on behalf of the Democratic members of the Budget Committee to forgo bringing forward a partisan budget and instead said: Let's take a look at a long-term budget that can get bipartisan support, that has been tested, that has been out there, and that is called Bowles-Simpson.

We are talking about the broad outline. A budget document gives broad instructions to the committee. It is the so-called macro numbers. I think the chairman has provided us the leadership on that issue. But do not get confused, we have a budget for the fiscal year that begins October 1. We have it earlier than we have ever had it, and it has the force and effect of law.

Each of the four Republican plans that we will be voting on moves us in the wrong direction to accomplishing those goals. They use almost all of the spending cuts that are included in these budgets for additional tax cuts. It benefits primarily those who do not need an additional tax cut. The House Republican budget would provide $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, giving millionaires an average tax cut of $150,000. At the same time, that budget would ask our college students to pay more by allowing interest rates on their loans to increase, and they would ask our seniors to pay more by paying more for their Medicare benefits.

They have it backward. Those who have sacrificed the most during these economic times under Republican budgets would be asked to pay more. Those who have benefited the most during that period of time would get additional tax cuts. That is not what we should be doing. It would hurt our economic recovery.

It is irresponsible to make the types of cuts that are in the Republican budget that deal with American innovation. Take a look what it would do for basic research in this country, which I hope we all agree is necessary for America to continue to lead the world in innovation. In my own State of Maryland I look at the jobs we created in the biotech field, through cybersecurity. Basic research is critically important to advance those job opportunities and economic opportunities for America. It would reduce our commitments to building our infrastructure--our transit systems, our roads, our energy grids. If we are going to be competitive, we need to rebuild America to meet the global challenges.

It would reduce our commitments in education. An educated workforce is America's future. Investing in our children is what we should be doing. The quality of K 12 would suffer, even pre-K--what they do with Head Start--and I already mentioned the cost of student loans in postsecondary education would go up. For our seniors, they would be thrown into a voucher program in Medicare at the mercy of private insurance companies and asked to pay more when they are already overburdened by the costs of their health care.

Under the Toomey budget, they would block-grant Medicaid, throwing that burden onto our States. Our children and families would suffer.

Under the Paul budget, Social Security benefits would be reduced on average by 39 percent. Social Security is a vital lifeline for the people of this country. Turning it into a program that becomes a political football is not what we need for this country. For our students, the cost of a college education would be increased.

We need to put forward a credible plan to reduce the deficit. We need to do this--and we have done it before. When Bill Clinton was President of the United States and I was serving in the House of Representatives, we passed a plan that balanced our Federal budget and actually created a surplus. How did we do it? We did it through a balanced approach. We did it through cutting spending and raising the revenues so we paid our bills. What were the results? Our economy took off, creating millions of jobs. That is what we need to do again.

How do we get this done? Let's get working together. Let's have Democrats and Republicans work together in order to come up with a balanced approach that has spending cuts and those who can afford to pay more should be paying more because it is not fair to future generations for us to spend money today and ask our children and grandchildren to pay for it tomorrow.

Let us protect the programs that are important for economic growth, for the dignity of our seniors, and for the welfare of our children. It starts with rejecting the extreme partisan budgets that our Republican colleagues are offering on the floor. I urge my colleagues to reject those budget resolutions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 350th anniversary of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Leonardtown, MD. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the centuries of history in marking this anniversary, including the establishment of Catholicism in English America. It was 350 years ago that Leonardtown, which was then known as Newtowne, was founded as the first settlement in the Maryland province after the establishment of St. Mary's City. Its geographic location places it within view of St. Clement's Island where the English colonists first landed in 1634. Prior to its settlement by the colonists, the Piscataway Indians and their forebears had occupied the site for many centuries.

Lord Baltimore founded the Maryland colony with the intention of providing his co-religionists with the civil liberty to exercise their religion freely, but it was not until the restoration of Charles II to the throne in England that the political climate in Maryland allowed for the building of a public chapel at Newtowne in 1662. The chapel was built by the local Catholics for the community that continues to the present day as Saint Francis Xavier's Parish, a parish within the Archdiocese of Washington.

In 1967, when the Society of Jesus withdrew from Newtowne to work in other areas, St. Francis Xavier Church, Newtowne Manor, and the 7.5 acres surrounding them were conveyed to the Archdiocese of Washington. The Archbishop of Washington at the time, James Cardinal Hickey, realized the religious, historical and archeological significance of these buildings, both of which are on the national Register of Historic Places, and he determined that they must be restored and preserved to maintain a link with the earliest days of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

While the site of the current church, a.d. 1731, and the Newtowne Manor House, a.d. 1789, the graveyard, and the site of the original chapel have been excavated by archaeologists, more work remains to be done to tell the full story of what is believed to be the second public Catholic chapel built in the colonies. The first is thought to be in neighboring Charles County, MD. I join Father Brian P. Sanderfoot and the Saint Francis Xavier Catholic Church congregation in encouraging further investigation and exploration of their history. Their work will inform all of us about the colonial history of the Catholic community in Maryland and the early colonial life and freedoms evidenced in the records and archeological findings of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Mikulski for her leadership on the process we have used in Maryland on filling judicial vacancies. I am very proud to work with Senator Mikulski in a process that screens lawyers who are interested in becoming Federal judges in order that we can get the very best to recommend to the President.

We think the President has chosen the very best in Judge Russell to fill the district court vacancy for the District of Maryland. But I really wanted to applaud my colleague in the Senate for the seriousness that we both take on filling these vacancies. We understand these are lifetime appointments. We want to make sure we get individuals who have the qualifications, who have the temperament, who have the integrity, and have the commitment to public service to serve our judiciary.

I rise today to urge the Senate to confirm Judge George Levi Russell III, of Maryland, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland. Judge Russell was reported by voice vote out of the Judiciary Committee on February 16. Judge Russell currently sits as a trial judge in the Baltimore City Circuit Court.

Judge Russell is an excellent candidate. He received bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee and is ready to take office upon confirmation of the Senate. Judge Russell brings a wealth of experience to this position in both State and Federal courts. Earlier in his career he served as a Federal prosecutor and as an attorney in private law practice. He now sits as a State court trial judge in Maryland.

Judge Russell graduated from Moorehouse College with a B.A. in political science and a J.D. from the Maryland Law School in 1991. He passed the Maryland Bar and was admitted to practice in Maryland in 1991. He then clerked for Chief Judge Robert Bell on the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is our highest State court. He worked as a litigation associate for 2 years at Hazel & Thomas, and then briefly at Whiteford, Taylor. He then served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland from 1994 to 1999, handling civil cases. In that capacity he represented various Federal Government agencies in discrimination, accident, and medical malpractice cases. He then worked as an associate at the Peter Angelos law firm for 2 years.

In 2002, he went back to the U.S. Attorney's Office, handling criminal cases until 2007. He represented the United States in the criminal prosecution of violent crimes and narcotic cases during the investigatory stage, at trial, and on appeal. This included the initiation of monitoring of wiretaps to infiltrate and break up violent gangs in Baltimore City.

He also served as the Project Safe neighborhood coordinator for the office from 2002 until 2005. He participated in community outreach programs in coordination with the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office to reduce violent crime in Baltimore communities.

In 2007, Governor Ehrlich, a Republican, appointed him to serve as an associate judge of the Baltimore City Circuit Court for a term of 15 years. As a trial judge, Judge Russell has presided over hundreds of trials that have gone to verdict or judgment and he has experience in handling jury trials, bench trials, civil cases, and criminal cases. He has the professional experience which has been recognized by a Republican Governor and a Democratic President.

Judge Russell has strong roots, legal experience, and community involvement in the State of Maryland. He was born and raised in Baltimore City and has extended family who live in Baltimore. He served as a director and trustee of the board of the Enoch Pratt Free Library, which serves the disadvantaged throughout the State of Maryland. He served on the board of directors of the Community Law Center, which is an organization designed to help neighborhood organizations improve the quality of life for their residences.

He has also served as a board member on several organizations that devote substantial resources to helping the disadvantaged, including the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Maryland. I know he has often spoken to young people in school about the obligations, duty, and mandate of a judge, and he tries to demystify the role of a judge in a black robe.

Judge Russell is particularly concerned with addressing the drug, violence, and mental health problems that plague Baltimore City. Judge Russell comes from a very distinguished family in the legal profession of Maryland. Judge Russell's father, George L. Russell, Jr., was also a groundbreaking African-American lawyer in Maryland. He was the first African-American judge on the Maryland Circuit Court in the 1960s and was later Baltimore's first African-American Solicitor.

He was also the first African-American president of the Baltimore City Bar Association. In later years, Judge Russell was named by the Governor to chair the Maryland Museum of African-American History and Cultural Commission and served as chairman of the board of the Maryland African-American Museum Corporation.

He was also asked to chair Baltimore's Judicial Nominating Commission. He has received numerous awards from the Maryland Bar Foundation and NAACP.

His family is deep in public service, including his wife who serves as a judge on the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. I am absolutely convinced that Judge Russell possesses the qualifications, temperament, and passion for justice that will make him an outstanding Federal trial judge. He will serve the people of Maryland very well in this position. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for the confirmation of Judge Russell to serve as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to allow us to move forward in the consideration of the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act so we can allow the interest rate on student loans to remain at its current level rather than doubling, which will happen on July 1, unless we take action. I come to the floor to express the views of many Marylanders with whom I have talked about the cost of higher education. We cannot allow the interest costs to go up. It will affect 7 million students and their families.

We already have too much college debt that families have to incur as a result of the cost of a college education. We are not competitive with the rest of the world. We look at countries with whom we compete and we look at the cost of higher education in their country compared with what our students have to endure, and we start off behind because of the enormous cost to a family to afford a college education for their children.

We know how important it is. You need to have a college degree in order

to be competitive in many fields today. That number of fields is increasing every day. Let me tell you, we have crossed the $1 trillion mark in debt held by families in order to afford a college education. Two-thirds of that debt is held by people who are under 30 years of age. Here they are, trying to start out in life, trying to have a family, trying to buy a home, and they have this large amount of debt.

College debt now exceeds credit card debt in America. It is not unusual for a person graduating from a college to have $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $100,000 in debt, and even higher. If we do not act by July 1, the interest costs will add thousands of dollars to that already burdensome amount.

The cost of a college education in America is too expensive. If we want to be competitive, we have to get the cost of a college education down. The President in his State of the Union Address talked about ways in which we can encourage colleges and universities to be more affordable for the American public. But one thing we can do is to make sure that the cost of borrowing is not increased. That is why it is particularly important that we pass this legislation.

It is affecting family decisions as to what schools children will attend because of the high cost. We are just turning our economy around, starting to make our recovery, and now families are struggling to figure out how they are going to be able to afford a college education. We need to reduce the costs, not increase the costs, to families. We need a trained workforce. We need to be competitive internationally.

Let me tell you what else it is affecting. We have some very talented people who are graduating from college and they want to go into the field where they are gifted, where they can make a real contribution to our communities, to our society, to make a difference, to answer that call of community service. That is what they want to do. But when they are saddled with this much debt and if it becomes more expensive to pay off that debt, they have to make a pragmatic decision about their career path rather than following where they can make the greatest contribution to society. That is how these large debts and the cost of paying off that debt are affecting our country.

You might have a great researcher who can find the answer to one of our diseases, how we can keep a healthier society, a person who may want to go into research, but they know what the return of research will be when trying to pay off their college loans. If we do not act by July 1, that will be even larger. That is what we are confronted with. That is why it is so urgent, that is why we need to be considering this legislation rather than be stuck in this filibuster.

I urge my colleague to move forward. Let's do what the Senate should do--consider amendments and get this process going. It is absolutely critical to our entire country.

Let me talk a little bit about my experiences with Marylanders. I have traveled the State of Maryland. I have talked to a lot of our college students. I will generally talk about a lot of different subjects and then ask what is on their mind. They will talk about the cost of college education. They will talk about the fact that we need more grants. They talk about the fact that we need more affordable loans. They certainly will tell me if you are going to increase the interest costs on their loans, it is going to have a major impact on their ability to stay in college, on their ability to follow the career choices that they want to in life.

Let me share with my colleagues the stories of two Marylanders who have contacted my office, who have contacted me in the last few days to tell me that this bill we are hopefully going to be able to consider will have a direct impact on their decisions.

Katherine Eames is a 22-year-old single mother, with a 4-year-old son Jayden. Katherine has decided to go back to college to pursue her nursing degree and currently attends Hagerstown Community College in Hagerstown, MD. She is attempting to make a better future for herself and for her son. She is attempting--she is going to be a full-time student. Katherine also works part time at a minimum wage job, all while juggling her responsibilities as a single mother. Student loans are necessary. She needs to take out student loans. That is the only way she is able to afford her college. She has student loans in order to be able to stay afloat and realize her dream of making a better future for herself and her son. If student loan interest rates were to double, Katherine would be in a financial turmoil and her future aspirations in jeopardy. Let me quote from Katherine. This is what she says. I think it is so telling.

I want to be able to close my eyes and see a bright future

for my family and my son. However, if these interest rates

increase, all I see from this point forward is a hole I don't

think I'll ever be able to climb out of.

I know some of my colleagues say we are talking about another 3- percent interest charge, people will be able to afford it. But let me tell you about the real world, the world of Katherine Eames. That is the real world. That is people making career decisions now as to whether they are going to follow their dream; whether she will become a nurse, be able to help her community, help her family, help herself. If we do not make college affordable or if we add additional costs to it, we are going to add more people to this process. As a society, America's competitiveness will suffer as a result. We need to do better. We need to pass this legislation to help the Katherine Eameses who are out there.

Let me talk about another Marylander, Ariana Fisher. She wanted to be a doctor since she was 5 years of age. Through hard work and determination, she has been accepted to Georgetown University's medical school. Attending will require her to take out a significant amount in student loans. That is the fact for most American families, their children will have to take out loans if they are going to be able to reach their dreams. She knows how much these are going to cost, but she says compounding this with increased interest rates hinders her ability to pursue her dream. She has the will and the passion to become an excellent physician and her aspirations should not rest on what we do here in making it more economically difficult for her to be able to afford that education. That will not only benefit her but will benefit our community.

We are talking about our children. We are talking about whether our children are going to be able to pursue the American dream, whether they are going to have the education they need to help themselves and help our country. We are talking about America's future. This is about whether this Nation is going to be able to continue to lead the world in economic growth. We need to take up the Stop The Student Loan Rate Hike Act.

Let me explain. It is subject to a filibuster. Yes, it is a filibuster. We tried to say let's at least get on the bill, which required 60 votes in order to be able to break this filibuster. We came up short. I hope the majority leader will schedule another vote shortly and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will remember what this means for the future of this country.

The stories I related with regard to Katherine Eames or Ariana Fisher are not unique. I am certain you would find similar examples in New Mexico or any other State in this country. You are going to find similar examples of people who desperately need us to act so college costs do not increase. Then let's work together to bring down the costs of college education. College and postsecondary education are a vital gateway to helping American students around the country to achieve the American dream.

We need to stand for our Nation's future. We cannot allow higher education to become unaffordable for millions of Americans who have the desire and ability to learn and succeed. Let's end the filibuster. Let's work together as Democrats and Republicans. Let's keep America's future in mind, let's keep the American dream in mind, let's allow Americans to reach that dream by making college education affordable. Let's pass the legislation that is currently pending that would stop the increase in the interest rates on college loans.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the accomplishments of Martha Smith, Ph.D., who is retiring as president of Anne Arundel Community College, AACC, in Anne Arundel County, MD. For 18 years, Dr. Smith has been the visionary and driving force behind many of the accomplishments of AACC. Her tireless dedication and unwavering enthusiasm have been instrumental in bringing extraordinary educational opportunities to the students of AACC. Under her leadership, AACC has grown to meet the needs of students and employers in Anne Arundel County and throughout the State of Maryland. The college has focused on high-growth industries and opportunities presented by the base realignment and closure, BRAC, process. As a result, its enrollment has increased from 40,000 to 53,000 students and the number of degree and certificate programs has nearly doubled. The campus locations have grown to include Glen Burnie and Arundel Mills, as well as nine new buildings.

Dr. Smith has led AACC's growth and success by keeping her finger on the pulse of workforce trends, student goals, and employer needs. This year, she announced nine new associate's degree programs in fields such as juvenile justice and early childhood education. Under her leadership, AACC opened the Centers for Cyber and Professional Training and Applied Learning and Technology and introduced a new degree in information systems security, evincing the increased demand for highly trained cyber security professionals. In response to the growing needs of Maryland's health care and tourism industries, Dr. Smith has overseen the expansion of the physician assistant certificate program and she cut the ribbon on AACC's new Hospitality, Culinary Arts and Tourism Institute.

Dr. Smith's considerable expertise and leadership in the areas of workforce development and education has enabled her to serve in many leadership roles with local, State, and national organizations. As a passionate advocate for high-quality, affordable education for all students who want to pursue higher education, her role on national community college and workforce investment boards has been instrumental in building partnerships and making changes that have strengthened the community college system and enabled more students to be successful. During Dr. Smith's tenure, AACC has garnered numerous awards and honors, including Community College of the Year from the National Alliance for Business.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. Smith on her 18 years of accomplishments as president of Anne Arundel Community College, in thanking her for her inspired leadership and public service, and in wishing her well in her retirement.

Madam President, as we consider the many important issues currently before us, I believe it is worthwhile for us also to pause and recall past events that remain relevant to our work today.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a long-time member and Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I would like to remind my colleagues that it was approximately 20 years ago that the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina began. While seeking to find a peaceful path out of the Yugoslavia which was collapsing around it, Bosnia and its people instead became chief victims of the clearly senseless violence associated with that collapse.

The ethnic cleansing of villages and the shelling of Sarajevo which we first saw in April 1992 were horrific, and little did we know how much worse things would get in subsequent months and years. It was in July and August of 1992 that we first saw the shocking pictures of the detainees in Omarska and other camps run by nationalist, militant Serbs, in northeastern Bosnia. The next year, we saw Croat militants destroy the famous bridge in Mostar for which the city got its name. In 1995, we saw Srebrenica before and after the genocide in which 8,000 people, mostly men and boys, perished.

While the United States and its friends and allies brought the conflict in Bosnia to an end with the Dayton Agreement in 1995, the action we took came too late for those who were ethnically cleansed and displaced, those who were tortured or raped, and those who were injured or killed. It is never too late, however, to provide justice. I am glad that people like Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic and all others indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide were apprehended and transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. I am also glad that the United States and some other countries persevered to make this happen despite the resistance to cooperation and the protection afforded these individuals. I want to thank my colleagues who joined me in supporting justice in Bosnia as a matter of U.S. policy.

I think it is important not only to remember the victims and culprits of the conflict in Bosnia but also to remember the heroes. There were those who opposed extreme nationalism and aggression against neighbors. I particularly want to note the small group of human rights advocates and democratic forces in Serbia who opposed what Milosevic was doing allegedly in their name, even when he appeared to be getting away with it. I have met some of these courageous individuals over the years, including last July when I visited Belgrade, and they are truly inspiring people.

Today, Bosnia has recovered from the more than 3 years of brutal, destructive conflict that started 2 decades ago, and the country aspires to join both NATO and the European Union. I believe it is important that we support the people of Bosnia and their desires for integration by holding firm against the lingering forces of ethnic exclusivity, which remain particularly

strong in the entity of Republika Srpska created by the Dayton Agreement, and at the same time encourage practical reforms so that Bosnia can function more effectively as a European partner. When one talks to the young people that represent Bosnia's future, as several of us have, it is clear they do not want to forget the past but they certainly do not want to repeat it. They want a future in Europe, and their political leaders need to give them that future. I hope the United States, which has invested so much in Bosnia thus far, will be there as necessary to help.

Madam President, I have introduced the Diagnostic Imaging Services Access Protection Act of 2012, joined by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator David Vitter. Our goal is to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to life-saving advanced diagnostic imaging services, such as magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, computed tomography, CT, and ultrasound.

Let me explain why this legislation is necessary. Medicare reimbursement for radiology services is based on two components: technical and professional. The technical component comprises the cost of equipment, nonphysician personnel, and medical supplies associated with the imaging process. The professional component is calculated by factoring in the radiologist's time, effort, and skill involved in interpreting images, rendering patient diagnoses, and reporting the findings in the patient's medical record. In recent years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sought to control imaging growth by cutting reimbursement for the technical component--reducing payment for multiple imaging services administered by the same physician to the same patient during a single office visit. This policy is referred to as the multiple procedure payment reduction, or MPPR. It is designed to take into account the efficiencies achieved by doing same-day procedures on the same patient, and for the technical component of radiology, it makes sense.

However this year, CMS decided to apply the MPPR to the professional component as well. The 2012 fee schedule rule, which took effect on January 1, cut the professional component reimbursement for radiologists by 25 percent for additional images. This payment reduction ignores the realities of medical practice. It is not supported by sound data, nor was it developed with meaningful physician input. Because each imaging study produces its own set of images that require individual interpretation, radiologists are ethically and professionally obligated to expend the same amount of time and effort interpreting each one, regardless of the number of images, the section of the body being examined, or the date of service.

Further, because radiologists are referral-based physicians who rarely order the studies they interpret, MPPR is an ineffective tool to reduce inappropriate utilization. Beneficiaries receiving multiple imaging studies often represent the sickest and most complex cases. They may have advanced cancer or be recovering from a stroke, serious car accidents, multiple gunshot wounds, or other forms of deadly trauma.

Not only will CMS' flawed policy disproportionately affect the most vulnerable patients, it may also create incentives to shift services away from the private practice setting, where the physician fee schedule applies, to the more expensive hospital outpatient setting.

Our legislation will ensure that CMS does not arbitrarily undervalue the role of the radiologist within the health care delivery system. It would cancel the MPPR cut to the professional component of radiology services through the end of 2012 and prevent it from taking effect in future years, pending more comprehensive study of the matter. Specifically, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be prohibited from taking this action unless the reduction is based on the data, analysis, and conclusions of an independent expert panel convened by the Institute of Medicine.

A similar bill, HR 3269, has been introduced in the House of Representatives and it enjoys the strong bipartisan support of more than 240 cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan and budget-neutral approach to preserving patient access to community- based diagnostic imaging services.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I am going to withdraw the amendment. Let me point out that this amendment was offered in an effort to make sure we can continue overnight delivery in most of our country by keeping open processing centers that are necessary. The underlying substitute that Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Carper, and Senator Brown brought forward accomplishes that goal. I don't believe this amendment is necessary. For that reason, I will not offer the amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jerome D. Schnydman who will be retiring on June 30 from Johns Hopkins University. Jerome has spent his adult years at Johns Hopkins, first as a student and All-American lacrosse player, graduating in 1967, then as an assistant lacrosse coach from 1968 until 1978, when he rose from assistant director to become the director of undergraduate admissions for the schools of Arts and Sciences and Engineering. He went on to serve as executive director of the Office of Alumni Relations and, most recently, as the secretary to the board of trustees and executive assistant to the president of Johns Hopkins.

If you count Jerome's stint as captain of the 1967 National Championship Lacrosse Team, he has served Johns Hopkins University for 4\1/2\ decades and he has done so with grace, intelligence, compassion, and distinction. He received the Alexander K. Barton Cup for ``strong character, high ideals, and effective moral leadership'' upon graduating. In 1998, he was inducted into the Johns Hopkins Athletic Hall of Fame. In 2003, he was inducted into the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame.

There will be 10 different disciplines at the University honoring Jerome Schnydman for his distinguished service. That is no surprise: he has been the ``go-to'' guy for everyone and everything. Generations of Hopkins students, faculty, and staff on any of the University's campuses--from Homewood to East Baltimore; from Bayview to SAIS in Washington, D.C.; from Bologna to Shanghai--all know of Jerome and the fine work he has done on their behalf and on behalf of the University. Whether someone works in the Homewood garage or is a Nobel Laureate exploring the cure for cancer, he or she counts Jerome as a friend. He has great respect for the institution, and especially for those who work each day to create and sustain the ``Hopkins family.''

I am proud to say that Jerome and his wife Tammy, a special education teacher, are personal friends. Their children--Becky and her husband Larry, and Andy and his wife Nancy--and their grandchildren--Sophie, Jason, Tucker, and Cassidy--are an integral part of Baltimore. When Jerome retires from Johns Hopkins University, he is excited about serving as the president of his synagogue, Beth El, and spending more time with his family and friends in Baltimore and Bethany Beach.

I ask my colleagues to recognize the enormous contributions that Jerome has made to the Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore communities and to wish him well in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. President, I concur with my friend from Mississippi on the importance of passing the RESTORE Act. It is in our transportation reauthorization bill, and it is an important part. It not only helps the Gulf States but all the States that border oceans in this country. It is an important part of the bill that we worked out in a consensus manner in the Senate.

I take this time and ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we need to pass a long-term transportation reauthorization bill. The Senate has done this. The Senate passed its bill 2 months ago by a very strong margin of 74 to 22. I call it a consensus bill and not a bipartisan bill, because we went beyond bipartisan. This bill came out of the two committees of jurisdiction, the Banking Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, by a unanimous vote. The Finance Committee dealt with the financing provisions.

This bill gives us predictability in transportation funding. Here is the problem: The other body, the House, is currently working on a bill that would basically be a short-term extension of our transportation program. We need a long-term commitment as to the Federal partnership in transportation. We need that for many reasons. We need it for predictable funding so our local governments can commit to do the types of transportation programs that are necessary for our safety, necessary for economic expansion, and necessary for our communities.

We are missing the construction season by the failure to enact a long-term transportation reauthorization plan. Major projects cannot be planned--whether it is to replace a bridge, major maintenance programs, new highways, or expansion of our transit systems.

This translates into jobs. We are in a recovery. We all want to do everything we can to maintain and expand job opportunities in this country so our economy can recover at a quicker pace. The transportation reauthorization bill that passed the Senate is responsible for 3 million jobs.

In my State of Maryland, 28,700 jobs are connected to the passage of the transportation reauthorization program--21,000 in highways and over 7,000 in transit.

The Senate bill, as I pointed out, was a consensus bill. It was done in the finest manner of legislating. I compliment Senators Boxer and Inhofe on the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve, for marshaling this bill through. There were

numerous challenges in the Senate, and a number of committees had to consider it and, of course, there was floor consideration. During that entire process, we maintained the consensus and the balance that is important.

Let me point out that here you have a bill that invests in transit and roads and bridges. We were able to reach a compromise to make sure that both priorities were preserved in the transportation reauthorization bill.

I authored an amendment, with Senator Cochran, that dealt with local input into the transportation decisions. We had the right balance between the Federal Government's partnership working with our States but allowing the locals to have input particularly on transportation enhancement programs. We have reform in our bill that consolidates a lot of specific programs into broader programs, providing greater flexibility, but still maintaining accountability on the Federal partnership.

During this most recent work period, when we were off for Easter and Passover, I visited various parts of Maryland. I was down in western Maryland, Appalachia country. I heard firsthand how important reauthorization of this transportation bill is to the economy of western Maryland. This is a rural part of our State. They need to build a north-south highway that will connect Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland. The bill we passed--the transportation reauthorization bill--contains some very important provisions to allow that highway to be constructed. It provides toll credits so Pennsylvania can complete an important segment of this north-south highway. It also contains a stronger match so that it makes it more feasible that we can move this highway to completion. The completion of the north-south highway means jobs and hope to the people of that region of America. It is very important to get that done. It will mean jobs. They told me--the companies that are directly dependent upon that highway being constructed--if we don't pass a multiyear reauthorization bill, that project gets delayed. Once it is delayed, we lose job opportunities.

I also spent part of the work period visiting other parts of Maryland. I was a few miles from here at the Metro Command, at the Carmen Turner facility in New Carollton, where they operate the bus and rail command center for the Nation's transit system, which is both bus and rail in this area. It is the Nation's system. The Federal Government depends upon this, upon the Washington transit system. Many people who work in the Capitol come to us through the transit program. It is true in all of the Federal facilities.

That is an aging system. The rail system needs to be repaired. It is the second busiest rail transit system in the Nation. It is in desperate need of repair. Without predictable funding, major projects will be delayed. I will give you a list of some of the projects we need to do for the Washington metro transit system:

Overhauling the Landover and Southern Avenue bus maintenance shop in Prince George's County, MD; improving perimeter security at the Bladensburg bus garage, also in PG County; complete the design and construction of 10,000 feet of test track at Greenbelt that is needed to test the new, safer 7,000 series railcars due to arrive in 2014.

I remind my colleagues that we had a tragedy on the transit system here not too long ago. There was a study done as to improvements that need to be made, including replacement of railcars to safer cars. These changes need to be done to improve safety of people who depend upon the transit system in this region. Also we need to continue to implement systemwide switch testing and replacement needed to comply with the National Transportation Safety Board's safety recommendations following the June 2009 red-line crash. All of that will be delayed. Yes, safety will be put at risk if we do not pass a reauthorization of the transportation program.

It is interesting that one part of my State is very rural, which I visited, and the other part of the State is urban, and it is important to that region. It is important to the entire country. We need to get this done. Every State is impacted by bridge replacement, highways, and transit.

The Maryland Department of Transportation tells me that due to the uncertainty, they are planning on a 20-percent reduction in the projects that would otherwise be done in this year. That will have a huge impact on our workforce--a huge impact on our economy.

As I am speaking, the House is taking action. It is going to pass a short-term extension. That is not good enough. That doesn't solve the problem. That doesn't give us the predictability or allow us to complete the north-south highway in western Maryland, or make the improvements we need to in the WMATA system, or in any State, to be able to move forward with transportation projects. That is not good enough. We need to do more.

However, I am pleased to see the House taking some action. I urge that as soon as they complete action, let's get into conference and resolve the differences between the House and Senate and get a bill back on the floor as quickly as possible. We did our work. We passed a bipartisan consensus bill. They are passing a partisan bill in the other body. They are delaying things again. That is not good.

Let's get together and complete a conference as quickly as possible. Let's get Americans back to work building roads and transit systems that are vital to the continued economic recovery of this Nation.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of a hearing that took place this morning before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this body on making sure we have a committee that focuses on the issues of human rights. Today's hearing on racial profiling, ending racial profiling in America, was the first hearing we have had in Congress on racial profiling since the attack on our country on September 11. I congratulate Senator Durbin for holding this hearing. I thought the hearing was very informative as to a problem we have in America on the use of racial profiling.

I know the Nation has been focused on the tragedy that took place in Sanford, FL, in which 17-year-old Travon Martin was killed, a clearly avoidable death, by Mr. Zimmerman. We first and foremost want to make sure justice prevails in this case. I know there is a case pending in Florida. We are all going to be watching that very carefully. There is a Federal investigation underway by the Department of Justice to look into circumstances concerning Travon Martin's death, to see what role race played in regard to that tragedy, not only as it related to Travon Martin's death but also as to the investigation that ensued.

A few weeks ago, I spoke about this issue at the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore. That is a group that is interested in urban family life. We came together shortly after Travon Martin's tragic death to talk about what had happened.

I was very much moved by so many people who came forward at that meeting and explained how they had been victims of racial profiling. A young woman talked about the time she went to a basketball game with her father and her father was pulled over and stopped by police for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin and how that impacted this girl, seeing her father held, unable to go to the basketball game. These types of victimization occur too frequently in our community, where people are picked out solely because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background.

We have a problem in this country, and we need to do something about that. The question that needs to be answered in regard to Travon Martin is was he initially pursued because of the color of his skin. Would Mr. Zimmerman have done the same if it was a White child rather than an African American?

In October of 2011, I introduced S. 1670, the End Racial Profiling Act. I am proud to have many colleagues as cosponsors, including Senator Blumenthal, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand, Senator John Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Levin, Senator Menendez, Senator Mikulski, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Mark Udall. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in this legislation.

This legislation would make it clear that racial profiling will not be allowed in this country. Racial profiling is un-American. It is against the values of our Nation. It is contrary to the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which

provides for equal protection under the law. It is counterproductive, and it doesn't keep us safe. We are using valuable police resources in a way that is wasting those resources. It is sloppy police work if you try to identify a problem by race rather than looking for good police work to identify the real perpetrator of a crime. It also creates a mistrust in the community they are trying to protect, a community that they need to help and to cooperate with as far as keeping the community safe. For all of those reasons, racial profiling should have no place in modern law enforcement. We need a national law.

I was impressed that in the hearing today there was general consensus that we have a problem in this country, that there is a problem of law enforcement using racial profiling, which should not be done. The bill, S. 1670, would prohibit the use of racial profiling. By making a decision based upon race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, basically what you are doing is subjecting an individual to a spontaneous investigation. That should have no place. What we are talking about is someone being stopped for a routine traffic stop, subjected to a search, interrogated, or investigated based on that person's race or the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following an initial investigative proceeding are determined because of race. That should have no place in America.

My legislation would apply to all levels of government, not just Federal but State and local law enforcement. It requires mandatory training. And here is an issue on which I think we should all agree. Perhaps the tragedy that happened with Trayvon Martin would not have happened if Mr. Zimmerman had been trained on the issues of what is good police work and what is not good police work and how racial profiling needs to be eliminated. We feel very strongly about the need for mandatory training.

The legislation requires data collection by local and State law enforcement. State and local law enforcement must maintain adequate policies and procedures designated to eliminate profiling, and they must eliminate any existing practices that present or encourage racial profiling.

The Department of Justice has granted authority to make grants to promote best practices, so one jurisdiction can learn from another as to what the best practices are in order to make sure that this practice is not being used and that we are doing everything possible to keep communities safe by good police work, not by sloppy police work.

I wish to point out that the overwhelming majority of people who are in law enforcement do it the right way. We have dedicated men and women who work every day to keep us safe--our first responders. We owe them a debt of gratitude, we owe them our support, and we cannot say enough complimentary things about what they do every day by putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. So for the sake of what is right for America and for the sake of the overwhelming majority of the people who are professionals in law enforcement, we need to make it clear that racial profiling has no role in American law enforcement.

I am proud of the many groups that are supporting this legislation, including the NAACP, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, and numerous other organizations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the list of organizations that are supporting the legislation.

Let me conclude by quoting our former colleague Senator Kennedy, who said that civil rights is the great unfinished business of America. Let's continue to fight to make sure we have equal justice under the law for all Americans. That is what the legislation I have introduced will do. The End Racial Profiling Act will continue us on that journey to provide equal justice in the law to all Americans.

Exhibit 1

Group Endorsements of End Racial Profiling Act

National Organizations

A. Philip Randolph Institute; African American Ministers in

Action; American Civil Liberties Union; American Humanist

Association; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee;

American Probation and Parole Association; Asian & Pacific

Islander American Health Forum; Asian American Justice

Center; Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor

Alliance; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Blacks in Law

Enforcement in America; Break the Cycle; Brennan Center for

Justice at New York University School of Law; Campaign for

Community Change; Campaign for Youth Justice; Center for

National Security Studies; Charles Hamilton Houston Institute

for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School; Council on

American-Islamic Relations; Council on Illicit Drugs of the

National Association for Public Health Policy.

Disciples Justice Action Network; Drug Policy Alliance;

Equal Justice Society; Fair Immigration Reform Movement;

Fellowship of Reconciliation; Human Rights Watch; Indo-

American Center; Institute Justice Team, Sisters of Mercy of

the Americas; Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish Labor

Committee; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of United Latin

American Citizens; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service;

Muslim Advocates; Muslim Legal Fund of America; Muslim Public

Affairs Council; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund, Inc.; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the

Good Shepherd.

National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.;

National Alliance for Medication Assisted Recovery; National

Alliance of Faith and Justice; National Asian American

Pacific Islander Mental Health Association; National Asian

Pacific American Bar Association; National Asian Pacific

American Women's Forum; National Association of Criminal

Defense Lawyers; National Association of Social Workers;

National Black Justice Coalition; National Black Law Students

Association; National Black Police Association; National

Congress of American Indians; National Council of La Raza;

National Education Association; National Gay and Lesbian Task

Force Action Fund; National Korean American Service and

Education Consortium; National Latina Institute for

Reproductive Health; National Lawyers Guild Drug Policy

Committee; National Legal Aid and Defender Association;

National Organization of Black Women in Law Enforcement;

National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual

Assault; National Urban League Policy Institute.

NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 9to5,

National Association of Working Women; North American South

Asian Bar Association; Open Society Policy Center;

Organization of Chinese Americans; Pax Christi USA: National

Catholic Peace Movement; Prison Policy Initiative; Rights

Working Group; Sentencing Project; Sikh American Legal

Defense and Education Fund; Sikh Coalition; SOJOURNERS; South

Asian Americans Leading Together; South Asian Network; South

Asian Resource Action Center; StoptheDrugWar.org; The Real

Cost of Prisons Project; Treatment Communities of America;

U.S. Human Rights Network; Union for Reform Judaism; United

Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; UNITED

SIKHS; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual.

State and Local Organizations

A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)

(California); Adhikaar (New York); Advocare, Inc. (Ohio);

Arab American Action Network (Illinois); Arab-American Family

Support Center (New York); CASA de Maryland (Maryland); Casa

Esperanza (New Jersey); CAUSA--Oregon's Immigrant Rights

Organization (Oregon); Center for NuLeadership on Urban

Solutions (New York); Counselors Helping (South) Asians/

Indians, Inc. (Maryland); Desis Rising Up and Moving (New

York); Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii (Hawaii); Drug Policy

Forum of Texas (Texas); Florida Immigrant Coalition

(Florida); Healing Communities Prison Ministry and Reentry

Project (Pennsylvania); Korean American Resource and Cultural

Center (Illinois); Korean Resource Center (California); Legal

Services for Prisoners with Children (California); Legal

Voice (Washington).

Maryland CURE--Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of

Errants (Maryland); National Alliance for Medication Assisted

Recovery, Delaware Chapter (Delaware); 9to5 Atlanta Working

Women (Georgia); 9to5 Bay Area (California); 9to5 Colorado

(Colorado); 9to5 Los Angeles (California); 9to5 Milwaukee

(Wisconsin); Perspectives, Inc. (Minnesota); Pineros y

Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste; Northwest Treeplanters and

Farmworkers United (Oregon); Public Justice Center

(Maryland); Rights for All People (Colorado); Safe Streets

Arts Foundation (Washington, DC); Sahara of South Florida,

Inc. (Florida); Satrang (California); Sneha, Inc.

(Connecticut); South Asian Bar Association of Northern

California (California); St. Leonard's Ministries (Illinois).

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, and I was listening to the distinguished Republican leader, let me challenge some of the assumptions so maybe we can get to a consent. In talking to Members of the House of Representatives, I am very confident there is ample support to pass not only the bipartisan surface transportation bill that passed this body by an overwhelming vote but a consensus bill that came out of our committees by unanimous vote in both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Banking Committee. There is general agreement that this bill should be enacted into law.

I am confident that if the Speaker of the House brings this bill to the floor of the House of Representatives, it will be passed. There are adequate votes for it.

To my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, here is the problem: If we pass another short-term extension, we are going to lose jobs. In my own

State of Maryland, we cannot let the contracts on major maintenance projects with a 90-day extension. We cannot move forward with the planning of our highways, our bridges, our transit systems with another short-term extension. This takes us to the middle of the summer. We lose the construction season on getting transportation work done.

I urge the distinguished leader that we do have the opportunity to pass the bill right now, and if we stand firm and tell the House of Representatives we want to do what is right for the American people, that in the Senate we had a bipartisan bill, a consensus bill--what's happening in the House is extremely partisan. Let's get together on the most important jobs bill we can pass. It is thousands of jobs in Maryland, and it is millions of jobs in this Nation that are affected by passing a surface transportation bill.

With that, I am hoping I convinced the distinguished Republican leader.

I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified so that an amendment, which is at the desk, the text of S. 1813, the surface transportation bill, passed by the Senate on March 14, 2012, by a large bipartisan majority vote of 74 to 22, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

When Congress returns to session on Monday, April 16, 2012, we will recognize an important anniversary and holiday here in Washington. That day will be the 150th anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day. Nine months before President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1862, the President signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. The act ordered the release of the 3,100 enslaved persons of African descent held in the Nation's capital. District of Columbia residents were therefore known as the ``First Freed'' slaves by the Federal government during the Civil War.

In 1865 the Confederacy surrendered and the Civil War ended, and later that year the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, which states that: ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.''

Emancipation Day celebrations were held annually in the District of Columbia from 1866 through 1901, and resumed in 2002. In 2005 Emancipation Day was made an official public holiday in the District of Columbia.

On March 6, 2012, the District of Columbia City Council adopted ceremonial resolution 19 207. The resolution finds this anniversary to be ``an important, historic occasion for the District of Columbia and the nation and serves as an appropriate time to reflect on how far the District of Columbia and the United States have progressed since institutionalized enslavement of people of African descent. Most importantly, the 150th anniversary reminds us to reaffirm our commitment to forge a more just and united country that truly reflects the ideas of its founders and instills in its people a broad sense of duty to be responsible and conscientious stewards of freedom and democracy.'' I ask unanimous consent to place a copy of this resolution in the Record at the end of my statement.

(See exhibit 1.)

In the recent past, we have been blessed to celebrate numerous historic achievements for African-Americans in Washington, DC and throughout the Nation, including the election of the first African- American President of the United States, the dedication of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, and the groundbreaking for the

National Museum of African American History and Culture. I congratulate the District of Columbia government and its residents on this historic anniversary.

Exhibit 1